GWSR - Cheltenham Spa and possible extensions

I don’t argue the history, merely cause and effect. And you show that cause was extension, effect the use of available space.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

Think that was publicly stated somewhere, & good luck any 'dirty' department getting a look in there!

Surely two turntables?

It does look like the north side nearest the platform is going to be a display area, which i'm sure the neighbours will prefer.

For the carriage shed, are you wanting to put away entire rakes of 8(?) carriages without splitting?

 

Err, no? The only point in having two turntables is if you can have one at either end of the line. There's no room for one anywhere at Cheltenham or any future extension South of Cheltenham, and there's no room for one anywhere between Toddington all the way until you get to Honeybourne. Once you dismiss the idea of two turntables to turn locos at each end for photographers as not feasible it doesn't matter where you put the single turntable, just somewhere where there's space. Winchcombe on the north side of the tracks opposite C+W works, and especially with the heritage goods display should be quite a good viewing area too.

If it is going to be a regular running shed where carriages are put away every night and taken out again in the morning then yes. If it was to only store the carriages we use on high days and galas, not so much.

 

Indeed, I can think of at least 2 coaches and a loco and possibly a couple of wagons that have had a trip round the car park at Toddington to be turned on a low loader, a turntable would be very helpful. I'm sure in C+W we'd use it so we wouldn't have to work on the "wall side" of carriages in the workshops as much as well.

 

Or maybe within 10 years coal will be unaffordable or simply unobtainable?
Will the current increased focus on global warming make folk turn against our activities - both steam & diesel?
etc etc

 

This article about "Torrefied Biomass" as a potential coal substitute may be of interest:
https://csrail.org/newsroom/2016/3/29/coal-fired-steam-can-it-last

As far as Diesel is concerned, Biodiesel may be a possible answer.

These could potentially deal with the CO2 emissions angle and the availablity of coal and traditional diesel, but there is still a question of other emissions.

 

Would there be a market for biocoal in our country if the goverment are hellbent on using renewable energy just for our steam heritage lines in the distant future? What does the future hold for power stations such as Drax in w,yorks burning willow wood pellets? But back on to possible extensions to honeybourne or out of hunting butts tunnel into to midland mainline north of cheltenham station, could be possible/achievable if we can source a form of coal or biocoal for the remainder of the 21st century if the next generation of young railbuffs are willing to volunteer and get passed down the trade by showing great intrest look listen learning. But if the future generation of people and goverments in future allow them to afterall the railways are the gift Great Britain gave the world.

 

Qustion. Is it intended that this thread will end up as long as the WSR one and throw as much light on the subject? Asking for a friend who wants to know how much popcorn to order in.

 

Would that be Dave?

Tom

 

I hope not! It's been an interesting discussion, getting into the nuts and bolts of it all, surely more informative than anything on any of the 1000 page long WSR threads.

 

This thread has dipped into WIBN - Wouldn't It Be Nice.

The WSR one wallows in IID - Isn't It Dreadful.

 

Got to keep it in perspective, I think I’d be dancing in the street if my railway had a freshly painted GWR pannier moving up and down....

Regards

Matt

 

He asked me not to say. Oooppppsss

 

Reading through this thread it can be seen that the main issue to any railway use of the route north is the state and repair of the bridges and hence the protection of the route. This is not a new issue and it has been seen with other railways where the eventual solution is to get a grant of some sort to pay for the repairs. Ideally the responsibility for the maintenance of these bridges should be transferred to the highways authorities as they are the ones allowing lorries over 40 tonnes to travel the roads. This is the same for whoever owns the route and it would be good to see a coordinated approach to the repair of all the over bridges on the route north. The worst outcome would be for a cheap propping up solution that would several impact on the clearances to allow for a double track railway to pass underneath.

As for future use of the route north from Broadway, I can see that a short extension to say Willersey Halt could allow for some demonstration DMU services in and out of Broadway, but once again there is a bridge problem at Colin Lane.

Regarding covered accommodation for rolling stock, I am sure that the requirements will develop over time and it would be good to see how this develops on and posted on this forum. To my mind there is a need for more than one carriage shed. One that for stabling the vehicles awaiting restoration and at Winchcombe. Other sheds to cover the running rakes sited where the operation requirements dictates, Winchcombe and Toddington north sidings. Finally don’t forget the DMUs where a 2 Road 4 car rail motor shed would be useful at Toddington.

It would be good to hear other people’s thoughts but on the correct thread for the carriage sheds.

 

Local Highway authorities did not each introduce current national weight limits, those are decided by Central Government. They do though administer the maintenance & weight limits on public funded non trunk roads in their area. They are not charities and do not take on extra responsibilities unnecessarily as they are funded through the public purse so you cannot simply transfer responsibility as you suggest.

 

There's are some interesting legal questions here. In the early 1900s a road exists. In 1904 the GWR builds its line, with a bridge to carry the road over the line. As the road was there first, I presume that the GWR and its successors are responsible for the bridge. So far perfectly clear. In 1960 the line is closed. Then who is responsible for the bridge? Years later the DfT or whatever that bit of Goverment is called at the time changes the law to allow 40 ton (tonne?) HGVs to use any road in the country except where specifically prohibited. Who decides the weight limit for the bridge that the GWR built in 1904? Who enforces that limit? Who is now responsible for repairing the bridge when necessary? If something is needed and propping up is easiest and cheapest, what mechanism exists for any alternative to be considered?

If it is propped up, and the GWSR does eventually want to run there, can the track be lowered if necessary, as described recently here on the Oswestry thread?

 

I believe BR Property board is still responsible for redundant assets.

 

I believe it was BRB (Residury) Ltd, but since that was abolished in 2013, responsibility now resides with . . .

"The Highways England Historical Railways Estate is now responsible for the historical railways estate (formerly known as the Burdensome Estate). This includes legacy bridges, abutments, tunnels, cuttings, viaducts and similar properties associated with closed railway lines, and sales."
OR
The full list of properties transferred to Network Rail is given in a schedule attached to the Statutory Instrument that abolished BRBR.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/2314/schedule/made

 

BRB Residuary was abolishished in September 2013. Highways England Historical Railway Estate is now responsible for redundant infrastructure.

John