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

[GRALISTAIR]

On a positive note I see the TDNS recommendation is that EWR is electrified.

 

[bspahh]

On a positive note I see the TDNS recommendation is that EWR is electrified.

This is the Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy Interim report

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Traction-Decarbonisation-Network-Strategy-Interim-Programme-Business-Case.pdf

Page 212 says "A new section is being provided between Bedford and Cambridge, which may be delivered electrified."

It also refers to "Bletchly". Perhaps they will spell check the final report

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Page 17 gives a whole paragraph on EWR assuming it will be electrified to some extent. Page 38 mentions EWR in passing. Page 79 has a map showing Oxford to Bedford electrified. Page 83 and Page 86 also sow a lot of electrification of the route. Page 208 gives a higher detail map showing it too.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It also refers to "Bletchly". Perhaps they will spell check the final report

It's OK, they didn't spell-check the sign by the bridge over the WCML at Denbigh South.

 

[eMeS]

Page 17 gives a whole paragraph on EWR assuming it will be electrified to some extent. Page 38 mentions EWR in passing. Page 79 has a map showing Oxford to Bedford electrified. Page 83 and Page 86 also sow a lot of electrification of the route. Page 208 gives a higher detail map showing it too.

Living close to the Marston Vale line, the suggestions about electrification suggest that I ought to be recording its present state without wires and pylons etc. Just by chance, in the 1950s I was living close to the Wilmslow to Manchester line via Gatley before the first pylons were erected. I'd just been given my first camera so have B&W snaps of that line before electrification, showing the embankment south of Gatley with just telegraph poles.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

That would be great for the record especially if you posted some on this forum.

 

[tankertop]

Joined up thinking? In Britain? Have you been drinking too much?
On a more serious note, I would have thought that there would most likely just be a simple bridge crossing between the road and railway; the problem is, we don't know where that crossing might be, and I suspect HE don't know either. Hopefully there is a clause is the A428 build contract allowing such a change of scope as and where necessary.

Actually, one can make a well-educated guess at to where it will cross. Based on what I gleaned from their roadshow, I suspect this will be the most likely alignment after the line has looped over the top of Bedford. After leaving Ravensden my guess is it will go north of Great Barford and Blunham to an interchange station near Tempsford Airfield. The airfield was earmarked for residential development by Central Beds Council in its 2016/2017 Call for Sites exercise. The site was dropped when the final plan was adopted but representatives from Homes England and the largest housebuilders have been seen there, after the preferred corridor was announced earlier this year. Renhold Parish Council believes this to be the likely route too, judging by its consultation response to EWR. No smoke without fire...[/QUOTE]

 

[Class 170101]

So if you have to build it anyway, and the real issue is Bletchley- MK capacity, then why not combine the Aylesbury service with the Marston Vale and get people to change at Bletchley. A lack of direct Aylesbury-MK services wouldn't seem ideal, but if the changes are slick, it avoids or at least defers some expensive and disruptive work on the WCML.

Especially if the Aylesbury-MK service would need to be some older DMU that'd otherwise look like a rolling roadblock compared to the new 730s.

Certainly if Bletchley to MK is a capacity problem I would support an Aylesbury to Bedford service to start with and then once the WCML is relieved of Avanti services (to HS2) I would split the service at Bletchley and have a Bedford to MK service (maybe to start back at Cambridge). and a separate Aylesbury to MK service (maybe to run towards Northampton and London / Old Oak Common). Where these services should be able to find capacity on the WCML post HS2 stage 1 opening.

 

[work-traveller]

Supplementary question, then: this connection requirement will presumably continue to be met via the existing rump of the Bicester to Bletchley line during HS2 construction. Will it be necessary to retain it once HS2 (and EWR2) are in place?

In the permanent case, there is no connection between the HS2 mainline and the MCJ3/4 line, rather there is a turnout from the HS2 mainline into the HS2 Calvert depot, which passes under the OXD line via a portal structure. The is regulating loop on the north side of the OXD line, that coincides with the HS2 Calvert depot. That regulating loop then has a turn out at both ends to the HS2 Calvert depot - this is long term HS2/conventional line connection.

 

[edwin_m]

In the permanent case, there is no connection between the HS2 mainline and the MCJ3/4 line, rather there is a turnout from the HS2 mainline into the HS2 Calvert depot, which passes under the OXD line via a portal structure. The is regulating loop on the north side of the OXD line, that coincides with the HS2 Calvert depot. That regulating loop then has a turn out at both ends to the HS2 Calvert depot - this is long term HS2/conventional line connection.

Do we know what the temporary connection looks like before this is implemented? My post wasn't intended to imply that we knew that, merely that there would have to be some sort of rail unloading facility before they, er, start unloading stuff off rail. For economy the contractor will want to build the permanent connection early rather than building and removing one or more temporary ones, but the logistics of the build may make that impossible.

 

[The Planner]

Do we know what the temporary connection looks like before this is implemented? My post wasn't intended to imply that we knew that, merely that there would have to be some sort of rail unloading facility before they, er, start unloading stuff off rail. For economy the contractor will want to build the permanent connection early rather than building and removing one or more temporary ones, but the logistics of the build may make that impossible.

Probably JCBs off the existing line at Calvert. I'm not aware of any temporary connections to the trace apart from at Washwood Heath. Ruislip rail head has gone.

 

[Class 170101]

Ruislip rail head has gone.

Is that because the line is now underground there? I seem to think the original plan was for it to be on the surface here.

 

[The Planner]

Is that because the line is now underground there? I seem to think the original plan was for it to be on the surface here.

No, just decided they didnt need it. It was to the north west of the HS2 tunnel portal there.

 

[bspahh]

At the annual conference for England's Economic Heartland on September 15th, East West Railway Company chair Rob Brighouse said that Covid-19 had increased the need for the East West Rail project.
There is a video here:

There is an article about it here:

East West Rail boss claims case for line is strengthened by Covid-19 | New Civil Engineer

Brighouse told England’s Economic Heartland Conference yesterday that the project’s route – along an important economic corridor between Oxford and

www.newcivilengineer.com

 

[hooverboy]

At the annual conference for England's Economic Heartland on September 15th, East West Railway Company chair Rob Brighouse said that Covid-19 had increased the need for the East West Rail project.
There is a video here:

There is an article about it here:

East West Rail boss claims case for line is strengthened by Covid-19 | New Civil Engineer

Brighouse told England’s Economic Heartland Conference yesterday that the project’s route – along an important economic corridor between Oxford and

www.newcivilengineer.com

At the annual conference for England's Economic Heartland on September 15th, East West Railway Company chair Rob Brighouse said that Covid-19 had increased the need for the East West Rail project.
There is a video here:

There is an article about it here:

East West Rail boss claims case for line is strengthened by Covid-19 | New Civil Engineer

Brighouse told England’s Economic Heartland Conference yesterday that the project’s route – along an important economic corridor between Oxford and

www.newcivilengineer.com

does seem rather curious that they aren't going for best connectivity,best connectivity would be for sure oxford/mkc/bedford/cambridge,but it's still a project being done on a shoestring and trying to sugar coat old routes which are not exactly relevant these days
it is still an issue for east west travel given connections.these days commuting tims and minutes count.

for bedford-cambridge it's an absolute no brainer once complete,that's an improvement of halving journey times...bedford-mkc is still a problem

1tph is not at all ambitious.we should be at least looking at a decent capacity 30 minute off peak/weekend clockface or 20 minute weekday peak service

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Sep 2020 ==

with respect to the gentleman talking about cycleways,sure it is a noble goal, but cycleways are good for very short distance inter-town travel.yes it works if you go the other side of town to asda's with a couple of panniers of groceries,but it's not really viable for inter region travel or commerce. a decent cycleway with luggage is probably 20 mile radius maximum, bedford-cambridge is double that...it's a nice leisure ride but not fit for purpose with everyday essentials....we aren't africa where we have to travel half a day to get a bucket of water or a pail of wheat.

 

[ashkeba]

a decent cycleway with luggage is probably 20 mile radius maximum, bedford-cambridge is double that...

No, Bedford-Cambridge is 31 miles on current minor/B roads and bikeways and could be shorter along the railway. EWR ought to have cycleways alongside but I agree it's not an alternative to EWR for many uses.

 

[DarloRich]

Living close to the Marston Vale line, the suggestions about electrification suggest that I ought to be recording its present state without wires and pylons etc. Just by chance, in the 1950s I was living close to the Wilmslow to Manchester line via Gatley before the first pylons were erected. I'd just been given my first camera so have B&W snaps of that line before electrification, showing the embankment south of Gatley with just telegraph poles.

That would be great for the record especially if you posted some on this forum.

Here you go: https://www.flickr.com/photos/darlo2009/albums/72157644647048449

 

[jfowkes]

Residents create 'alternative routes' for East West Rail line near Cambridge

East West Rail announced a 'preferred route' earlier this year but a campaign group is trying to come up with its own set of route options

www.cambridge-news.co.uk

This is interesting. I quote from the above article:

"A group of residents is attempting to influence the route that will be taken by East West Rail as it passes south of Cambridge.

The recently formed Cambridge Approaches group says that now is the time for residents to make their voices heard on where the planned railway line will go, warning against waiting for the public consultation expected this winter."

This could be a good thing for the railway, to better reflect local needs and get some good PR. But honestly I'm worried that it's some NIMBYs who will just add delay and expense.

 

[eMeS]

Here you go: https://www.flickr.com/photos/darlo2009/albums/72157644647048449

Well! What an excellent record of the line!

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Well! What an excellent record of the line!

I agree. Fantastic.

 

[camflyer]

Residents create 'alternative routes' for East West Rail line near Cambridge

East West Rail announced a 'preferred route' earlier this year but a campaign group is trying to come up with its own set of route options

www.cambridge-news.co.uk

This is interesting. I quote from the above article:

"A group of residents is attempting to influence the route that will be taken by East West Rail as it passes south of Cambridge.

The recently formed Cambridge Approaches group says that now is the time for residents to make their voices heard on where the planned railway line will go, warning against waiting for the public consultation expected this winter."

This could be a good thing for the railway, to better reflect local needs and get some good PR. But honestly I'm worried that it's some NIMBYs who will just add delay and expense.

Indeed - if the group is going to actively engage with the process to find the best alignment then great. If they are just going to object to everything then no so good.

Their full map is here: https://cambridgeapproaches.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Screenshot-2020-09-07-at-17.23.58.png

Personally, I don't have a strong preference one way or the other

 

[DarloRich]

Well! What an excellent record of the line!

I agree. Fantastic.

cheers - one of the benefits of living less than 2 minutes from the line! I will have to refresh it a bit once things get more normal.

 

[mr_jrt]

I wonder if EWR ends up running along the more southerly routings it improves the case to reopen Harston station.

 

[jfowkes]

Here you go: https://www.flickr.com/photos/darlo2009/albums/72157644647048449

Very nice! I grew up in Kempston, basically right next to where the MML crossed the MV. Lots of memories of watching the trains and taking them to Milton Keynes and to Woburn Sands to go mountain biking in the woods.

I'm just about old enough to remember the old 117s and 121s that preceded the 150s.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Sep 2020 ==

Indeed - if the group is going to actively engage with the process to find the best alignment then great. If they are just going to object to everything then no so good.

Their full map is here: https://cambridgeapproaches.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Screenshot-2020-09-07-at-17.23.58.png

Personally, I don't have a strong preference one way or the other

The fact that that map is a screenshot of an OS map where they've left the Windows taskbar at the bottom doesn't fill me with confidence.

I'm not sure about the route that crosses the Hitchin line near Harston and joins the mainline south of Great Shelford. Apart from serving Shelford, what would be the point? It's adding either a level crossing or an expensive bridge at Harston, and increasing journey times (and apparently requiring tunnelling) for not a massive amount of gain. I don't think Shelford is big enough to justify that - and if EWR trains end up serving Cambridge South, that's probably close enough to Shelford anyway - though obviously not as convenient as the station in the town.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure about the route that crosses the Hitchin line near Harston and joins the mainline south of Great Shelford. Apart from serving Shelford, what would be the point? It's adding either a level crossing or an expensive bridge at Harston, and increasing journey times (and apparently requiring tunnelling) for not a massive amount of gain. I don't think Shelford is big enough to justify that - and if EWR trains end up serving Cambridge South, that's probably close enough to Shelford anyway - though obviously not as convenient as the station in the town.

The possible advantage of that route is that a grade-separated junction may be easier south of Shelford than at the existing Shepreth Branch Junction or somewhere around Cambridge South station. However I agree it introduces extra distances and complications such as crossing the M11.

 

[ABB125]

Here you go: https://www.flickr.com/photos/darlo2009/albums/72157644647048449

Very interesting pictures, I've never been on the line, but hope to at some point.
I was rather more intrigued by the art installations on the Stockholm metro however! Again, I've never been (my family connections are all near Gothenburg); were those temporary or permanent?

Indeed - if the group is going to actively engage with the process to find the best alignment then great. If they are just going to object to everything then no so good.

Their full map is here: https://cambridgeapproaches.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Screenshot-2020-09-07-at-17.23.58.png

Personally, I don't have a strong preference one way or the other

I don't know the area so can't comment, but it seems that they haven't yet got past the "crayon" stage yet! (Note that isn't necessarily a criticism.)

 

[camflyer]

I'm not sure about the route that crosses the Hitchin line near Harston and joins the mainline south of Great Shelford. Apart from serving Shelford, what would be the point? It's adding either a level crossing or an expensive bridge at Harston, and increasing journey times (and apparently requiring tunnelling) for not a massive amount of gain. I don't think Shelford is big enough to justify that - and if EWR trains end up serving Cambridge South, that's probably close enough to Shelford anyway - though obviously not as convenient as the station in the town.

Yes, the map does look like something done in MS Paint.

The last thing the A10 needs in that area is another level crossing especially with the plans to bypass the Foxton crossing (though I'm not sure what the latest on that is) and there doesn't seem to be any value in routing so far south. If EWR is going to pick up a significant amount of Cambourne to Cambridge commuting then it needs to be as quick and direct as possible.

 

[mr_jrt]

I think the only reason some of those routes are provided is because of the limits of the general route option being developed. It had a shaded area including south of Shelford, so they needed to have a worked thorugh option that coved that section of the shaded area so they could investigate in advance the issues it would raise, like the need for a tunnel and a crossing, for example. I suspect their preferred option is whichever one doesn't come near them, but they want worked through details ready for whatever EWR throws at them, and you can't blame them for that. Chuck them a station and they might be more onboard

 

[edwin_m]

I think the only reason some of those routes are provided is because of the limits of the general route option being developed. It had a shaded area including south of Shelford, so they needed to have a worked thorugh option that coved that section of the shaded area so they could investigate in advance the issues it would raise, like the need for a tunnel and a crossing, for example. I suspect their preferred option is whichever one doesn't come near them, but they want worked through details ready for whatever EWR throws at them, and you can't blame them for that. Chuck them a station and they might be more onboard

Slightly the other way round. They need to investigate a good range of options so someone can't come along and say "ah but you didn't look at..." and set the whole process back to square one. So this includes some that they will be fairly sure they can discard but have to include just in case they come out better than expected or an unforeseen problem arises with one of the "obviously good" ones. But in drawing up the shaded area they will already have been thinking of what the plausible options are and making sure they enclose all of them.

 

[DarloRich]

Very nice! I grew up in Kempston, basically right next to where the MML crossed the MV. Lots of memories of watching the trains and taking them to Milton Keynes and to Woburn Sands to go mountain biking in the woods.

I'm just about old enough to remember the old 117s and 121s that preceded the 150s.

I am absolutely old enough (sigh) to remember them but didn't live here at the time!

Very interesting pictures, I've never been on the line, but hope to at some point.
I was rather more intrigued by the art installations on the Stockholm metro however! Again, I've never been (my family connections are all near Gothenburg); were those temporary or permanent?

OT but permanent art installations. Almost every station has some form of theme or art work. It was a good way to fill in a dark evening that started at about 1600!