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

[richieb1971]

Does anyone hazard a guess on where this Bedford Parkway would be situated?

Sounds like the line diverges east of Kempston hardwick and aligns with the A421. At least with a Parkway station the parking won't (or shouldn't) be a problem anymore.



As for money, sounds incredibly expensive.

 

[Ianno87]

FWIW, I think the C2-2 and Bedford Parkway option could work well, especially if properly integrated with MML services.

What I am a little surprised about is the decision to go into Cambs from the south - it really feels like a missed opportunity (given that a new alignment is needed anyway) to get rid of the (stupidly shortsighted) busway in north Cambs and bring the railway through the Science Park. In the process, you could serve the rapidly growing Cambourne area and relieve the A428. Assuming that Addenbrookes/Cambridge South is built, you'd terminate the trains there (until you've got double track to Colchester via Haverhill and Sudbury, of course..... ).

Entering Cambridge from the south is driven by the ability to continue trains straight through Cambridge towards Ipswich & Norwich, rather than having to reverse.

As much as I'd personally prefer it to be a tram, the busway is very popular from St Ives, so to "get rid" of it would massively disbenefit St Ives and Huntingdon to the advantage of Cambourne. Again (broken record alert), the busway offers from the immediatr employment hinterland a frequency to, and penetration of, Central Cambridge that Heavy Rail cannot.

Plus, getting heavy rail through the middle of the Science Park will involve numerous complex bridgings of what were previously Level Crossings.

 

[richieb1971]

Well at least all the stops were made to make sure that Cambridge station is on the route however unpleasantly located.

 

[edwin_m]

What I am a little surprised about is the decision to go into Cambs from the south - it really feels like a missed opportunity (given that a new alignment is needed anyway) to get rid of the (stupidly shortsighted) busway in north Cambs and bring the railway through the Science Park. In the process, you could serve the rapidly growing Cambourne area and relieve the A428. Assuming that Addenbrookes/Cambridge South is built, you'd terminate the trains there (until you've got double track to Colchester via Haverhill and Sudbury, of course..... ).

The land becomes more hilly further north, and there would be a need to make new crossings of the M11 and/or A14 depending on route, rather than using the existing M11 crossing. The need for a direct route to Cambridge was also noted, and going far enough north to pick up the St Ives line would make a significantly longer route.

Based only on looking at the map, the obvious place for Beford Parkway is a little way south of the A421 where there is a roundabout on the A6 that doesn't seem to be doing much. This would keep the new line away from Shortstown and Cardington although it would probably have to go through some woodland on the way to Sandy.

 

[DarloRich]

MK station is very well placed right at the centre of MK. The problem is that it isn't well placed for the railway network. Hence the suggestion that MK should have been centred on Bletchley station instead.

but that is silly - building the main MK station at Bletchley disconnects the railway from the main source of revenue, much of the population and the main centre of commercial activity and makes using the train as less a attractive option.

Bletchley is a satellite of MK rather than any form of centre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you miss the point - he meant he would have shifted the new town south to centre on Bletchley.

But remember MKC was an after thought. They thought it didn't need a station - they were anti rail times.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[richieb1971]

I think you miss the point - he meant he would have shifted the new town south to centre on Bletchley.

But remember MKC was an after thought. They thought it didn't need a station - they were anti rail times.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Perhaps they thought MK wouldn't get as big as it is now. The thought of a 300,000 population city not having a station just blows my mind.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Could you say what part of the report gives you that impression?

Reading the report it looks fairly balanced between Options C1 and C2 to me

Option C1 route description

Bletchley - Bedford St Johns-Sandy- Cambridge

From Bletchley Station northwards on
the existing Bletchley to Bedford (BBM) Line then diverging immediately south of Bedford St. John onto the former Bedford to Sandy formation and continuing east over the ECML. A new station perpendicular to the existing Bedford St. John station would provide a Bedford stop and a relocated Sandy Station would be provided to the north of Sandy. Joining the SBR line near to Foxton Station the route then joins the BGK route north of Shelford Station and completes the C1-1 route at Cambridge Station.

Route length is 72km, with 38km of new twin track railway. Relocate Bedford St Johns Station and new split level Sandy ECML station. Route planning to consider 22 overbridges, 9 underbridges, and 39 culverts with landfill sites and Quarries, 8 watercourses, flood zones and alluvial deposits. Would generate an estimated 1.05million m3 earthwork surplus. Involves work near one SSSI. There are 7 Scheduled Monuments within 300m of the centreline of this potential route and 6 Grade II buildings; a path and cycle route is maintained along the former Bedford to Sandy railway route; and 33 residential, 7 industrial and 18 commercial buildings.

Option C2

Bletchley - Bedford Parkway-South Sandy- Cambridge

From Bletchley Station the route is on the existing BBM line until south of Bedford where it diverts to the east onto the potential new alignment crossing the MML and ECML, with new split level stations at Bedford Parkway and a relocated Sandy Station. It joins the existing SBR near to Foxton Station and joins the BGK route north of Shelford Station to complete the CC2-2 route at Cambridge Station.

Route is 50km long with 39km of new twin track railway, new split level stations at Bedford Parkway (south of Bedford at intersection of MML) and a new (south of) Sandy split level Station at ECML . Route planning to consider a 1000m viaduct. 3 overbridges, 24 underbridges, & 49 culverts are affected.

Within the Corridor there are landfill sites and quarries, watercourses, flood zones and alluvial deposits. Construction would generate an estimated 2.7million m3 earthwork surplus. Construction would divide RAF Bassingbourne Barracks. Within 300m of the centreline, there are 2 Ancient Woodlands, one Scheduled Monument, 16 Grade II listed buildings, 2 registered parks, numerous flooding areas, 2 Countryside Right of Way (CRoW), 13 residential, 6 industrial, and 7 commercial buildings.

Option C1 has a build cost of £1.361bn and a BCR of 1.9.

Option C2 has a build cost of £1.264bn and a BCR of 2.04

Journey times are the same so it boils down to is it worth spending the extra £100m serving central Bedford vs a parkway to the south. Didn't see any mention of direct Bedford to Cambridge journeys.

 

[richieb1971]

Sounds interesting.

C1 would go within 300-400 metres of my house if it used any of cycle path. I do actually prefer C1 because at least it goes through the town of Bedford.

But C2 has its advantages as well. It means anything going straight through Bedford will have a much higher line speed than if the trains went through the old St Johns at crawling speed.

Both create problems when it comes to what services you can run if no spur to the MML is included in the package.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Sounds interesting.

C1 would go within 300-400 metres of my house if it used any of cycle path. I do actually prefer C1 because at least it goes through the town of Bedford.

But C2 has its advantages as well. It means anything going straight through Bedford will have a much higher line speed than if the trains went through the old St Johns at crawling speed.

Both create problems when it comes to what services you can run if no spur to the MML is included in the package.

Agreed, that's why I think C1 is the better option over C2 as it would allow a Bedford Midland - St Johns - Sandy - Cambridge service to run. In an earlier post 796 you posted a satellite picture of the old St John's site. I have often wondered if a triangular station would be possible on that site?

Another thing that could be considered (depending on the exact allignment between Sandy and Cambridge) is wether a station at Potton is feasible for journies into Cambridge?

 

[richieb1971]

Agreed, that's why I think C1 is the better option over C2 as it would allow a Bedford Midland - St Johns - Sandy - Cambridge service to run. In an earlier post 796 you posted a satellite picture of the old St John's site. I have often wondered if a triangular station would be possible on that site?

Another thing that could be considered (depending on the exact allignment between Sandy and Cambridge) is wether a station at Potton is feasible for journies into Cambridge?

I read once that a triangular station similar to Shipley in Yorkshire was mentioned in official documents.

I hope they start laying rails on the Cambridge side first so that Bedford can be aligned last. C1 creates a potential car parking issue as the only place nearby that network rail could use would house less than 100 cars without building a multi storey. And the fact is projected passenger figures are unknown at this point. As I said before with C2 you get better line speed, faster train services, potentially more parking.. You also hit 2 birds with one stone as Wixams has been banging on and on for their station and I would imagine a parkway station would be in their neck of the woods.

Whilst I prefer C1 in some instances, C2 is the more marketable option in reality.

I couldn't find all the options until you mentioned C1-9 etc and found this online. I can't believe the Hitchin option isn't the cheapest (wouldn't be the fastest though, although going slightly south of Hitchin and joining the Royston line on the far side of the ECML wouldn't be too bad an option for speed and cost effectiveness).

Option Outline Alignment
C1-1 Bletchley – Bedford St Johns – Sandy – Cambridge
C1-8 Bletchley – Bedford Midland – Sandy – Cambridge
C1-9 Bletchley – Bedford Midland – Sandy* - Cambridge
C2-2 Bletchley – Bedford South Parkway – Sandy – Cambridge
M1-4H Bletchley – Bedford Midland – Hitchin – Cambridge
M1-4L Bletchley – Bedford Midland – Letchworth – Cambridge
M2-3H Bletchley – Bedford South Parkway – Hitchin – Cambridge
M2-3L Bletchley – Bedford South Parkway – Letchworth – Cambridge
*New site between existing Sandy and St Neots

 

[Class 170101]

For the re-siting of Sandy where would that be in relation to the town?

 

[richieb1971]

For the re-siting of Sandy where would that be in relation to the town?

Hazarding a guess just north of Sunderland Road industrial estate. So where the fields are.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

I read once that a triangular station similar to Shipley in Yorkshire was mentioned in official documents.

I hope they start laying rails on the Cambridge side first so that Bedford can be aligned last. C1 creates a potential car parking issue as the only place nearby that network rail could use would house less than 100 cars without building a multi storey. And the fact is projected passenger figures are unknown at this point. As I said before with C2 you get better line speed, faster train services, potentially more parking. You also hit 2 birds with one stone as Wixams has been banging on and on for their station and I would imagine a parkway station would be in their neck of the woods.

Whilst I prefer C1 in some instances, C2 is the more marketable option in reality.

The journey times are C1 and C2 options are the same 76/75 minutes fast and 79 semi fast so there is no clear advantage in terms of speed/travel time for either option.

 

[richieb1971]

The journey times are C1 and C2 options are the same 76/75 minutes fast and 79 semi fast so there is no clear advantage in terms of speed/travel time for either option.

I'm sure if a freight was passing Bedford Parkway it would travel through the station quicker than it would if it were passing St Johns. Same goes for passenger traffic that is not stopping at Bedford. During the old days when the railway triangle existed at St Johns around 1981 all the trains crawled at around 20mph max.

If I read correctly option C2 is the preferred choice, although I can't remember if any of the options is OFFICIALLY the chosen one.

 

[Tobbes]

I must have misunderstood C2 - I thought that it would us the old alignment through the original St John's station site?

 

[a good off]

With C2, there is a massive opportunity to use the MOD land at Bassingbourn Barracks to build a 'Royston Parkway' station with a massive car park off the A1198.

 

[MK Tom]

Do any of these options consider Cambourne at all? Here we have growing new town in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no long distance transport connections (the X5 goes straight past). It's already at town scale despite being branded as a village and is only going to get bigger.

 

[richieb1971]

I must have misunderstood C2 - I thought that it would us the old alignment through the original St John's station site?

From the way I read it, a spur will be directed to the Midland Mainline as far back as Kempston hardwick. Bedford Parkway will be a 2 tier station of sorts where the MML goes over and the EWR goes under.

Although no details are forth coming about the MML side. If the station was 2 tier it would mean creating an S bend on the MML for the slow tracks. Simply because the MML is SSFF (slow slow fast fast). The platform would need to be in the middle of the slows and fasts of which there is no room).

Do any of these options consider Cambourne at all? Here we have growing new town in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no long distance transport connections (the X5 goes straight past). It's already at town scale despite being branded as a village and is only going to get bigger.
Yesterday 22:49

If the Marston Vale trains could be extended East wards I suppose more stations could be supported. I Don't think the EWR would be interested in 100mph trains stopping at places like Cambourne though.

 

[MikePJ]

Do any of these options consider Cambourne at all? Here we have growing new town in the middle of nowhere with absolutely no long distance transport connections (the X5 goes straight past). It's already at town scale despite being branded as a village and is only going to get bigger.

All the options studied enter Cambridge from the south, which would mean a big diversion to serve Cambourne en route. A route via Cambourne (C3) was in the study but was evidently dropped because it didn't generate enough traffic.

Cambridge's City Deal plans involve improving Cambourne's bus links to Cambridge with a mixture of busway and bus priority schemes.

Cambourne's best hope for a station is probably an "A1198 Parkway" station near Bassingbourn - especially if Bassingbourn itself gets developed for housing.

 

[snowball]

An interim report of the Oxford-Cambridge road study has been published today:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...dge-expressway-strategic-study-interim-report

 

[Blamethrower]

An interim report of the Oxford-Cambridge road study has been published today:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...dge-expressway-strategic-study-interim-report

good stuff, I can't see why they would not use the new expressway as a way of sharing corridors, I think only 1 option suggests this.

Personally I would love to be able to get off the A421 expressway at the A5 and just drop into work

 

[richieb1971]

I snatched this from the EWR website a few days ago.

Can't find it anymore. I guess because it has lines on a map they took it down.


Anyway here it is -

So its exactly as I predicted. Go east after passing Kempston Hardwick with C2-2. Or C1-1 using the old alignment.

 

[CdBrux]

I wonder if there is some fact behind this or just some political posturing by NR to assure funding

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...nger-third-most-important-project-in-country-

first few para's:

Council leaders along the proposed East West Rail route are seeking a meeting with Sir Peter Hendy to discuss concerns that the project may be postponed beyond 2024.

The much-delayed project was originally due to open in 2017, then 2019, before being pushed back until the end of CP6.

There were signs of progress at the end of March when Network Rail announced its preferred route for the central section, through the Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge corridor.

However, Cllr Rodney Rose, deputy leader of Oxfordshire County Council and chair of the East West Rail Consortium, which represents the councils involved, told RTM: “It’s already going up to 2024 and that might slip a bit now. I’m getting very concerned about it. It’s a bit of a blow to the local authorities that have put money in.”

The East West Rail link has been described as the third most important rail project in the country, after HS2 and Crossrail.

When asked if it was still being treated as such, Cllr Rose answered bluntly: “No.”

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Don't know but it is still worrying. Delay followed by more delay. Could just be posturing though. Roads never have the same worry do they?

 

[jimm]

I wonder if there is some fact behind this or just some political posturing by NR to assure funding

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...nger-third-most-important-project-in-country-

Looks as though the Rail Technology story is a follow-up to this one from the Oxford Mail yesterday.

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14...hase_of_East_West_rail_link_could_be_delayed/

Don't know but it is still worrying. Delay followed by more delay. Could just be posturing though. Roads never have the same worry do they?

Don't they? Have you ever heard of the project to bypass the Air Balloon roundabout on the A417 in Gloucestershire?

http://a417missinglink.co.uk/timeline/

 

[richieb1971]

Some people are already happy with the progress already made. I wouldn't be happy with the progress already made. Since this thread started I've not seen or heard anything i would consider 'on schedule'.

 

[snowball]

Don't know but it is still worrying. Delay followed by more delay. Could just be posturing though. Roads never have the same worry do they?

Don't they? Have you ever heard of the project to bypass the Air Balloon roundabout on the A417 in Gloucestershire?

http://a417missinglink.co.uk/timeline/

That's nothing to some road projects. The A556 bypass currently under construction, part of the main road route from London and Birmingham to Manchester, has been talked about since at least 1962. I could name others that have been repeatedly in and out of the programme over several decades.

 

[DarloRich]

Some people are already happy with the progress already made. I wouldn't be happy with the progress already made. Since this thread started I've not seen or heard anything i would consider 'on schedule'.

sadly that is because you have no idea about project delivery, funding, approvals, statutory consents, designs, public consultation, political machinations, resource conflicts etc etc etc.

 

[The Planner]

So has anything actually changed here? I thought Hendy said it was only going to get to GRIP 3 or 4 by the start of CP6? It was never going to open completely before 2022 based on that and having to be built alongside HS2.