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

[mr_jrt]

If interchange is the goal then you would want cross-platform interchange with the slow line platforms, and that either means 3 island platforms or a Welwyn Garden City-style platform layout (i.e. with the fast lines not having platforms) with single-track grade separation at either end to get the EWR tracks to the correct positions outside the ECML tracks.

 

[NotATrainspott]

If interchange is the goal then you would want cross-platform interchange with the slow line platforms, and that either means 3 island platforms or a Welwyn Garden City-style platform layout (i.e. with the fast lines not having platforms) with single-track grade separation at either end to get the EWR tracks to the correct positions outside the ECML tracks.

Cross-platform interchange won't be important enough here to pay for the tracks to be weaved together to make it possible. Keeping the two EWR tracks together at one side of the alignment means that only a single two-track viaduct would be needed for them to cross over the entire ECML, reducing costs and complexity of construction. If there were to be lots of services crossing between the ECML and EWR during the peak it might be useful but I can't see that being likely.

A Reading-style overbridge halfway along the platforms with lifts and escalators would be fine for interchange purposes.

 

[Julia]

You claim Bedford, Hitchin Cmabridge would take 45 mins. You then claim thats longer than the X5 bus takes. The X5 takes 75 mins from Bedford to Cambridge.

75 *off-peak*. In the morning peak, more like 120.

 

[A0]

Depending upon the route E-W rail takes at Sandy, the station may need a total rebuild anyway

I'd expect a solution something like Nuneaton - where the Birmingham - Leicester line was put on a flyover over the WCML and onto two new platforms - that is the most likely scenario and minimises disruption to the ECML.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Do you make up all of your "facts"?

Firstly the suggesed route via Luton does not go to Bedford. It's bletchley, Milbrook, new chord to MML, Luton, Stevenage, etc.

You claim Bedford, Hitchin Cmabridge would take 45 mins. You then claim thats longer than the X5 bus takes. The X5 takes 75 mins from Bedford to Cambridge. Last time I checked 75 is greater than 45 not less. So a train via Hitchin would still be much faster than the X5 bus.

There was no clear direction on whether a via Luton route would or wouldn't include Bedford. Pretty much everything published about EWR included Bedford - either way you'd still only be saving 5 or so mins if you pathed in south of Bedford via a new chord AND you'd lose any business from Bedford unless you built another new station. Not to mention the challenge that the MML from Bedford - St P is pretty much at capacity now, so the opportunities for non-stop high speed running along that stretch are limited without relieving either EMT or Thameslink of one of their paths. So I maintain you'd be looking at a journey time of circa 20 mins Bedford - Luton and probably 20 mins Luton - Stevenage.

On the Hitchin option - factor in you'd need a reversal at Hitchin to make that work OR another flyover to allow direct access to the Cambridge line and avoid Hitchin - so once again losing connectivity.

The fastest you'd be able to make Hitchin - Cambridge is 25 mins - take a look at the current services and the fastest is 33 mins which includes stops at Letchworth, Baldock & Royston. There are limited options to run fast from Hitchin to Cambridge - again the line is close to capacity - but lets assume there is a small amount of journey time improvement possible.

Again, Bedford - Hitchin is about 20 miles, so practically you'll struggle to get that much below 20 mins journey time. So 45 mins to cover Bedford - Hitchin - Cambridge is absolutely best case.

On the X5 - my mistake, I'm sure when I'd previously checked it wasn't that long.

 

[swt_passenger]

If interchange is the goal then you would want cross-platform interchange with the slow line platforms, and that either means 3 island platforms or a Welwyn Garden City-style platform layout (i.e. with the fast lines not having platforms) with single-track grade separation at either end to get the EWR tracks to the correct positions outside the ECML tracks.

Parallel cross platform interchange would only cover 50% of the four potential flows, as this new route introduces crossing lines rather than a simple junction, so they might as well just provide another island and a decent amount of interchange space.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd expect a solution something like Nuneaton - where the Birmingham - Leicester line was put on a flyover over the WCML and onto two new platforms - that is the most likely scenario and minimises disruption to the ECML.

I agree, and would point out that Nuneaton also had a curve added north of the flyover to provide a flying junction to the WCML north. If the EWR-ECML crossing was moved northwards to avoid the new housing north of Sandy then the same could potentially happen there. This would be useful for diversions and with the ECML having four tracks to Huntingdon a Cambridge-Huntingdon service could be a possibility. But these might not be enough to justify an extra curve - crossovers could be provided where the tracks were adjacent near Sandy station to allow limited through running.

Eastwards from Sandy I think it would diverge from the old route before Potton, going roughly eastwards through the flatter land of the Cam valley (but avoiding flood plain as far as possible) to join the Royston line somewhere near Shepreth.

 

[HowardGWR]

Eastwards from Sandy I think it would diverge from the old route before Potton, going roughly eastwards through the flatter land of the Cam valley (but avoiding flood plain as far as possible) to join the Royston line somewhere near Shepreth.

Yes, the old route was a bit of a wander north, it seems, and not much apparent reason for going so far north (anyone know why?) - but I don't know much about the geography. I see your point about the Cam valley.

I suppose your route would have to be careful to avoid Wimpole Hall and its Avenue (although the A603 blasts straight across it). Being National Trust-owned, one would not care to annoy that organisation, as they can declare land as 'inalienable'.

 

[A0]

Eastwards from Sandy I think it would diverge from the old route before Potton, going roughly eastwards through the flatter land of the Cam valley (but avoiding flood plain as far as possible) to join the Royston line somewhere near Shepreth.

I suspect they'll look to avoid linking into the Hitchin - Cambridge line mainly due to capacity constraints along there and at Royston Junction.

I'd have thought trying to take back a bit of the old alignment in Trumpington and linking up to the mainline near Addenbrooks would be more likely - OK that would mean re-routing part of the guided busway down there, but that's easier.

Then they need to find a new alignment to avoid the radio telescopes.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I suspect they'll look to avoid linking into the Hitchin - Cambridge line mainly due to capacity constraints along there and at Royston Junction.

I'd have thought trying to take back a bit of the old alignment in Trumpington and linking up to the mainline near Addenbrooks would be more likely - OK that would mean re-routing part of the guided busway down there, but that's easier.

Then they need to find a new alignment to avoid the radio telescopes.

Isn't the radio telescope disused? I vaguely remember Cambridge University agreeing they'd give it up for the sake of the line, but that might be conjured out of false memory.

 

[edwin_m]

I suppose replacing the busway is theoretically possible. No sign of a bridge where the old alignment crosses the M11 though.

Also this route would not serve the suggested new station near Addenbrooke's.

 

[A0]

I suppose replacing the busway is theoretically possible. No sign of a bridge where the old alignment crosses the M11 though.

Also this route would not serve the suggested new station near Addenbrooke's.

Building new bridges under motorways isn't particularly challenging - an example I'm familiar with is the A43 under the M1 at Northampton where a second carriageway was added using a second bridge. There have been other examples.

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect they'll look to avoid linking into the Hitchin - Cambridge line mainly due to capacity constraints along there and at Royston Junction.

I'd have thought trying to take back a bit of the old alignment in Trumpington and linking up to the mainline near Addenbrooks would be more likely - OK that would mean re-routing part of the guided busway down there, but that's easier.

Then they need to find a new alignment to avoid the radio telescopes.

And find a way to cross the M11, as there is no sign of a bridge. The embankment may or may not be high enough to thrust-bore something without taking the railway formation too low (as it's pretty near the Cam so almost certainly on floodplain).

By Royston Junction I take it you mean Shepreth Branch Junction, where the Royston line (originally the GER Shepreth branch) leaves the line towards Bishops Stortford. Unless there has been recent development there's probably enough space to grade-separate that, and although this would be expensive it would be worthwhile to avoid a large section of new alignment.

 

[The Planner]

Building new bridges under motorways isn't particularly challenging - an example I'm familiar with is the A43 under the M1 at Northampton where a second carriageway was added using a second bridge. There have been other examples.

That had the advantage of the first bridge being an old railway alignment too, the second was pipe jacked under IIRC.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That had the advantage of the first bridge being an old railway alignment too, the second was pipe jacked under IIRC.

Yes. Building a bridge under an existing motorway where none previously existed is more difficult.

 

[HowardGWR]

I suppose replacing the busway is theoretically possible. No sign of a bridge where the old alignment crosses the M11 though.

Also this route would not serve the suggested new station near Addenbrooke's.

Also, your route spares the M11 crossing problem and expense.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Also, your route spares the M11 crossing problem and expense.

But it would mean Trumpington Park & Ride would have to be rebuilt. However, that section of the busway seems a little pointless, really. It's too short to be of much use.

A Cambridge Parkway station sited there could work well, though.

 

[Blamethrower]

Could the guided bus line be shared with trains?

Trains = fast, buses = slow

Also serves the science park, notoriously difficult for traffic. If there was, I would certainly consider employment opportunities in Cambridge

 

[CdBrux]

I wonder how much consideration would be given to finding an alignment that allows for an intermediate station between Sandy & Cambridge at a good location for a new town? For example the former RAF Bassingbourn? Government is keen to find uses for old MoD sites, it's already on a decentish road, stick a rail station there with good access to Cambridge and hey presto, great development opportunity from which some of the monies can help fund the line!

 

[TheKnightWho]

Could the guided bus line be shared with trains?

Trains = fast, buses = slow

Also serves the science park, notoriously difficult for traffic. If there was, I would certainly consider employment opportunities in Cambridge

I don't see how that could possibly work.

I can see the guided busway being replaced in south Cambridge where it's very short and no more useful than a train would be (assuming a decent frequency). However, in the north it's very much to stay, unless the government decides on longer distance journeys needing use of that corridor. Not going to happen unless we see another east-west corridor (Cambridge-Huntingdon-Kettering-Market Harborough-Rugby-Birmingham) being necessary. I can't see that happening any time soon, if ever.

 

[a good off]

This is the route that I'd go for. It avoids villages, is relatively flat and direct. A Royston Parkway station could be built on Bassingbourn Barracks MOD site. Foxton Level crossing would have to be replaced with a flyover.

 

[Trog]

Could the guided bus line be shared with trains?

Trains = fast, buses = slow

What sort of guided bus? One mounted on a railway wagon underframe maybe?

 

[HowardGWR]

This is the route that I'd go for. It avoids villages, is relatively flat and direct. A Royston Parkway station could be built on Bassingbourn Barracks MOD site. Foxton Level crossing would have to be replaced with a flyover.

But do you avoid the Wimpole Hall Avenue (see earlier post)?

 

[Hadders]

Could the guided bus line be shared with trains?

Trains = fast, buses = slow

Also serves the science park, notoriously difficult for traffic. If there was, I would certainly consider employment opportunities in Cambridge

A guided bus on a rail line. That'll be a Pacer then

 

[edwin_m]

This is the route that I'd go for. It avoids villages, is relatively flat and direct. A Royston Parkway station could be built on Bassingbourn Barracks MOD site. Foxton Level crossing would have to be replaced with a flyover.

Pretty much my thinking east of Sandy. Foxton needs sorting out whatever happens, and avoiding a new route all the way into Cambridge would pay for a lot of things.

I think I'd use the old alignment for a short distance through Sandy station, but not the old westward divergence over the ECML which has been built over immediately beyond. Instead I'd swing the route off eastwards into open country a bit further north, then back across the ECML at a sensible curve radius and angle of skew. This arrangement allows east<>north and west<>south trains via crossovers or (less likely) connections onto the ECML slow lines at the overbridge. Either would be easier than the curves needed to link the routes if they cross nearly perpendicularly.

After that it would stay north of the Sandy built-up area and take the best line through the buildings that straggle northwards out of Blunham, to pick up the old route at the curve south of Great Barford.

I'll put the crayons away now.

 

[a good off]

But do you avoid the Wimpole Hall Avenue (see earlier post)?

Yes, it skirts the bottom edge.

 

[route:oxford]

Yes. Building a bridge under an existing motorway where none previously existed is more difficult.

Maybe in England...

But it was managed in under the Edinburgh bypass with minimal disruption.

http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/new...stone-for-borders-railway-at-city-bypass.aspx

 

[aylesbury]

Cant see connections to the EC slow moving traffic not wanted, also is there not to be a Cambridge North if you have to many stations they will abstract traffic from each other and defeat the object of their being built. The busway is a success and could be extended around the city with other extensions built on to it to improve access into town.

 

[snowball]

Maybe in England...

But it was managed in under the Edinburgh bypass with minimal disruption.

http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/new...stone-for-borders-railway-at-city-bypass.aspx

It has been done in numerous places in England too.

 

[swt_passenger]

Maybe in England...

But it was managed in under the Edinburgh bypass with minimal disruption.

http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/new...stone-for-borders-railway-at-city-bypass.aspx

They pushed a concrete box under the M1 to provide a second A43 carriageway (two additional lanes) quite a while ago, that caused far less disruption than the Edinburgh bypass, which included an offline temporary road.

 

[NotATrainspott]

The guided busway now terminates in the new Trumpington Meadows housing development, so it wouldn't be easy to re-open it for EWR. Bisecting a new housing development wouldn't be as easy as just CPO'ing the houses directly in the way, since access routes need to be kept open and disruption to lineside neighbours minimised. Using the existing branch would appear to be a less improbable option, although the tight curve and flat junction at Shelford wouldn't be ideal. If there's going to be major works involving CPO and demolition of housing, it might be better to focus them on upgrading this part of the line so that the line to Hitchin benefits as well. North of the junction it appears that four-tracking would be possible all the way to the station.