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

[snowball]

I seem to remember court cases in the 1970s or 80s about whether traffic projections could be challenged at road inquiries.

 

[flitwickbeds]

But if the extra capacity leads within a few hundred metres to somewhere there is no capacity (Thameslink south of Bedford) then there is no point in having it, just a waste of public money.

I'm not saying definitely that this demolition is unnecessary, and I think I still agree route E looks best. But I'd say they haven't made a strong case for it as yet, and they risk being shot to pieces by the South of Bedford advocates and the BANANA faction or even losing the whole scheme if Westminster decides it's a hot potato and they'll spend the money further north instead.

Am I missing something? The two extra tracks north of Bedford (to make 6 in total) would lead to the Marston Vale section of track via St Johns Station and wouldn't interact with Thameslink at all, wouldn't they?

If the extra tracks didn't go in, the 4 existing tracks would have to be shared with EMR and EWR until the new curve east towards Cambridge. That would limit the number of trains both routes can run, mean that delays from one route would impact on the other, and mean timetable changes need to consider both routes.

Ensuring EWR is segregated from EMR north of Bedford eliminates all of these conflicts, and doesn't introduce any other conflict ij the Bedford area either.

 

[Steve Harris]

Am I missing something? The two extra tracks north of Bedford (to make 6 in total) would lead to the Marston Vale section of track via St Johns Station and wouldn't interact with Thameslink at all, wouldn't they?

If the extra tracks didn't go in, the 4 existing tracks would have to be shared with EMR and EWR until the new curve east towards Cambridge. That would limit the number of trains both routes can run, mean that delays from one route would impact on the other, and mean timetable changes need to consider both routes.

Ensuring EWR is segregated from EMR north of Bedford eliminates all of these conflicts, and doesn't introduce any other conflict ij the Bedford area either.

Yes, that is basically what the consultation document is stating.

I do note that at the Cambridge end, their not doing that between the new junction (proposed near Harston) and Shepreth Branch Junction. But instead going with the current 2 track railway which has 6tph? on it. I will agree that they propose 4 tracking between SBJ and Cambridge which should help with management/regulate train pathing though.

 

[edwin_m]

Am I missing something? The two extra tracks north of Bedford (to make 6 in total) would lead to the Marston Vale section of track via St Johns Station and wouldn't interact with Thameslink at all, wouldn't they?

If the extra tracks didn't go in, the 4 existing tracks would have to be shared with EMR and EWR until the new curve east towards Cambridge. That would limit the number of trains both routes can run, mean that delays from one route would impact on the other, and mean timetable changes need to consider both routes.

Ensuring EWR is segregated from EMR north of Bedford eliminates all of these conflicts, and doesn't introduce any other conflict ij the Bedford area either.

It does, but my concern is whether this degree of segregation is necessary. The alternative is for EWR to share the Slow lines for a mile or so, with a junction north of the station so that EWR doesn't touch Thameslink so only conflicts with the soutbound EMR Corby service and freight. The project objective appears to be to allow 4TPH of freight but I'm questioning whether it is either possible or realistic for that freight service to operate southwards from Bedford. If the answer to either question is "no" then the six tracks are unnecessary.

I see Bedford Rail has now posted on this issue. Making some similar points to mine but seems to be saying the six tracks is needed at a lower level of freight traffic than I understood it to be. Ho hum, off to wade through the technical report again. We agree that the PR for this hasn't been well handled.

Private Site

Route E can be built without demolishing homes in the Poets area. Campaigners would be well advised to concentrate on pushing for that option. The overwhelming likelihood is that Route E will be built in some form or other – the question for Bedford now is what form it takes.

 

[Cantab26]

The project objective appears to be to allow 4TPH of freight but I'm questioning whether it is either possible or realistic for that freight service to operate southwards from Bedford. If the answer to either question is "no" then the six tracks are unnecessary.

The relevant project objective is to maintain the current 2/3 freight paths per hour on the MML whilst adding 4tph for the new EWR passenger services. The four track option cannot achieve this.

Hence, the five and six track options, but if you’re going to start demolishing houses anyway then the argument is that you might as well get the benefit of operational segregation and the possibility of future expansion of services out of it. The five track options would not allow for any future expansion.

 

[coppercapped]

Am I missing something? The two extra tracks north of Bedford (to make 6 in total) would lead to the Marston Vale section of track via St Johns Station and wouldn't interact with Thameslink at all, wouldn't they?

If the extra tracks didn't go in, the 4 existing tracks would have to be shared with EMR and EWR until the new curve east towards Cambridge. That would limit the number of trains both routes can run, mean that delays from one route would impact on the other, and mean timetable changes need to consider both routes.

Ensuring EWR is segregated from EMR north of Bedford eliminates all of these conflicts, and doesn't introduce any other conflict ij the Bedford area either.

Thank you. This is exactly what I wrote in my earlier post #5,173 . As soon as trains on one route use infrastructure the main purpose of which is to serve another route there will be conflicts and timetabling constraints.

If at all possible - don't do it. Why build in certain delays to a new stretch of railway?

 

[edwin_m]

The relevant project objective is to maintain the current 2/3 freight paths per hour on the MML whilst adding 4tph for the new EWR passenger services. The four track option cannot achieve this.

Hence, the five and six track options, but if you’re going to start demolishing houses anyway then the argument is that you might as well get the benefit of operational segregation and the possibility of future expansion of services out of it. The five track options would not allow for any future expansion.

Yes I see that now (technical report para 8.5.51).

For the Four Track option, EWR Co’s analysis has concluded that, even with southbound EMR stopping trains remaining on the Fast Lines and no growth in demand, it is unlikely to be possible to accommodate two freight trains per hour in any hour and it would not be possible to accommodate three freight trains per hour in any hour.

That "unlikely" is going to be subject to some scrutiny.

I do agree the five-track isn't worth pursuing.

 

[Cantab26]

I do agree the five-track isn't worth pursuing.

Let’s spend more and cause more disruption for less capacity and less flexibility.

Although, with current ‘management’ at number 10...

 

[Tobbes]

Am I alone in being impressed by EWR Co's vision in proposing six tracking north of Bedford to the junction? It is bold, visionary thinking to future proof the route that is great to see, and whilst ensuring that those affected are adequately compensated, I'm all for it.

 

[jfowkes]

Am I alone in being impressed by EWR Co's vision in proposing six tracking north of Bedford to the junction? It is bold, visionary thinking to future proof the route that is great to see, and whilst ensuring that those affected are adequately compensated, I'm all for it.

No, me too. We need more of this if we're ever going to increase rail use to the point we need to in order to make serious inroads into road use. Because climate change, environmental damage and air pollution are all things that are happening.

 

[mr_jrt]

Me three, think I said so at the time of the announcement. To be honest I'm still in shock at seeing something so forward thinking.

 

[Steve Harris]

No, me too. We need more of this if we're ever going to increase rail use to the point we need to in order to make serious inroads into road use. Because climate change, environmental damage and air pollution are all things that are happening.

Indeed. And NOT electrifying EWR is really going to help air pollution isn't it !

 

[Tobbes]

Indeed. And NOT electrifying EWR is really going to help air pollution isn't it !

Yes, this is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Cantab26]

Indeed. And NOT electrifying EWR is really going to help air pollution isn't it !

Yes, this is utterly ridiculous.

Write to the Treasury if you want electrification. This topic might be more appropriate in the speculative ideas thread in the meantime

 

[cle]

Am I alone in being impressed by EWR Co's vision in proposing six tracking north of Bedford to the junction? It is bold, visionary thinking to future proof the route that is great to see, and whilst ensuring that those affected are adequately compensated, I'm all for it.

It seems overkill in terms of platforms and lines - so yes, future projected growth in services on both MML and EWR would be encouraging to see. TL too. But I like the approach to conflicts and flexibility. Bedford station itself will feel massive - hopefully usage grows and matches the scale!

But I was surprised to see such ambition. It seems incongruous with some of the more modest elements of the project, west of there.

 

[Steve Harris]

Write to the Treasury if you want electrification.

How do you know I haven't already ?

 

[Cantab26]

How do you know I haven't already ?

I haven’t the faintest idea.

The key point is that as things stand electrification is not EWR Co’s decision to make and is not within its gift.

If people want electrification, they must write to the Treasury.

 

[richieb1971]

I'm lost. If EMR had a southbound fast platform the only trains using the slows would be freight right now. Of which at times several hours pass without a single freight going through Bedford.


Yesterday, 8 freight trains used the slow platforms at Bedford between 9am and 8pm, one of them is the OHLE test train. Without EMR using those platforms it seems to me the 2 tracks north of Bedford are incredibly under utilised.
And those that are pathed but did not run, quite a few run through P4 which is the fast line.

 

[ainsworth74]

A reminder that for construction updates on the Oxford to Bletchley section we have a dedicated thread which can be found here. Please try and make sure all posts relevant to the construction of that section are kept to that thread. Thanks!

 

[gallafent]

Indeed. And NOT electrifying EWR is really going to help air pollution isn't it !

Well, I believe much (most?) of the reduced air pollution from rail (compared to road, per passenger / per tonne of freight) comes from a modal shift from road to rail, so yes, it will help air pollution a lot, even using diesel power!

Clearly, electrification will improve that contribution further, but the main win is in getting people out of their cars (and even buses, though the win is smaller there, indeed I wonder what the CO2 output for a passenger on the X5 Oxford->MK is, compared to that from the same passenger using a DMU on EWR) and into the trains, even if they're diesel-powered for now. Also of course any transfer of freight from road to rail that's facilitated / encouraged by the new link is also a big win (again, even if diesel hauled).

 

[Bald Rick]

indeed I wonder what the CO2 output for a passenger on the X5 Oxford->MK is, compared to that from the same passenger using a DMU on EWR)

That depends on passenger loadings of each. But there won’t be much in it - if anything the X5 will be better.

 

[gallafent]

That depends on passenger loadings of each. But there won’t be much in it - if anything the X5 will be better.

I was thinking that might be the case. Similar efficiency of turning diesel into torque, for the motive power, but trains are much heavier ………

 

[richieb1971]

I'm sure the uptake will be good on EWR. Just the novelty of being able to ride a new railway in this area will get people to try it. Not sure about commuters though. There will be people changing at Bletchley and Bedford instead of London in some cases so there is potential for more people being on the train than the x5.

 

[jfowkes]

I was thinking that might be the case. Similar efficiency of turning diesel into torque, for the motive power, but trains are much heavier ………

But steel-on-steel friction is much lower than rubber-on-tarmac. And the train will generally do less accelleration/decelleration, which are the bits that eat fuel.

 

[Bald Rick]

I was thinking that might be the case. Similar efficiency of turning diesel into torque, for the motive power, but trains are much heavier ………

Much, much heavier on a per seat basis. A typical road coach is around 13-14 tonnes with 50-60 seats. A 3 car Class 170 weighs 10 times as much with 3-4 times as many seats.

But steel-on-steel friction is much lower than rubber-on-tarmac. And the train will generally do less accelleration/decelleration, which are the bits that eat fuel.

But the trains will go faster, which will burn more fuel. And have a lot more ‘hotel’ power demand. Also, having 39 litres of MTU idling at stations etc isn’t particularly efficient though.

Another measure is fuel efficiency. A 3 car 170 will do around 1mpg, with variation depending on duty cycle. A modern road coach will do anywhere between 5-12mpg, again depending on duty cycle.

 

[Mag_seven]

We appear to be drifting a bit off topic again - can we go back to discussing east west rail progress and consultation updates please.

Thanks

 

[Mark24]

I think using the term "easy option" is both unhelpful and wrong.

NR have followed the correct legal process for doing this - the same process any other body wishing to do works which result in road or footpath closures need to follow. And that's how it should be - that way any such closures are subject to consultations and need to be properly advertised (except where responding to an emergency).

Your post implies NR took an 'oh well, we've ticked the box, get on with it lads' approach, which is not how large companies work.

Out of interest - what do YOU think NR should have done ? And would you then, on the next post, have been complaining about the additional costs of "doing stuff" as so many posters here do ? Because if you did, that would be somewhat hypocritical.

I find it odd that NR have closed footpaths that cross the line safely via bridges.
I can understand why they wouldn’t want people crossing at the track level, but crossing via a purpose built bridge that will remain in place once the line reopens surly doesn’t pose a risk to the general public?

 

[Cantab26]

I find it odd that NR have closed footpaths that cross the line safely via bridges.
I can understand why they wouldn’t want people crossing at the track level, but crossing via a purpose built bridge that will remain in place once the line reopens surly doesn’t pose a risk to the general public?

I infer that these are temporary closures during construction rather than permanent stopping up.

 

[Ianno87]

I find it odd that NR have closed footpaths that cross the line safely via bridges.
I can understand why they wouldn’t want people crossing at the track level, but crossing via a purpose built bridge that will remain in place once the line reopens surly doesn’t pose a risk to the general public?

I infer that these are temporary closures during construction rather than permanent stopping up.

There may be risks such as construction equipment/cranes colliding with the bridge that may not be material during operation (as an example).

 

[EveningStar]

My masters is in common sense*: if you build a big bund in a river valley chances are you’re gonna have problems!

*Plus professional experience from working in the planning system.

Not arguing with empirical wisdom, as it is self evident what a big bund will do. It was, however, really interesting to see the numbers ... a sense of scale attached to the basic idea.