GWSR - Cheltenham Spa and possible extensions

Which is an intelligent way of approaching it, in that they dont rule it in and dont rule it out.

There was an interesting article in Rail magazine a couple of months back that claimed Stratford on Avon council is launching an evaluation on the reinstatement of the Stratford-Honeybourne line, to make it easier to path trains directly to london I suppose. If that does ever happen, surely it will just increase pressure to create some connection in Cheltenham as well? Its not exactly common to use heritage lines for movement of railfreight, but as proven at Minehead, not unachieveable either.

Whether that would eventually lead to some form of station near where malvern road or even high street were is another matter. Personally I really cant see where they would have the room for the parking.

 

Hmmm, perhaps they should have thought about that before putting a road down on top of the trackbed north of where the SMJR crossed the Honeybourne line. I would imagine the chances of ever reinstating Stratford to Honeybourne must be pretty low.

 

There there are a few options around that. One is culverting the line under the road, another is putting a single track in on the verge. The easiest option (not necessarily the cheapest) is to run a bypass line around the town, and leave the station truncated, which would be fine for DMUs but not quite as ideal for railtours.

So its not unachieveable, althougth whether anyone is willing to put the resources in to make it achieveable is another matter.

 

I think that sums up the situation very nicely for both ends of the line.

 

To deal firstly with the northern end of the line, there is a real chance of a publicly-funded reinstatement of the line southwards out of Stratford. The relief road was put in at a time when Warwickshire County Council was not railway (or even bus) orientated. We should not criticise them too much though as that was a common outlook for many Local Authorities at the time. The real failure of planning was to allow the gap between the racecourse and the then built-up area to be infilled with more housing. It would now be very difficult to continue this road in a westerly and north-westerly direction.

Dropping the railway beneath the road would be expensive but visually unobtrusive although there would be the not inconsiderable engineering problem of the level being below that of the nearby River Avon, probably requiring tanking of any cut and cover tunnel with back-up pumping. A miniature Severn Tunnel scenario!

At Cheltenham it is vital that the route is protected for eventual reinstatement. What currently seems a long way off will take on a much shorter and more realistic appearance if the GWSR reaches Honeybourne and Honeybourne to Stratford returns to the national network.

 

The culverting of the railway seems quite feasible when seen from a Google Earth perspective. Again, it's whether general will and resources permit. The trackbed alongside the racecourse could be dug out to produce a downward gradient to a level that enables the track to get beneath Seven Meadows Road. Then, there is what appears to be a public footpath on the formation between the north end of Seven Meadows Road and the station that could also be dug out to bring the formation back to its original level. If done on a cut-and-cover basis, it could even be possible to raise the road level slightly to acommodate the tunnel beneath, thus reducing the gradients required for clearance. Sounds simple, but definitely very complex, expensive and disruptive in practice.

 

The recently built pedestrian bridge over Honeybourne Way in Cheltenham would have to be replaced with a bridge capable of supporting trains. This would be a very costly job. Of course, the local council are trying to protect the trackbed further north in Cheltenham, but have effectively knackered it themselves with the installation of this footbridge.

 

A question on the footbridge. When was it installed and what was the design life? Of course you can exceed the design life, but with additional inspection and maintenance. The reason I ask this, is because it is going to be a number of years before they finish the northern extension. Then there will probably be a year or two (or more) consolidation. So will the footbridge be close to the end of its design life by this time and therefore a replacement will be required anyway?

 

Don't worry about the footbridge. The Local Authority could clearly not justify the erection of a rail-specification bridge in the current circumstances and at least it preserves the route. If it is life-expired when the GWSR is in a position to enter Cheltenham then its removal will be no loss; if still in good condition, it could be re-used elesewhere.

Back to Stratford, an easy way to appreciate the levels for anyone remote from the area is to go into the Local Planning Authority website, search planning applications through the interactive map and zoom in until you have the OS 1:1250 on which there will be spot heights to 0.1m. The biggest problem to a sunken railway is at the roundabout at Evesham Place / Evesham Road where levels are some 39m AOD. This would suggest a rail level of 33m but the land to the south in the Avon flood plain is around 33m - and it floods! The road cannot be raised because of nearby fronting properties and, also, there will undoubtedly be sewers under this roundabout area, which, unlike other services, cannot be diverted up and down hill.

A viaduct with piers some 2m wide would support a high-level railway but at the cost of considerable visual intrusion. In my view the idea of trains on a conventional open viaduct would be environmentally unacceptable in this urban area, which I would categorise as an ordinary suburban area and not part of the historically sensitive parts of the town. An aerial tube, hiding the sight and most of the sound of trains, might be acceptable if achieved witha high quality of artistry. Neither low nor high level solutions would be remotely within the abilities of a heritage railway and could only be achieved if there were a political / economic decision that it was in the public interest to reconnect Stratford to the national system from the south.

This brings home yet again that the real tragedy of the Beeching closures was not the withdrawal of services, or even the removal of track and structures, but the use of isolated bits of the right-of-way for purposes which have now become vital public facilities in themselves.

 

As a GWSR supporter and volunteer - IMHO, it is definitely not in the Railway's interest to, even, consider "going into town", or anywhere near it! CRC is as near as we need to get. As has been said, there is a large car-park available and it is not too far from the "park and ride" into the Town Centre (and, if sufficient footfall warrants it), even running this service into the Station.

As far as the Northern extension is concerned, I do believe that reaching Broadway will have a huge impact and, I understand, the Parish Council are well disposed to providing a bus link into the High Street (20 mins walk for the fit!), when we get there.

After that? Definitely Honeybourne JUNCTION! It will take a lot of hard work and determination but it is achievable.

After that? JUST RUN THE RAILWAY!!!!

IMO, it serves no financial purpose to go further than that. Two reasons:

1) Southwards, the Council continue to consider the proprosition of a link into the Town, be it light railway, tram, whatever. If they believe the Railway would bring benefit - let them get on with it!

2) Northwards from Honeybourne, there is still a great deal of interest in re-opening the Stratford-Honeybourne line. The local paper "The Stratford Herald" has seen it's letters page almost dominated by the possibility for the last few months, both for and against. There is certainly an on-going feasibility study being carried out and the majority (I believe) of Stratford businesses are all for a direct link to Worcester, or Oxford, or Paddington.....Of course, it is the locals, whose houses are affected, that are howling loudest! Again, if there is a revenue-earning advantage to Stratford - let them get on with it!

 

This would appear to be the most sensible post on this topic so far - and sounds like the basis for a 10 to 15 year plan.
Anybody who knows the former route of the line through Cheltenham will quickly realise that a large part of the route is/was elevated between substantial retaining walls, bridges etc. These have not received much maintenance in recent years & in time will become costly structures to maintain to railway standards. Taking responsibility for this alone could be a financial step too far for a tourist railway.

 

Completely agree with this.

One consideration that will come into play as the railway develops/extends is that the GWSR is (I believe) 100% volunteer run. There must be a finite length of line beyond which paid staff would be required with the result impact on finances that that would bring. Would the increased revenue from running to Broadway/Honeybourne cover this outlay in addition to the increased upkeep?

Whatever the long term, in the short term I am looking forward to the day that I can walk down the village with my sons and catch a train from Broadway to Cheltenham and wish the GWSR the best fortune in achieving this after the difficulties that have faced in recent times.

 

Can anyone hazard a guess how long a preserved line can realistically get before it would need some kind of financial support from local government.

 

Don't some already get that, whatever the length?

 

In fact, I believe many do, as they are recognised as providing a valuable local amenity and tourist attraction, which, obviously benefits the community as a whole.

As far as the GWSR BAG (Broadway Area Group) are concerned, we have always garnered and gained the support of the village community, council and businesses, who already recognise the benefits that the arrival of the Railway would bring.

In return, for our support of village events, we are considered a "worthwhile local cause" and we receive an income from these events. Witness our recent involvement in the Village's Jubilee Celebrations: in return for our providing some car-parking attendants, we were able to have a small marquee on the Green and receive a portion of the takings. Every little bit helps!

As always, please remember that the opinions I offer are solely down to me and do not, in anyway, represent the views of the GWSR, or the BAG.

Thankyou, everyone for your responses.

 

Whilst I accept the economics of running a heritage railway entirely on volunteer support, It is important that all operating societies watch the wider political and public relations aspects. A railway totally disconnected from the national system has to have all stock movements by road and is incapable of accepting incoming tour traffic. Also, although some people may come by bus, such lines tend to rely on car-borne customers, thus generating the type of road traffic that they ought to be discouraging.

Obviously The GWSR's first objective is to press on with the extension to Broadway, the first place of significance north of Winchcombe. Thereafter, the push must be to Honeybourne and, thankfully, there do not seem many expensive-looking obstacles on that route. Once connection is made with the national system the whole outlook of the railway will, in my view, be transformed. No longer will it be an isolated outpost giving a living museum experience but it will be seen as a place that a train can reach from anywhere in the country. Nearer to my home Peak Rail has just achieved this, the Ecclesbourne Valley Railway has cross-platform connection with Network Rail at Duffield and the Moorlands and City Railways scheme is pushing on to reinstate the connection at Stoke.

I accept that connection at Cheltenham would be probably beyond the financial ability of any heritage railway owing to the liability for structures within the town. It would require public funding, possibly with the GWSR having running powers over infrastructure owned by others, but what the railway must not do is to give the impression that the protection is pointless because it sees no viable basis for operation. If that were the case, there are those who would find very convenient reasons for destroying the through right of way. In too many cases the cost of reopening a former railway is made excessive by no more than 1% obstruction by valuable development.

My previous post mentioned the sad turn of events at the other end of the line at Stratford. That was not developer's opportunism but Highway Authority's opportunism, aided by short-sightedness by the Planning Authority, and now people are trying to find a viable way round a problem entirely of the public authorities' own creation.

 

In fact, the GWSR does already have two salaried persons on board: an Operations Director and a Marketing/Fund raising Person. This is ahead of the final (?) extension to Honeybourne Junction when, yes, it is generally considered by the members, that we could not run the railway on a solely volunteer basis. But, that is a consideration for the future! Much to do before then.

 

One of the volunteers from the group rebuilding Broadway station on the GWSR is collating a set of photos covering the line in it it's current state. The first batch covering the old trackbed from Cheltenham Race Course to the site of Cheltenham Malvern Road can be found at:

CRC to Malvern Road - a set on Flickr

They make interesting viewing following the discussion above from last summer.

 

Yep 2 paid staff and one of those charged with raising the monies to extend the railway in whatever direction. The estimate to do the Stratford - Honeybourne rebuild is 75-100 MILLION pounds and that's about the same distance that we have to cover to reach Honeybourne. Our bit to Honeyborne is relatively clear one long cycle track and small bridges. The Stratford to Honeybourne link is more complex with a couple of busy road issues but nothing like the issues of going south with big road bridges and a viaduct to contend with. You do the maths at least 200m plus.

OK so with the volunteer workforce of over 600 we would cut the cost a bit. As others have said the focus is on Broadway and then let's see about Honeybourne. Only my opinion but I cannot see any other realistic possibility.

Oh, network rail realising the line should never have been closed in the first place.