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

[The Planner]

...and at Bletchley, there's a lot of land available for something creative. Could the northbound line from the flyover get a flyover of its own over the sidings and the up slow (suitably slewed) to remove the conflict there?

Also being looked at, you could do something at Denbigh Hall I suspect.

 

[swt_passenger]

What time penalties might these be? The proposal to route route some XC services along the WCML to Bletchley and on to/from the South Coast via East West, rather than via Birmingham, is precisely because it will reduce journey times, so it's unlikely to be any different for container trains.

In trying to condense a couple of pages I missed the emphasis that it is the EWR/MML combination that is felt to take too long by the freight operators.

Obviously for a straightforward Southampton to DIRFT move for example it is better than the existing routes. However they do write that during consultation the operators 'preferred the more direct route via Banbury'.

I'd recommend reading the whole section within Ch 9 of the L&SE RUS though...

 

[edwin_m]

In trying to condense a couple of pages I missed the emphasis that it is the EWR/MML combination that is felt to take too long by the freight operators.

Obviously for a straightforward Southampton to DIRFT move for example it is better than the existing routes. However they do write that during consultation the operators 'preferred the more direct route via Banbury'.

I'd recommend reading the whole section within Ch 9 of the L&SE RUS though...

Although the route via Banbury is shorter to the West Midlands, a train destined for Yorkshire and beyond is probably about equal for routeings via Bedford or via the West Midlands. A MML routeing is probably also going to spend less time in loops as it only shares a relatively small amount of track with high-speed passenger trains.

 

[route:oxford]

It's a proposal, but no more than that at the moment. Just one of the various ideas to increase capacity through the Oxford and Didcot areas.

There's already a campaign against it - it might be seen from a bit of land that is near enough worshipped as a deity...

Did you spot that a retired gluten diet specialist and a retired mental healthcare worker have have joined forces to campaign against the plans to raise the trackbed at Hinksey to stop flooding?

Usual Oxford. Change has potential to ruin lives etc...

 

[Bill EWS]

I was waiting for a train from Oxford on Saturday and remembered the comment on her about the new stop block in the Bicester platform, so I went to have a look and took a couple of photos with my Mobile Phone. Thought you may find it of interest.

 

[richieb1971]

So whats the stop block for then?

 

[jimm]

So whats the stop block for then?

To keep trains using platform 3 out of the way of the demolition crews once they start work to remove the adjacent building.

And my comment about the buffer stop was in the Chiltern Oxford link thread, not this one, as the work on the bay platforms at Oxford aren't an East West project

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=73497

 

[route:oxford]

From "The Oxford Mail" summary of the budget:-

"Last but by no means least Mr Osborne has told the National Infrastructure Commission to bring forward plans to improve transport between Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge."

Is this road, rail or both - and does it mean being brought forward from 2019?

 

[MarkRedon]

From "The Oxford Mail" summary of the budget:-

Is this road, rail or both - and does it mean being brought forward from 2019?

You will find at https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...letter-to-lord-adonis-and-terms-of-reference:

1. A letter from George Osborne to Andrew Adonis.
2. In an annex, some very general terms of reference which suggest that the reference is both to the road Expressway and to the East-West rail proposals.

2.
The review will be comprised of two stages. The first stage of the work will focus on the following areas and will lead to the production of an interim report.
-- Review the economic case for investment in the Oxford to Cambridge corridor – including key planned infrastructure such as East-West Rail and Expressway;
-- Map existing and planned national and local investment, including key improvements to the A14 and A34, and on public sector land;
-- Identify infrastructure constraints that are impeding: economic growth; the regeneration of communities; sustainable travel; quality of life; and the delivery of new housing;
-- Identify the environmental assets, and opportunities for sustainable growth, within the corridor;
3.
The second stage of the work will focus on the following areas and will lead to the production of a final report by Autumn Statement 2017 with recommendations for:

Priority infrastructure to:
o Improve connectivity – both physical and digital – across the corridor. This will include recommendations to improve connectivity within, and between, the area’s towns and cities, including public transport and a consideration of the interdependencies with social infrastructure requirements

 

[richieb1971]

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14370696.Oxford_Cambridge_rail_link_moves_a_step_closer/?ref=fbshr

 

[8H]

Preferred route beyond Bedford for East West Published today


http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/preferred-corridor-for-east-west-rail-central-section-announced

 

[D869]

Preferred route beyond Bedford for East West Published today


http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/preferred-corridor-for-east-west-rail-central-section-announced

Preferred corridor. We'll have to wait for any sort of route but if it involves any running on the ECML it will be daft. Perhaps Network Rail has concluded that new line is needed east of ECML.

.

 

[swt_passenger]

Preferred corridor. We'll have to wait for any sort of route but if it involves any running on the ECML it will be daft. Perhaps Network Rail has concluded that new line is needed east of ECML.

They reckon more details will be published in May. That'll give them time to log on here a few times and see what the team thinks...

 

[cle]

If only... agreed new line east of Bedford makes sense. Needn't be too complex hopefully, and needn't have any stations.

Linking into a Cambridge South, as well as regular (Central? City?) and then North stations would be good.

Almost has S-Bahn potential...

 

[Blamethrower]

Great. So it either reverses at Bedford midland or St John's is expanded, plus bye bye cycle route

 

[A0]

Preferred corridor. We'll have to wait for any sort of route but if it involves any running on the ECML it will be daft. Perhaps Network Rail has concluded that new line is needed east of ECML.

.

Looks like it's a new line Bedford - Sandy - Cambridge which is what is being reported on BBC Look East just now.

Hopefully that'll bring to an end the crazy suggestions around here of a route via Luton & Stevenage.

 

[D365]

Great. So it either reverses at Bedford midland or St John's is expanded, plus bye bye cycle route

Lifted from the press release linked above:

Once the methodology behind the Bedford – Sandy - Cambridge corridor is published in May, further analysis and consultation will take place to determine options for the ‘line on a map’ route.

As far as I can tell, the juicy stuff is yet to come

Linking into a Cambridge South, as well as regular (Central? City?) and then North stations would be good.

Almost has S-Bahn potential...

That's just the kind of inspiration we need to bring a railway service back to St. Ives. Oh hang on...

 

[richieb1971]

Might as well bring back St Johns. You could use all that wasteland at the end of Prebend Street to become a car park. A walk access all the way to the old station would be advisable. Thats what I would do.

Not the cheapest option of course (making another station) but its cheaper than leaving north of Bedford Midland.

 

[al green]

I'm concerned that we won't get to see the actual report until May. Last year I put in an FoI request when they had narrowed it down to two options. NR rejected my request on the basis that they would be publishing the report in "early 2016". I don't regard May as early 2016 and I'd be surprised if May doesn't turn into June or July.

I fear that they are ignoring the fact that EWRL is part of a network, not sone isolated line. Sandy will offer very poor interchange with ECML. Hitchin or Stevenage would be much better.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm concerned that we won't get to see the actual report until May. Last year I put in an FoI request when they had narrowed it down to two options. NR rejected my request on the basis that they would be publishing the report in "early 2016". I don't regard May as early 2016 and I'd be surprised if May doesn't turn into June or July.

I fear that they are ignoring the fact that EWRL is part of a network, not sone isolated line. Sandy will offer very poor interchange with ECML. Hitchin or Stevenage would be much better.

Not if the station's importance were increased because of this. The odd East Coast service stopping there wouldn't be too outrageous - the distance between it and the stations that would be on the route either side are par for the course on the southern ECML.

 

[richieb1971]

Would be a bit unfair to have an interchange at Sandy and Bletchley and not one at Bedford.

Could easily be sorted with a parkway station south of Bedford which I believe has been on the cards for a while (even if one of the more eccentric options).

Is anyone surprised Sandy is the option chosen? I am. I was only for it if using the old alignment where Bedford is concerned. But that opens a whole new can of worms, lots of wrecking balls, lots of new builds.

 

[jopsuk]

Preferred corridor. We'll have to wait for any sort of route but if it involves any running on the ECML it will be daft. Perhaps Network Rail has concluded that new line is needed east of ECML.

.

The corridor definition seems to indicate that it involves no ECML; that it is a new build (potentially using some of the old trackbed) between Sandy and Cambridge

 

[richieb1971]

The corridor definition seems to indicate that it involves no ECML; that it is a new build (potentially using some of the old trackbed) between Sandy and Cambridge

Seconded. There may be a upper and lower level Sandy station like Tamworth, but no running on the ECML.

 

[The Ham]

They reckon more details will be published in May. That'll give them time to log on here a few times and see what the team thinks...

Sounds perfectly reasonable, why pay staff to analysis options when there are plenty of people willing to do it for you for free. That then allows them to spend more money on the actual building of the tracks, so a win win situation...

 

[A0]

Not if the station's importance were increased because of this. The odd East Coast service stopping there wouldn't be too outrageous - the distance between it and the stations that would be on the route either side are par for the course on the southern ECML.

Won't happen - for the same reason that West Coast services won't be stopped at Bletchley once EWR is up and running.

The simple fact is there are already 2 southern 'railheads' for East Coast services - Stevenage and Peterborough.

Sandy is 3 stops from either.

With West Coast they will continue to use MKC for such stops and not bother with adding Bletchley in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm concerned that we won't get to see the actual report until May. Last year I put in an FoI request when they had narrowed it down to two options. NR rejected my request on the basis that they would be publishing the report in "early 2016". I don't regard May as early 2016 and I'd be surprised if May doesn't turn into June or July.

I fear that they are ignoring the fact that EWRL is part of a network, not sone isolated line. Sandy will offer very poor interchange with ECML. Hitchin or Stevenage would be much better.

Sandy is fine as an interchange - and from a journey time perspective for Bedford - Cambridge it's easily the best option.

As I've pointed out before, if you were to go via Hitchin you'd be looking at circa 20 mins to cover Bedford - Hitchin and circa 25 mins to cover Hitchin - Cambridge.

Via Stevenage would be even worse as you'd be looking at circa 20 mins to cover Bedford - Luton another 20 mins for whatever new line you'd need from Luton - Stevenage and then 35 mins from Stevenage to Cambridge.

Both of those journeys would be slower than the current Stagecoach X5 coach is.

Whereas the via Sandy option is about 30 miles as the crow flies - on an average speed of 60mph you'd cover it in 30 mins - which is entirely viable given a current Hitchin - Kings Cross service (which is pretty much 30 miles) with 2 stops (Stevenage & FP) is timed for 32 mins.

 

[philjo]

It makes sense if the EW services do not need to run on the ECML but I assume there would also be some connections to ECML to allow other services to use the line?

e.g. a north-east chord would allow a Cambridge to Peterborough service via Huntingdon - there is probably commuter demand to cambridge from huntingdon as an alternative to the A14 ( & is probably quicker to Peterborough than going via Ely?)

A west-North chord would let Peterborough be an E-W destination and allow for some Thameslink diversions via Bedford when ECML southern section has problems (or allows for change of train at Bedford to access Sandy and stations north to Peterborough)

A West-south chord would enable a service to Bedford via ECML (probably semi-fast via Hertford North to avoid conflicts at Welwyn) to provide connections at Bedford to other E-W services to Oxford/MK etc and MML services from ECML stations. (e.g. hourly from either Thameslink or Kings cross calling at Finsbury Park, enfield Chase, Hertford North, Stevenage, Hitchin, Arlesey , Biggleswade & Bedford ) would open up access to Oxford/west & MML destintions from the Herts/Beds ECML stations with one change at Bedford. would be much quicker than the existing bus from Hitchin /Biggleswade to Bedford which have reduced in frequency in evenings etc anyway.
It would also allow some Thameslink services from Bedford to divert if necessary via ECML/Hertford Loop when there are problems on the MML.

 

[A0]

It makes sense if the EW services do not need to run on the ECML but I assume there would also be some connections to ECML to allow other services to use the line?

e.g. a north-east chord would allow a Cambridge to Peterborough service via Huntingdon - there is probably commuter demand to cambridge from huntingdon as an alternative to the A14 ( & is probably quicker to Peterborough than going via Ely?)

A west-North chord would let Peterborough be an E-W destination and allow for some Thameslink diversions via Bedford when ECML southern section has problems (or allows for change of train at Bedford to access Sandy and stations north to Peterborough)

A West-south chord would enable a service to Bedford via ECML (probably semi-fast via Hertford North to avoid conflicts at Welwyn) to provide connections at Bedford to other E-W services to Oxford/MK etc and MML services from ECML stations. (e.g. hourly from either Thameslink or Kings cross calling at Finsbury Park, enfield Chase, Hertford North, Stevenage, Hitchin, Arlesey , Biggleswade & Bedford ) would open up access to Oxford/west & MML destintions from the Herts/Beds ECML stations with one change at Bedford. would be much quicker than the existing bus from Hitchin /Biggleswade to Bedford which have reduced in frequency in evenings etc anyway.
It would also allow some Thameslink services from Bedford to divert if necessary via ECML/Hertford Loop when there are problems on the MML.

None of these make any sense at all.

Once EWR is open, if people from Bedford want to access ECML stations then it'll be a change at Sandy - simple.

As for Cambridge - Huntingdon - again it will be a change at Sandy.

Quite why posters insist on coming up with these esoteric and frankly eccentric 'we could run' type routes is beyond me.

EWR cannot and will not be allowed to disrupt the ECML timetable - the ECML is already pretty much at capacity at two or three key points between Peterboro' and London and any demand for new or additional services will be on the London - Peterboro corridor given you've already got most London services getting fairly busy. The Cambridge branch needs platform extensions as 4 car units on weekends are often standing room only south of Hitchin during the day.

EWR can and should be run as a contained Oxford - Cambridge service - with people wanting to make onward journeys changing at the relevant interchange points.

 

[The Ham]

None of these make any sense at all.

Once EWR is open, if people from Bedford want to access ECML stations then it'll be a change at Sandy - simple.

As for Cambridge - Huntingdon - again it will be a change at Sandy.

Quite why posters insist on coming up with these esoteric and frankly eccentric 'we could run' type routes is beyond me.

EWR cannot and will not be allowed to disrupt the ECML timetable - the ECML is already pretty much at capacity at two or three key points between Peterboro' and London and any demand for new or additional services will be on the London - Peterboro corridor given you've already got most London services getting fairly busy. The Cambridge branch needs platform extensions as 4 car units on weekends are often standing room only south of Hitchin during the day.

EWR can and should be run as a contained Oxford - Cambridge service - with people wanting to make onward journeys changing at the relevant interchange points.

Connections to E-W rail from the existing main lines don't make much sense with the current timetable, however what about in 20 years time once HS2 is open and a number of the express services are removed from the line (along with a number of longer distance travellers on the remaining services)?

What about for diversion routes (i.e. late evenings and weekends when the tracks are less intensely used)?

Just because it isn't viable for day in day out use today doesn't mean that it isn't a viable option. Yes they will need to be evaluated as to their value, which may include looking at other works to allow capacity for other services to be run on the ECML. Yes, there will be limits to the benefits of doing so which may well rule them out, but that doesn't mean that they should be dismissed out of hand because there are currently limiting factors without considering whether fixing those limiting factors is justifiable.

I expect that the consideration of what other linked works could be justifiable is one of the reasons that the exact routing is a few months away.

 

[jimm]

EWR can and should be run as a contained Oxford - Cambridge service - with people wanting to make onward journeys changing at the relevant interchange points.

Well we already know that it won't be, as much of the initial service planned when trains start operating will run though Oxford to Reading, so any to/from Cambridge will likely do just the same. And any rerouted XC services, or new ones from the East Midlands etc going that way will also be travelling much further than Oxford.

Why on earth shouldn't some East-West trains start back at Norwich, or run on to Bristol, for example? The initial impetus for the East West consortium actually came from East Anglia.

Even with rebuilding, Oxford station will not have unlimited capacity for trains to sit around occupying platform space, nor is Cambridge over-blessed with platforms either, even with the recent improvements.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

EWR can and should be run as a contained Oxford - Cambridge service - with people wanting to make onward journeys changing at the relevant interchange points.

East West Rail themselves, of course, propose Reading-MK and Marylebone-Aylesbury-MK services: http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/frequently-asked-questions/

(edit: jimm got there before me!)