East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

[L&Y Robert]

Oxford. Took a long walk through Port Meadow today, and noted that the up loop, north of the station, is signalled for bi-directional working. North-bound movements over the loop are subject to a south-facing signal (OX86) complete with 'feather' at position 4, sited to govern access to the Bicester line. There was some polish on the metals, too, so it's in use.
Bit further north there is now an almost complete restored formation for the down loop, and I was startled - yes, startled - to see actual track in place at the north end, together with a nice slow turnout into the down main. As I understand it, the new 'loop' will ultimately become 'the main', being an extension of the N-bound platform line in the station.

 

[davetheguard]

Oxford. Took a long walk through Port Meadow today, and noted that the up loop, north of the station, is signalled for bi-directional working. North-bound movements over the loop are subject to a south-facing signal (OX86) complete with 'feather' at position 4, sited to govern access to the Bicester line. There was some polish on the metals, too, so it's in use.
Bit further north there is now an almost complete restored formation for the down loop, and I was startled - yes, startled - to see actual track in place at the north end, together with a nice slow turnout into the down main. As I understand it, the new 'loop' will ultimately become 'the main', being an extension of the N-bound platform line in the station.

I'm not sure that the extension to the down loop north of Oxford and alongside Port Meadow that you mention is really part of East West Rail; but it will be a welcome boost to capacity in the area nonetheless. It will carry passenger as well as freight trains.

What makes the re-instated loop really stand out to the eye is the fact that it's on a slightly different alignment to the other running lines at this point, with a small thin strip of waste ground between the two. Once complete, there will once again be four tracks from Oxford station to just a few metres short of Wolvercot Junction (where the Cotswold Line diverges). I can't see why the loop would become the "Main" as you suggest; what would the present Main become? In any case the extra track will be useful for looping down freights for Voyagers to "overtake"; and also allow down passenger trains to depart and clear Oxford station at the same time as a down freight runs through the station on the down centre road.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm not sure that the extension to the down loop north of Oxford and alongside Port Meadow that you mention is really part of East West Rail; but it will be a welcome boost to capacity in the area nonetheless. It will carry passenger as well as freight trains.

It's really a late running CP4 enhancement. The Down Loop work is covered by the Strategic Freight Network's 'Train Lengthening Fund', specifically for the Southampton to WCML route.

 

[The Planner]

The present mains would effectively become central freight loops capable of handling 2 x 775m trains, though in the up it is debatable what use they will have as its still likely that XC won't cross over until just before the platform.

 

[jimm]

Oxford. Took a long walk through Port Meadow today, and noted that the up loop, north of the station, is signalled for bi-directional working. North-bound movements over the loop are subject to a south-facing signal (OX86) complete with 'feather' at position 4, sited to govern access to the Bicester line. There was some polish on the metals, too, so it's in use.
Bit further north there is now an almost complete restored formation for the down loop, and I was startled - yes, startled - to see actual track in place at the north end, together with a nice slow turnout into the down main. As I understand it, the new 'loop' will ultimately become 'the main', being an extension of the N-bound platform line in the station.

It's not bi-di. It was reversed from southbound-only to northbound-only, as far as Oxford North junction, a few years ago, so dmus to Bicester did not have to weave across the entire track layout leaving platform 3, then weave back again at the junction, stopping anything else moving for several minutes. There is no signal at the station end, so trains using the up loop from Wolvercot Junction have to rejoin the main line at Oxford North. The shiny rails are due to road-rail engineering plant on East-West work running from and to Aristotle Lane. It will become bi-di in future, when resignalling happens - see below.

The point and track at the Wolvercote end of the down loop were put in place at Christmas. Was flagged up well in advance by the local paper:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10...rail_journeys_between_Christmas_and_New_Year/

And I don't think you mean a 'slow' turnout, it is quite a fast one, aligned for at least 70mph, I'd guess.

It's really a late running CP4 enhancement. The Down Loop work is covered by the Strategic Freight Network's 'Train Lengthening Fund', specifically for the Southampton to WCML route.

It's not late. Due to the fragile nature of the existing signalling kit at Oxford, which means nothing else can be plugged into it, the loop was never going to be brought into use until next spring, when phase 1 of Oxford resignalling happens. The formation also requires some pretty heavy-duty remedial and drainage work, plus realignment at the station end to allow for higher speeds where it deviates from the main line formation - it was built on the cheap in 1940 as an emergency enhancement and was set up for slow-moving freights.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's not late. Due to the fragile nature of the existing signalling kit at Oxford, which means nothing else can be plugged into it, the loop was never going to be brought into use until next spring, when phase 1 of Oxford resignalling happens.

OK - I was just going by it being one of the 'sub-projects' in the train lengthening section of the last version of the CP4 enhancement plan in Dec 13, but not mentioned in the first version of the CP5 plan, as though it was expected to have been just finished.

But no criticism intended, I'm aware that many projects have to overlap control periods...

 

[route:oxford]

The point and track at the Wolvercote end of the down loop were put in place at Christmas. Was flagged up well in advance by the local paper:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/10...rail_journeys_between_Christmas_and_New_Year/

As I recall, hundreds of lives were ruined by the work...

 

[Tobbes]

I see that the LibDems are now proposing the reinstatement of the eastern link to Cambridge as part of their manifesto: http://www.nce.co.uk/clegg-calls-fo...ng-to-link-five-garden-cities/8670718.article

Does anyone have a clear idea of what routing this would actually take (ie, Sandy / Hitchin?)

 

[Julia]

Clegg was calling for new garden cities along the route, naming Bicester, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard, Sandy, St Neots and Cambourne. Not that it's ever likely to happen...

 

[Tobbes]

Indeed, very odd. And the idea that Cambridge to Oxford would be 60 mins seems pretty optimistic, too. I just wondered if anyone knew what the LD plan was.

 

[edwin_m]

98 miles by road according to Google so 60min would mean a 125mph unit making only one or two stops in between. The Cambridge-Oxford market is unlikely to sustain that.

The garden cities plan sounds OK to me in principle, but as usual the devil will be in the detail (and I don't live in any of those places!).

 

[Julia]

I just wondered if anyone knew what the LD plan was.

I think virtually everyone has been wondering that for four years :roll:

The garden cities plan sounds OK to me in principle, but as usual the devil will be in the detail (and I don't live in any of those places!).

Our district council has already made an "over our dead bodies" type response - on the face of it the plans were little more than 10k extra houses to be bolted on to existing towns.

 

[gordonthemoron]

surely the best place for a garden city would be where east-west crosses HS2?

 

[Tobbes]

98 miles by road according to Google so 60min would mean a 125mph unit making only one or two stops in between. The Cambridge-Oxford market is unlikely to sustain that.

Indeed, this is mini-Pendolino territory w/EPS, which is very odd. Even at 75 mins, this is still an 80 mph start-to-stop average.

 

[HowardGWR]

Indeed, this is mini-Pendolino territory w/EPS, which is very odd. Even at 75 mins, this is still an 80 mph start-to-stop average.

I think we can conclude that the Lib Dem leader was not well informed by his wonks.

 

[edwin_m]

Indeed, this is mini-Pendolino territory w/EPS, which is very odd. Even at 75 mins, this is still an 80 mph start-to-stop average.

Or a shortened APT, as used in the visualisation on the East West Rail website. Except that I think they've omitted the power car...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

surely the best place for a garden city would be where east-west crosses HS2?

There will be a maintenance base but no station on HS2, so no reason to put a town there.

 

[swt_passenger]

I think we can conclude that the Lib Dem leader was not well informed by his wonks.

He was also quoted as proposing to re-open Oxford to Bletchley which of course is already funded with contracts let...

Mind double or triple announcements are par for the course with politicians, why should he be any different...

 

[FenMan]

98 miles by road according to Google so 60min would mean a 125mph unit making only one or two stops in between. The Cambridge-Oxford market is unlikely to sustain that.

The garden cities plan sounds OK to me in principle, but as usual the devil will be in the detail (and I don't live in any of those places!).

The shortest route by road is 82 miles.

The rail route would have a lower mileage as the road route has a significant dog leg between Bicester and Bletchley. At XC rates of progress and stopping patterns that would deliver a 1h35m end to end journey. Which would be pretty good.

East West quote a 60 minute timing between Oxford - Bedford, so another 30-40 minutes for the stretch from Bedford to Cambridge would be realistic.

 

[Andyjs247]

The shortest route by road is 82 miles.

The rail route would have a lower mileage as the road route has a significant dog leg between Bicester and Bletchley. At XC rates of progress and stopping patterns that would deliver a 1h35m end to end journey. Which would be pretty good.

East West quote a 60 minute timing between Oxford - Bedford, so another 30-40 minutes for the stretch from Bedford to Cambridge would be realistic.

The original Oxford-Cambridge Varsity route was 77 miles IIRC. Much of the line between Oxford and Bletchley is being upgraded for 100mph; however the big unknown is beyond Bletchley which was also roughly half way.

If Marston Vale ends up being upgraded to a similar standard, 60 minutes from Oxford to Cambridge is theoretically possible (assuming minimum stops and with a brand new straightish alignment beyond Bedford). But it's probably not realistic and nor is it certain whether Bedford will be on the final route...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Clegg was calling for new garden cities along the route, naming Bicester, Aylesbury, Leighton Buzzard, Sandy, St Neots and Cambourne. Not that it's ever likely to happen...

Can't speak for other places on the route but Bicester has submitted plans to become a 'garden city' already.

 

[route:oxford]

The shortest route by road is 82 miles.

To help with the figures, it takes around 105 minutes from MK1 to OX4 by car in the morning peak, and similar for the return journey.

 

[Abpj17]

Luton >> Bedford (well, not usually...) but to connect with the airport makes a lot of sense. Or one design was to join MML at Bedford, and to swerve off at the Airport. Would make for a longer route, but provide better connections with less changes.

 

[aylesbury2]

Drove past AVP earlier and there is a digital sign up which says "Network Rail maintenance until mid-December - expect delays". Is this due to EWR or something different?

 

[aylesbury]

Cleggs announcement about garden cities is a joke, here in Aylesbury the council is commited to 1000 houses a year being built so there wont be much room for gardens!

 

[21C101]

I think the only feasible route for the eastern bit is to build a double track chord from Millbrook to the MML slow lines facing south, then a new 7-8mile railway from Luton Airport Parkway to the Hertford loop facing north near Knebworth, with an in tunnel station under Luton Airport Parkway if possible.

Trains would then call at Bletchley, Flitwick (for Bedford & Woburn Forest Centreparcs) Luton, Luton Airport, Stevenage, Hitchin, Letchworth, Royston and Cambridge.

This would give intercity interchange with both MML and EMCL at Luton/Airport and Stevenage/Hitchin/Letchworth, keep totally clear of the fast lines on both MML and ECML and keep new track down to 1 chord + 8 miles.

It would also I think attract most use, both because of the Intercity interchange but also serving all the prinicple destinations and providing what I suspect would be a very well used rail connection between Luton and Stevenage. A Thameslink service to Milton Keynes, directly linking Luton and its airport to the WCML & MK would also be possible, reversing at Bletchley unless a chord was put in.

The big loser I guess is Bedford, but I suspect Bedford to Oxford services would still run and with one ever 15 minutes to Flitwick, same platform changing there is not the end of the world.

The problem with any route via Bedford is both that much more mileage would be needed and the interchange would be appalling. Bedford St Johns is about a mile from Midland, similarly no one will ever stop intercity trains at Sandy if the old route is used. Plus Bedford and Sandy have a fraction of the passenger potential of Luton and Stevenage.

If they go via Hitchin then still no intercity interchange plus a reversal.

It was also faster via Luton and Stevenage than via Sandy and Hitchin (Reverse) in the 2009 report.

 

[edwin_m]

Doesn't the Hitchin flyover include passive provision for East West Rail to join it from the north? As it's only single line it could become a capacity bottleneck though.

 

[mr_jrt]

I think any service that runs down the MML is a non-starter due to the capacity constraints on it, though I agree the interchange issue is a big concern due to the station locations in Bedford. Personally, my solution is to build a new rail route north from Bedford, then head for St Neots, thence on to Cambridge via Cambourne. St Neots is pretty much slap bang between Stevenage and Peterborough, so if you were to get an additional intercity stop, there would be the best place. It also means you can interchange with the existing MML fast services calling at Bedford.

There is indeed merit in linking Hitchin/Stevenage to Luton via the airport, but EWR is probably not the best way to achieve that. Personally, the call needs to be made which is the better option - Luton to Cambridge, or Luton to Hertford/Stansted. If Cambridge, then you also have to consider if you can 6-track Stevenage to Hitchin. If you can't, then you have to head directly for Hitchin and miss Stevenage. The ECML is too full to add a new bottleneck where EWR takes paths for want of a few miles of railway. If Hertford, then all is well, there should be ample capacity on the Hertford loop and you shouldn't affect the ECML at all.

Beyond Luton, the obvious link would be to Bletchley via Leighton Buzzard (were it not for the silly busway). Again, the WCML is too full for a short bottleneck, but as the distance is so small, 6 tracks is quite feasible to get the line to Bletchley. Quite where it goes from there is a conundrum though - it could squeeze into the station (maybe), but the obvious route is to bypass Bletchley entirely by routing over a reinstated chord to the EWR line to Bicester. Less than ideal...

 

[21C101]

I think any service that runs down the MML is a non-starter due to the capacity constraints on it, though I agree the interchange issue is a big concern due to the station locations in Bedford. Personally, my solution is to build a new rail route north from Bedford, then head for St Neots, thence on to Cambridge via Cambourne. St Neots is pretty much slap bang between Stevenage and Peterborough, so if you were to get an additional intercity stop, there would be the best place. It also means you can interchange with the existing MML fast services calling at Bedford.

There is indeed merit in linking Hitchin/Stevenage to Luton via the airport, but EWR is probably not the best way to achieve that. Personally, the call needs to be made which is the better option - Luton to Cambridge, or Luton to Hertford/Stansted. If Cambridge, then you also have to consider if you can 6-track Stevenage to Hitchin. If you can't, then you have to head directly for Hitchin and miss Stevenage. The ECML is too full to add a new bottleneck where EWR takes paths for want of a few miles of railway. If Hertford, then all is well, there should be ample capacity on the Hertford loop and you shouldn't affect the ECML at all.

Beyond Luton, the obvious link would be to Bletchley via Leighton Buzzard (were it not for the silly busway). Again, the WCML is too full for a short bottleneck, but as the distance is so small, 6 tracks is quite feasible to get the line to Bletchley. Quite where it goes from there is a conundrum though - it could squeeze into the station (maybe), but the obvious route is to bypass Bletchley entirely by routing over a reinstated chord to the EWR line to Bicester. Less than ideal...

I dont see that EWR would cause a bottleneck on either the Midland or East Coast lines. The full lines are the fasts not the slows.

The slow lines between Bedford and Luton have four trains per hour offpeak and approx six per hour during the peaks, with roughly an hourly freight. Between Luton Airport and Luton it is four per hour peak, eight offpeak. Hardly overcrowded for a 4 aspect signalled double track line.

Similarly, the ECML has four per hour offpeak on the slows between Stevenage and Hitchin, six in the peaks (plus the Hertford loop service to Letchworth which will soon be cut back to Stevenage). The biggest pinchpoint is Hitchin where the Cambridge fasts crossover to the slowlines and the peak peterborough fast to Hitchins do likewise. Therefore far better to have the Cambridge trains coming from Stevenage calling and going on their way than coming down from Sandy then sitting in Hitchin four four minutes while they reverse.

Astonishingly, the draft timetables in the 2009 report show that it is actually faster from Oxford to Cambridge via Millbrook Chord, Luton and Stevenage than via Bedford, Sandy and Hitchin (reverse).

 

[mr_jrt]

The biggest pinchpoint is Hitchin where the Cambridge fasts crossover to the slowlines and the peak peterborough fast to Hitchins do likewise. Therefore far better to have the Cambridge trains coming from Stevenage calling and going on their way than sitting in Hitchin four four minutes while they reverse.

Sorry, I'm confused -Why would there be a reversal?

 

[21C101]

Sorry, I'm confused -Why would there be a reversal?

Sorry- I've edited that.

The two proposed routes are

(a) millbrook chord then to luton airport, new line to stevenage and up to hitchin and Cambridge via Royston.

(b) to Bedford St Johns then Sandy, roughly on the old route, then down to Hitchin, reverse there and via Royston to Cambridge.

 

[Tobbes]

The two proposed routes are

(b) to Bedford St Johns then Sandy, roughly on the old route, then down to Hitchin, reverse there and via Royston to Cambridge.

I thought option (b) was using the original Midland route to KX via Cardington and Shefford through Warden Tunnel? Going all the way to Sandy and then down the ECML is (i) further (two sides of a triangle) and (ii) requires one of bi-directional working on the Dn Slow(?), crossing all lines to the Up Slow, or another flyover to Dn Slow on the scale of the Hitchin flyover.

It seems to me that if you're going to Sandy, you may as well just head east across farmland to a junction with the Cambridge line between Shepreth and Foxton - allowing for a new town on the A603, potentially.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
<<Crayons Out>>

And on the MML interchange point, grabbing some crayons, is a new interchange + Park and Ride station feasible where the MML crosses the Varsity Line (South Bedford Parkway HL & LL)?

This would reduce pressure on Bedford itself, and also allow Bedford St Johns to be moved back to at/near its original site on the Varsity Line. In the process, it would allow the use of near the original alignment to Sandy, and thence Potton / Shepreth etc.

<<Crayons Away>>