GWSR - Cheltenham Spa and possible extensions

I doubt the GWSR would get any extra traffic at all from a halt on the high street. That end of town is pretty run down and neglected for one thing. Shoppers use the other end and the Promenade which is a good 10 minutes' walk.

 

John Stewart makes a fair point about the clairvoyance ability of rail supporters. Some of us never lost the faith though, and it was just a question of arithmetic. Multiply the number of people who would have a car - each - and work out how they would get onto the infrastructure into towns, let alone inter-urban trips, and it was a no-brainer.

I am confident that much of Cheltenham's railways, and even the four tracking to Gloucester, will eventually happen (and / or possibly the bypass discussed to the north) but it will be the consequences for the GWSR preservationists that must pose difficulties in that event. At the moment. people are knocking their pan out on the GWSR (e.g. Broadway now) and I am not confident they would be happy to see NR swan in and reap the benefits of the embankment restitution with compulsory purchase orders.

 

I wouldn't worry about CPOs. If ever anything like this came to pass a partnership arrangement with GWSR retaining the freehold and running rights / maintenance liabilities to others could be negotiated. Ejecting a heritage railway would be politically unacceptable.

 

I wouldn't bank on that in the face of a multi multi million pound scheme - remember the Newbury By-Pass?

 

Why would ejection by CPO be politically unacceptable? (when compared against the need for a completely new alignment with all the ramifications that would bring).

As for a partnership where 25mph steam somehow shared the same route with 125+mph modern - how on earth would that ever work?

 

Depends. There would likely be a public enquiry. The GWR (or any other heritage raliway) provides input for the local economy, and that means "public interest". For a CPO, the govt would have to establish that the "public interest" of taking over the railway line would be greater than that served by giving the line over to NR. Even if it did happen the owners of the line would in theory receive a huge wodge of cash that maybe could be used to build something similar nearby.

 

Do you really think that an enquiry - which can only make reconsiderations to the Secretary of State anyway - would automatically give precedence to a group "playing trains" over the nation's transport needs?

I think you're living in a fantasy world if you think that would be politically unacceptable

 

They might not be happy - but what's that got to do with anything??

 

I think I said, in the first word IT DEPENDS. Heritage raiwlays have a lot of supporters, so politically they are well supported and could kick up a major fuss if their existence is threatened, yes. well supported special interest groups get what they want. I think most politicians would avoid annoying the fat blokes playing trains and instead allow more lorries to clog up the roads.

 

If one looks at the chronology section of the GWSR website then one will see,

"1999 - Railtrack express an interest in using the route as a possible diversionary route because of increasing congestion on the former Midland line between Gloucester and Birmingham........"

This, I believe, was in respect of freight traffic only and could certainly be accommodated. NR, in many ways, have been supportive of the extension to Broadway and, in anticipation of extending further to Honeybourne, when dual-ling the line between Evesham and Moreton in Marsh, gave consideration for access [to Honeybourne] below their rails and even placed a 'representative' track panel beneath the bridge.

My understanding is that such was a logical consideration at the time.

As to whether the GWSR would want to run as far as Honeybourne is another matter. NR have left one half of an island platform available to be re-built by volunteers, for which, I'm sure we are all grateful but, as to running Service trains that far, I'm not so sure. For one thing, the platform would be too short. However, there could be value in running a DMU into Honeybourne say, early morning, mid-day[ish], and late afternoon, for the benefit of visitors traveling to the GWSR by rail.

 

politically well supported? - how many votes in this instance? I am a shareholder in GWSR, but don't take it for granted that i (for instance) would be against the restoration of a through route - that was, after all the object of the original group (of which I was a member) in about 1976

 

Just as a point of information, it's a Public Inquiry with an I, not a public enquiry (which could be someone ringing up about the time of the next train).

My comment about enthusiasts 'not being happy' was merely intended as a gentle reminder that there are national issues that could take precedence over others. The NR plan for 2014 to 2019 is so demanding that I suspect there will be slippage and I don't think that the Plan is quite 100% agreed by Government yet. So I don't think any moves on the GWSR are imminent.

I can see this happening, however, in two or three decades though and Ken R has shewn that it is already 'a runner' in the NR mind. A similar fate could easily be in the offing for the GCR, the WSR, even the Bluebell, the SVR, the NYMR (well where does it end, the Swanage is already on the way?).

As Michaelh points out, the original rescuers wanted that result. What an irony if they appeared at subsequent Inquiries as Objectors.

 

Unlikely for the Bluebell I think - the capacity problem, so I believe, is through East Croydon, and building extra capacity to Brighton south of East Grinstead doesn't solve that problem. Plus the logistics of reopening the line between Sheffield Park and Culver Junction are formidable. More at risk, I would have thought, in that neck of the woods would be the Lavender Line at Isfield, if the plan to reinstate the Uckfield - Lewes line ever got off the ground.

Tom

 

I think the GCR and the GWSR are probably the two most likely to face anything like this - and I have no doubt that public opinion would not sway toward the heritage railway in a battle for their survival.

The others you note, I think the "worst" you might see would be space sharing, a development of a day to day service by the heritage railway funded by local govt., mixed in with the heritage service. They are branch lines.

 

But the Newbury by-pass didn't kick out a heritage railway. It went through other sites that the owners didn't want to lose but that is that price of any transport infrastructure project.

 

I think the number (and influence) of the objectors there was far greater than anything which might be expected to turn out in favour of the GWSR.

 

It's always useful to remember the difference between building roads and railways on the one hand and other unpopular developments on the other. Most developments require a squarish site somewhere so something can be found where the natives will swallow it. One might think that a nuclear power station is not a popular development but, because the original ones were put in remote locations, the local economy depends heavily on them so proposing a replacement at the same place usually goes down well on job protection grounds.

Roads and railways are long thin things that must be continuous. Politicians do know this and are usually prepared to resist the most vehement opposition if, as is normally the case, it is concentrated in just a tiny stretch of the route. With railways there is at least the possibility of a "virtual gap" by tunnelling which is what is proposed for HS2 under the most sensitive part of the Chilterns.

If there were a nationally-inspired proposal to rebuild a disused route as aprt of the national system, it would be very difficult for a heritage railway to make sound arguments against it, although, as I have previously posted, any Government would want to avoid the suggestion of compulsion. It would be rather more likely that the promoters would be told to go away and negotiate, commonly known as "buying off"!

 

The GWSR is single track on a double track formation.

A second track could very easily*(in comparison to building a new route) be relayed by slewing the current track accross

There would need to be a little imagination in the placement of run around loops, but nothing that comes close to cost of the creation of a new railway.

 

Very little slewing (or slueing) would be needed as the track either occupies the up or down formation with little cross overs, the longest central positioned track being across Stanway viaduct.

To answer the original question, the answer is NO!

 

Do you really believe that a 25mph steam railway could sensibly coexist a mere 10ft or so from a 125+MPH mainline with nothing in between over a number of miles?

A dose of reality is required here methinks!