Potential new services GWR could start?

[whole diary]

[froome]

One new service I would like to see, using existing lines, is to run direct services from Bath to Swindon and along the line to Cheltenham Spa. At present this isn't a permitted route, so needs two tickets to be bought and usually quite a long wait at Swindon, and it would avoid Temple Meads and all the chaos and overcrowding that happens there. It could also tie into a new station at Corsham. Alternatively it could just be made into a permitted route, and perhaps run some Trans Wilts services from Westbury via Swindon to Cheltenham Spa to provide extra capacity and better connecting times.

[WelshBluebird]

One new service I would like to see, using existing lines, is to run direct services from Bath to Swindon and along the line to Cheltenham Spa. At present this isn't a permitted route, so needs two tickets to be bought and usually quite a long wait at Swindon, and it would avoid Temple Meads and all the chaos and overcrowding that happens there. It could also tie into a new station at Corsham. Alternatively it could just be made into a permitted route, and perhaps run some Trans Wilts services from Westbury via Swindon to Cheltenham Spa to provide extra capacity and better connecting times.

Not sure why that would happen when there are already direct Bath to Cheltenham Spa services tbh.
Yes these are overcrowded, but surely the answer there is to solve the overcrowding on those services?

[Bmblbzzz]

Are we actually talking about Bath to Cheltenham or to the stations on the Swindon-Cheltenham line, ie Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse? The connections at Swindon in the reverse direction, Stonehouse etc - Swindon - Bath, are pretty poor.

[brooklea]

An earlier train from Castle Cary to the west than the current 1027 departure would be nice, sometime between 0800 and 0900. I hope once the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) timetable starts this might become feasible.

[WelshBluebird]

Are we actually talking about Bath to Cheltenham or to the stations on the Swindon-Cheltenham line, ie Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse? The connections at Swindon in the reverse direction, Stonehouse etc - Swindon - Bath, are pretty poor.

I took it as froome suggesting a Bath to Cheltenham service via Swindon (presumably calling at those intermediate stations).
However as there is already a direct Bath to Cheltenham, I seriously doubt GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will want to run a second along the different route.
Yes the existing service is slow, overcrowded and infrequent, but the answer there is to improve the existing services.
As for the intermediate stations, again surely the answer is to improve the existing connections?

[grahame]

Are we actually talking about Bath to Cheltenham or to the stations on the Swindon-Cheltenham line, ie Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse? The connections at Swindon in the reverse direction, Stonehouse etc - Swindon - Bath, are pretty poor.

I took it as froome suggesting a Bath to Cheltenham service via Swindon (presumably calling at those intermediate stations).
However as there is already a direct Bath to Cheltenham, I seriously doubt GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will want to run a second along the different route.
Yes the existing service is slow, overcrowded and infrequent, but the answer there is to improve the existing services.
As for the intermediate stations, again surely the answer is to improve the existing connections?

There have been various ideas bandied about on the topic of a second train in each hour between Swindon and Cheltenham Spa once the London train goes up from every 2 hours to every hour.    One of the curiosities of the current service is that it takes a few minutes over an hour from Swindon to Cheltenham Spa, which means that a train every 2 hours requires 2 units.  An (extra to the London) train every hour would require just 3 units and if alternate trains went Stonehouse - Cheltenham Spa (direct) - Gloucester - Stonehouse and Stonehouse - Gloucester - Cheltenham Spa and Stonehouse (direct)  and with 90 m.p.h (165/166 rather than 150 timings) you might even do the hourly service with just 2 units.  The redoubling from Swindon to Kemble has removed one headache, and the provision of an hourly Swindon - Cheltenham direct service (assuming the London IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) also goes around in a triangle) would be a huge boost to rail travel from Swindon to the Midlands and the north which is mindbendingly slow at present for the milage involve by the time you have a tour of Gloucester, or do the Didcot dance and change a second time at Oxford.

Fly in the ointment?   Turnback arrangements at Cheltenham Spa because the extra bay(s) got dropped.

[froome]

Are we actually talking about Bath to Cheltenham or to the stations on the Swindon-Cheltenham line, ie Kemble, Stroud, Stonehouse? The connections at Swindon in the reverse direction, Stonehouse etc - Swindon - Bath, are pretty poor.

I took it as froome suggesting a Bath to Cheltenham service via Swindon (presumably calling at those intermediate stations).
However as there is already a direct Bath to Cheltenham, I seriously doubt GWR^▸ (Great Western Railway) will want to run a second along the different route.
Yes the existing service is slow, overcrowded and infrequent, but the answer there is to improve the existing services.
As for the intermediate stations, again surely the answer is to improve the existing connections?

One reason for making the suggestion is that I think it is foolish to make all journeys from Bath to the north go via Temple Meads, which can be very busy and confusing for tourists to navigate. Swindon has always felt like a better route to me, and would mean avoiding the long journey through the built up area of greater Bristol, and as Graham says, could make the Wiltshire to the north route work better. Cheltenham Spa still has space to build whatever lay-offs would be needed.

[CMRail]

When Filton Bank was blocked a couple of weekends ago I took the oppertunity to go to Bath, as I wouls be able to change at Swindon. I had a nice HST^▸ (High Speed Train) trip from Gloucester to Swindon, then waited for the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) to take me onward to Bath. The journey is less congested, more comfortable and is a decent journey in my opinion.

A direct Cheltenham to Bath service would be good, however I don't think that Cheltenham has the capacity to hold another train there, considering the fact that there will be an additional Wales service as well. Could Worcester-Bath be considered? It would allow more Swindon to Worcester trips, and easier connections for Ashchurch onto London and other places. It would also mean that less service would need to extend from Cheltenham to Worcester on HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) services, or on Bristol stoppers. A 166 would do the job well, and an additional service along the Golden Valley as well as Worcester is a job well done in my opinion.

Another route I thought would be good is a Gloucester/Cheltenham/Worcester to Oxford service, but I then realised that a service from Bristol/Bath/Westbury would probably more operationally suitable.


Another thing that Network Rail were/are looking at is how the HSS to Gloucester/Cheltenham could have time enhancements, i.e Cheltenhams missing Gloucester. The things that were considered however was that Gloucester shouldn't loose a service/services to and from London and therefore it has been a difficult task. Aprox time saving would be 11 minutes by not serving Gloucester.

[Bmblbzzz]

I used to make regular trips between Stroud and Bath and/or Bristol, a long time ago (1980s and 90s). The service was pretty dreadful back then, with long long waits for connections at Gloucester especially. Swindon was a bit quicker for Bath services but also long waits. Things seem to have improved quite a lot since then. But what I really used to want was a line due south from Kemble to Bath! However, we're talking about potential new services not new lines, so...

Another thing that Network Rail were/are looking at is how the HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) to Gloucester/Cheltenham could have time enhancements, i.e Cheltenhams missing Gloucester. The things that were considered however was that Gloucester shouldn't loose a service/services to and from London and therefore it has been a difficult task. Aprox time saving would be 11 minutes by not serving Gloucester.

I can see the problem but Gloucester gets missed already by the Bristol–Birmingham XCs^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)). It is a larger place than Cheltenham and I don't think it would be a good idea for it to lose more services.

[eightonedee]

While I generally agree with posters who would rather that GW^▸ (Great Western) concentrated on doing better what they do now, than trying to thread new routes into the system.

However, it must surely be possible for those responsible for setting timetables to try to coordinate trains on different routes to connect conveniently to facilitate easier cross country travel. It seems to be a common complaint that trying to get from one part of the franchise area to another between two points not served by direct trains involves long inconvenient stopovers at interchange stations.

I have had a quick look at the service specification in the 2015 franchise agreement. It's full of prescriptions for frequency, maximum journey times and earliest and latest times, and the only reference to connections seemed to be where a specified route might be covered by two connecting trains.

I appreciate from responses to an earlier post complaining at the poor coordination of the two legs of my commute during the peak/late peak evening rush hour (it's even worse now - two consecutive trains from Guildford to Reading are timed to arrive a minute before the departure of onward trains for Goring) that it might not be easy, but why not provide (for example) that incoming stopping local trains from the Stroud Valley/Gloucester/Cheltenham line should arrive at Swindon between (say) 8 and 12 minutes before a London bound express and between 8 and 20 minutes before a Bristol bound train?

Let's press for convenient connectivity - we might get a better service without extra trains being shoe-horned in and which GW and NR^» (Network Rail - home page) would struggle to cope with. 

[martyjon]

If I remember correctly Cheltenham had a turnback/stabling facility north of the station which allowed for loco hauled stock to be "run-round". There may also have been a "dead end" siding there for stabling a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) but in recent years all there is now is a long "dead end" siding with a "cripple" refuge to the south on which I have seen a disabled DMU parked up there. Stock needing to turnback has in some instances got to run to Worcester to turn back.

[CMRail]

If I remember correctly Cheltenham had a turnback/stabling facility north of the station which allowed for loco hauled stock to be "run-round". There may also have been a "dead end" siding there for stabling a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) but in recent years all there is now is a long "dead end" siding with a "cripple" refuge to the south on which I have seen a disabled DMU parked up there. Stock needing to turnback has in some instances got to run to Worcester to turn back.

There is a siding that can fit up to a nine car IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train), however capacity is needed hence the bay proposals that have been called off. There is no bi-directional signalling now nor is there needed though all trains terminating have to reverse.

[martyjon]

If I remember correctly Cheltenham had a turnback/stabling facility north of the station which allowed for loco hauled stock to be "run-round". There may also have been a "dead end" siding there for stabling a DMU^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) but in recent years all there is now is a long "dead end" siding with a "cripple" refuge to the south on which I have seen a disabled DMU parked up there. Stock needing to turnback has in some instances got to run to Worcester to turn back.

There is a siding that can fit up to a nine car IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train), however capacity is needed hence the bay proposals that have been called off. There is no bi-directional signalling now nor is there needed though all trains terminating have to reverse.

As the bay plan has been aborted, just relay a second siding to the north of the station, the space is there where the run round loop was.

[grahame]

There is a siding that can fit up to a nine car IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train), however ...

Nine?   Is there (going to be) a problem with 5 + 5?

As the bay plan has been aborted, just relay a second siding to the north of the station, the space is there where the run round loop was.

The bay platform would allow passengers to leave the incoming train, crew to switch ends, and new passengers to joint all at the same time.   Under current arrangement you have a five step serial process
1. Passengers off train
2. Trains moves to siding
3. Crew change ends
4. Train moves from siding
5. Passengers join train
all of which would make it impractical to run an hourly Swindon - Cheltenham Spa service with just two sets, each calling at Gloucester in one direction only.   Also make it impossible for passengers from Stroud to Gloucester to stay on train as it reversed.

[martyjon]

There is a siding that can fit up to a nine car IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train), however ...

Nine?   Is there (going to be) a problem with 5 + 5?

As the bay plan has been aborted, just relay a second siding to the north of the station, the space is there where the run round loop was.

The bay platform would allow passengers to leave the incoming train, crew to switch ends, and new passengers to joint all at the same time.   Under current arrangement you have a five step serial process
1. Passengers off train
2. Trains moves to siding
3. Crew change ends
4. Train moves from siding
5. Passengers join train
all of which would make it impractical to run an hourly Swindon - Cheltenham Spa service with just two sets, each calling at Gloucester in one direction only.   Also make it impossible for passengers from Stroud to Gloucester to stay on train as it reversed.

Agreed but if faced with a guaranteed £1m relay siding or a £4m possible new platform what would you plump for ?