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

[Chris125]

So they are no longer planning for through services beyond Aylesbury? That would seem incredibly short sighted.

The same is surely true for halving platform lengths from 212m to just 106m.

 

[mr_jrt]

Unintentional pun? As I said on the other thread, I suspect the Aylesbury situation comes from descoping the loops between Aylesbury & Princes Risborough (if you can't path it, it can't run). The platform situation my guess is that the situation at Bletchley where the new platforms have to sit on the raised structure over the road or somesuch means getting the full 8-car platforms is disproportionately expensive, hence the cut to 4, which is much easier. Given Bletchley is the major interchange, if that only has 4-car platforms then it stands to reason there's little point in any of the others having longer platforms.

I just hope they are just saving the cost of materials here though - the new platforms everywhere else need to be built so extension is just a case of throwing up the platform walls, filling the void with earth and surfacing. That means signal locations, track circuits, footbridges, structures, etc. need to be located as if the full length platforms were there!

 

[The Planner]

So they are no longer planning for through services beyond Aylesbury? That would seem incredibly short sighted.

The same is surely true for halving platform lengths from 212m to just 106m.

Depends how you spin it, if you just back and forward time from Aylesbury then it gives/has given the opportunity to remove the Risborough Aylesbury section out of scope. They will probably be through services, just not advertised as such, or like the WMT Northampton stops. As for the platforms, there will be passive provision to extend them at some point. They just need to hope it doesn't explode with passengers from day 1 so they are full and standing, though they have a get out clause with that as the SoS gave them the cost challenge.

 

[jimm]

So they are no longer planning for through services beyond Aylesbury? That would seem incredibly short sighted.

The same is surely true for halving platform lengths from 212m to just 106m.

Is it short-sighted? Are people in Milton Keynes and High Wycombe desperate to travel between the two places? I have my doubts - and no one would be using it as a way to get between London and MK.

The only new station between Aylesbury and MK will be Winslow, where the main flow will pretty obviously be to and from MK, rather than west to Oxford or south to Aylesbury/beyond.

The Aylesbury service is intended principally to make commuting from Aylesbury to Milton Keynes easier. Opening up through journeys to places south of Aylesbury was never central to the business case, more a case of a potential operational convenience, though one requiring a fair degree of work on the Aylesbury-Princes Risborough route to deliver.

'Just' 106m means platforms will be able to take a four-car 23m train (or 26m if someone wanted), typically seating 240 or so passengers.

There will be 4tph on the section between Winslow and Bletchley shared by Oxford and Aylesbury services - 2 Oxford-MK, 1 Oxford-Bedford, and 1 Aylesbury-MK - which should be enough capacity to be going on with for a new regional route, serving an area where the absence of any rail service and poor east-west road links have acted as a deterrent to the development of strong commuter or leisure traffic flows anyway, so trains are unlikely to be full from day one.

We still don't know what longer-distance services may use the route either. There's no reason why an XC-type train of more than 100m in length could not run from further north, call at MK Central or Bedford Midland and then go on to Oxford from day one of the line opening, calling en route only at Bicester and Oxford Parkway, which both have long platforms, and share some of the traffic with the 'local' services.

 

[edwin_m]

As far as I'm aware the plan was to extend the London-Wycombe-Aylesbury service to MK. Does this ever load to more than 4 cars anyway? If it does then it could be split at Aylesbury, as the longest unit on Chiltern is only 4 cars anyway (and it's not likely the push-pull sets would ever be used here).

These trains as they are now are likely to be most loaded close to London with more seats available further north. Through-routeing them with trains that would otherwise start at Aylesbury is likely to increase ridership (some, even if not many, passengers from Wycombe and Risborough to MK attracted by the through service and using those empty seats). It probably also reduces operating costs as there won't be two sets of trains sitting unproductively in Ayslesbury during turnarounds.

 

[CyrusWuff]

As far as I'm aware the plan was to extend the London-Wycombe-Aylesbury service to MK. Does this ever load to more than 4 cars anyway? If it does then it could be split at Aylesbury, as the longest unit on Chiltern is only 4 cars anyway (and it's not likely the push-pull sets would ever be used here).

Due to platform lengths at Monks Risborough and Little Kimble, anything over four cars that's timetabled to stop at same has to have an appropriate number of vehicles locked out.

Similarly, due to platform lengths at Rickmansworth, six car formations down the Met either have to skip it or have the rear unit locked out.

 

[richieb1971]

Sorry to change subject. Of the central routes proposed both sandy and Hitchin routes are on the table. There is nothing in the notes which explains where on the BBM each route departs eastwards and even the option to steer east near Oakley is still on the table but again it does not state where exactly. Of the routes proposed I can't see a better one than a parkway station south of Bedford. If in the unlikely event the old st John's is resurrected it's going to cause a lot of hassle for residents. But if it does you will need parking and the land opposite prebend street is close enough for that purpose.

 

[Tobbes]

Sorry to change subject. Of the central routes proposed both sandy and Hitchin routes are on the table.

Confused here - I thought it was already decided to go via Sandy and then there was a preference to join the Hitchin - Cambs line at a point tbd? (I'd prefer to go north via Camboune and take over the busway to come in via the Science Park, but anyway....)

EWR themselves say this: "Work is now continuing to identify a more detailed route within this chosen [ie, via Sandy] corridor, and following this work, there will be a full public consultation on the proposals." https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/central-section-overview/

 

[richieb1971]

The document was linked above with the map I posted. It details bcr ratios and nominates two routes and then breaks that down further. It never states a route was chosen.

 

[Tobbes]

The document was linked above with the map I posted. It details bcr ratios and nominates two routes and then breaks that down further. It never states a route was chosen.

Thanks @richieb1971 but weren't these maps from considerably earlier in the process?

 

[richieb1971]

They were but are still part of the current talks. Surely irrelevant docs get discarded?

 

[KingDaveRa]

I'm intrigued why the existing Aylesbury - Marylebone via Amersham services can't be extended up to MK? Surely that'd be simpler without having to mess with infrastructure and pathing on the single-track to Risboro?

To me, it seems like a logical idea relative to extending the HW services, as it'd mean people from MK able to travel down onto very good connections with LU services (namely Met and Jubilee). I can't entirely imagine many people from HW area travelling out towards MK; my experience is they tend to go toward London or Reading/Slough.

Of course, this is a horribly simplistic analysis, so I'm sure there's more to it than that. I'm just curious why that option isn't the chosen one.

 

[edwin_m]

They were but are still part of the current talks. Surely irrelevant docs get discarded?

The earlier studies will be retained and most project will keep them on their websites, possibly in an archive area. It is helpful when someone asks "why didn't you look at the route via X Y and Z" to be able to point to a report that shows that it was looked at, and records the reasons why something else was taken forward instead.

Also, of necessity, detailed maps tend to be kept very confidential until late in the process when the preferred route is formally announced. This is because if people see it going through their houses they will be upset and/or claim compensation from the public purse, neither of which is desirable especially if the route in question is just an option that gets discarded later.

 

[The Ham]

I'm intrigued why the existing Aylesbury - Marylebone via Amersham services can't be extended up to MK? Surely that'd be simpler without having to mess with infrastructure and pathing on the single-track to Risboro?

To me, it seems like a logical idea relative to extending the HW services, as it'd mean people from MK able to travel down onto very good connections with LU services (namely Met and Jubilee). I can't entirely imagine many people from HW area travelling out towards MK; my experience is they tend to go toward London or Reading/Slough.

Of course, this is a horribly simplistic analysis, so I'm sure there's more to it than that. I'm just curious why that option isn't the chosen one.

My guess is that by not including at party of EWR it doesn't come under their remit for any costs associated with doing so.

I would then guess that once EWR is built the next Chiltern franchise will probably be asked to provide a costed option for running this service, which pushes the costs of working out those costs into the franchise bidders. It also keeps things neat in that you don't have EWR running a Chiltern train over the extension, you just have Chiltern paying track access charges (as they would to NR elsewhere) to EWR.

The services get run, the setup is neater and EWR don't have to fund development of the services. It looks like a fairly good way of doing it. The will of course be down sides, like it could take several years before the service is run if the franchise bidders ask too much for running the service.

 

[NickBucks]

I'm intrigued why the existing Aylesbury - Marylebone via Amersham services can't be extended up to MK? Surely that'd be simpler without having to mess with infrastructure and pathing on the single-track to Risboro?

To me, it seems like a logical idea relative to extending the HW services, as it'd mean people from MK able to travel down onto very good connections with LU services (namely Met and Jubilee). I can't entirely imagine many people from HW area travelling out towards MK; my experience is they tend to go toward London or Reading/Slough.

Of course, this is a horribly simplistic analysis, so I'm sure there's more to it than that. I'm just curious why that option isn't the chosen one.

Isn't it the case, as is now, that there is no spare capacity on the LUL line from Harrow to Amersham ? This is the reason given by Chiltern that they cannot fit any more services on the Amersham line especially in the peaks. I think there would also be the need to fit LUL trip cocks on the rolling stock which would involve additional expense.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't it the case, as is now, that there is no spare capacity on the LUL line from Harrow to Amersham ? This is the reason given by Chiltern that they cannot fit any more services on the Amersham line especially in the peaks. I think there would also be the need to fit LUL trip cocks on the rolling stock which would involve additional expense.

Another problem is that if there is the slightest disruption on the WCML they'll end up full with Aylesbury passengers unable to board.

 

[PeterC]

Isn't it the case, as is now, that there is no spare capacity on the LUL line from Harrow to Amersham ? This is the reason given by Chiltern that they cannot fit any more services on the Amersham line especially in the peaks. I think there would also be the need to fit LUL trip cocks on the rolling stock which would involve additional expense.

In any event I assumed that the idea of extending services to MK was to provide a local / intra-regional connection not a new route into a London terminus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In any event I assumed that the idea of extending services to MK was to provide a local / intra-regional connection not a new route into a London terminus.

It is, though in the event of disruption (the same kind of disruption that would have Chiltern accepting LNR/VT Only tickets) I'm sure it'll get used. I would *expect*, though, that the main set of tickets from MK and environs would end up routed Watford Jn (or somesuch) rather than Any Permitted being valid both ways.

 

[si404]

I can't entirely imagine many people from HW area travelling out towards MK; my experience is they tend to go toward London or Reading/Slough.

More would go to HW than Am though. London passengers from MK or Bletchley would take the WCML, leaving Winslow being the only London flow needing catering.

In any event I assumed that the idea of extending services to MK was to provide a local / intra-regional connection not a new route into a London terminus.

Indeed - hence why they are the services planned to be diverted into OOC if they build the extra platforms there.

Another problem is that if there is the slightest disruption on the WCML they'll end up full with Aylesbury passengers unable to board.

And the via Amersham line is busy without that!

Isn't it the case, as is now, that there is no spare capacity on the LUL line from Harrow to Amersham ? This is the reason given by Chiltern that they cannot fit any more services on the Amersham line especially in the peaks.

Extension doesn't mean additional paths are needed. However, that those services are busy an there's demand for more service means adding more passengers might not be the best idea.

I think there would also be the need to fit LUL trip cocks on the rolling stock which would involve additional expense.

Pretty sure all Chiltern stock has the trip cocks - certainly at least one Mainline branded set does to run through Amersham at peak times to provide extra capacity vs a Turbo.

 

[swt_passenger]

In any event I assumed that the idea of extending services to MK was to provide a local / intra-regional connection not a new route into a London terminus.

Until the latest idea of a mini-franchise to operate an EWR service pattern there was a number of years when the published plan was to operate Marylebone to Milton Keynes via Princes Risborough. It was the way the service was described on the EWR website until very recently.

The current route diagram still refers to the potential extension to Marylebone, still via Princes Risborough rather than Amersham, (and also through Oxford to Reading), so I suspect nothing much has been decided.

https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/train-services/

 

[Class 170101]

Pretty sure all Chiltern stock has the trip cocks - certainly at least one Mainline branded set does to run through Amersham at peak times to provide extra capacity vs a Turbo.

Not all Chiltern trains do. Class 68s and Class 172s I don't think have tripcocks fitted. Class 165s do but I would uncertain whether Class 168s do. The former Class 170s at Chiltern won't have.

 

[jimm]

Not all Chiltern trains do. Class 68s and Class 172s I don't think have tripcocks fitted. Class 165s do but I would uncertain whether Class 168s do. The former Class 170s at Chiltern won't have.

No need for Class 68s to have tripcocks as they were never expected to work on the Amersham route anyway. The Class 172s can't have them, as the inside frame bogies don't allow them to be fitted.

All the Class 168s have tripcocks - they were fitted to the former TPE 170s as part of the conversion work.

But nothing to do with East West Rail.

 

[ainsworth74]

A reminder that this thread should be used for discussing the progress of East - West Rail not wider discussions of railway/government policy and procedure. I've split a fascinating (but very off-topic ) discussion around the time it takes for projects to be delivered into a new thread which can be found here.

Thread drift is natural (particularly on a thread for a project where they may be long gaps between announcements) but we do ask, in line with our Forum Rules, that members try to stay on topic. If you do want to discuss something that's not really relevant to an existing thread then just start a new one. No one is going to object to this! If you want to reply to a post to raise something that is off-topic you can hit the reply button on the relevant post, copy the quote that is generated and paste that quote into the same box you use to start a new thread.

Thanks,
ainsworth74

 

[richieb1971]

I think this thread should be split into 2 anyway. You have long periods of talk between phase 2 and then you have people chime in for phase 3 which is a long way off as well. The project is so big you can have conversations about what is happening now vs what is happening in 8-10 years time.

 

[alexx]

Last (but not least), I'm placing a bet that within two weeks there'll be a picture of a Bicester councillor or two standing in front of the level crossing at London Road complaining that nothing's being done about that. Bonus points if the representative for Launton gets to mention the missed opportunity to replace the railway bridge into the village.

Photos of Bicester councillors - and the crossing - but not in the same photo, are in this here article announcing the TWAO application: http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/16...er-with-rail-and-road-improvements-announced/

Looks like the strike point (is that the right phrase?) for Oxford-bound trains is going to be moved next year, which will help things greatly. At the moment, from personal experience, it comes down about three minutes before a train appears.

However, separate to the Oxford to Cambridge update and in the second bit of good transport news for the town, Oxfordshire County Council revealed there will be additional signalling work next year to reduce the amount of time the barriers are down at London Road.

The council spokesman added: "We, along with Network Rail and Cherwell District Council, are very keen to see a long term solution for London Road and the necessary funding that would be required.

"All understand the concerns of local people and want to be able to deliver the right measures to deal with the increase in trains using the level crossing."

 

[Chris125]

The current route diagram still refers to the potential extension to Marylebone, still via Princes Risborough rather than Amersham, (and also through Oxford to Reading), so I suspect nothing much has been decided.

https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/train-services/

That just looks like an error, or a page they've yet to update - the Network Rail EWR site has had both text and maps updated to remove references to through running beyond Aylesbury, as the following page in May 2017 and today shows.

Sadly it seems clear that a decision has been made to curtail services at Aylesbury, so the infrastructure could be de-scoped.

 

[Class 170101]

So one service terminates at Aylesbury from the north and another from the south (ie London)? Or have I mis-understood that?

 

[Tobbes]

So one service terminates at Aylesbury from the north and another from the south (ie London)? Or have I mis-understood that?

I guess I can understand this if the point was that unless there was a large price difference, it is hard to see why you would choose London - MK via Aylesbury over tge WCML, unless I'm missing the point.

 

[edwin_m]

I guess I can understand this if the point was that unless there was a large price difference, it is hard to see why you would choose London - MK via Aylesbury over tge WCML, unless I'm missing the point.

It's not about passengers travelling London-MK via Aylesbury. It's about operational efficiency of running a through train that doesn't have many end to end passengers but serves several markets on its journey. If it's been deleted then I would guess it's because someone has decided that issues on the Aylesbury-Risborough branch make it impossible.

 

[Tobbes]

It's not about passengers travelling London-MK via Aylesbury. It's about operational efficiency of running a through train that doesn't have many end to end passengers but serves several markets on its journey. If it's been deleted then I would guess it's because someone has decided that issues on the Aylesbury-Risborough branch make it impossible.

Thanks that seems perfectly reasonable if Aylesbury has the platforms to do it.