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

[Speed43125]

A bit like creative writing in school (which this document surely is)!

Thesarus.com is always your friend!!

 

[Steve Harris]

A bit like creative writing in school (which this document surely is)!

Which is rather like the official EWR consultation documents !!

 

[Cantab26]

Have you only just realised that? Only an idiot can't see the sense in this logic!

Funny how the single-track sections on the route through Newmarket are a deal-breaker for freight, but the single-track through Soham isn't...

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2021 ==


I've just had a brilliant idea! It's called a "level crossing"

Ever wanted to play Frogger in real life? Well, now you can!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2021 ==

Concerned citizens erect a tower in their back garden

East West Rail: Campaigners construct tower to show ‘Great Wall’ height

Campaigners have erected a tower to show the height of East West Rail’s proposed embankment at Harston.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

Got planning permission for that?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2021 ==

I’d love to know what trench ‘technology’ is. Do they mean a ‘cutting’?

It’s a 9km cutting with vertical sides, lined in concrete, through a floodplain, with a 2metre high concrete wall sticking up on each side at the top.

 

[a good off]

NIMBYism in its highest form.

 

[LUYMun]

We've had this leaflet put through our door in Cherry Hinton:

View attachment 96970View attachment 96971

The entire leaflet seems very misleading. East-West Rail is guarenteed to be a primarily passenger line, not a freight one! Plus the "alternatives" provide not much benefit either.

 

[jfowkes]

While we're all sure that this leaflet is pretty much fiction, I do worry that the Cambridge Approaches group seem to be doing well in PR terms. They're managing to get these messages out there, and in the absence of other information, at least some people will believe it.

What can/should be done to combat the misinformation?

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s a 9km cutting with vertical sides, lined in concrete, through a floodplain, with a 2metre high concrete wall sticking up on each side at the top.

I trust they have done some ground investigations.


This is a salutary lesson for all those people who wield crayons - when building railways gets real, it gets real difficult.

 

[Cantab26]

I trust they have done some ground investigations.

I’m sure they have...

 

[eastdyke]

I trust they have done some ground investigations.


This is a salutary lesson for all those people who wield crayons - when building railways gets real, it gets real difficult.

Why bother with tiresome ground investigations when you (they!) ignore both the costs and the benefits of the desired outputs?

 

[swt_passenger]

While we're all sure that this leaflet is pretty much fiction, I do worry that the Cambridge Approaches group seem to be doing well in PR terms. They're managing to get these messages out there, and in the absence of other information, at least some people will believe it.

What can/should be done to combat the misinformation?

You’re right about them doing well getting an exaggerated message across, eg freight. NR would naturally write in a spec that such and such an infrastructure change would be designed to allow for up to a certain number of paths per hour, passenger or freight. But allowing for 2 freight paths per hour doesn’t mean there will be 48 per day used guaranteed, but let’s round that up to 50 anyway.

Reading to Southampton “allows for” 2 freights most hours, but nothing runs at all in many hours of the typical weekday.

 

[zwk500]

You’re right about them doing well getting an exaggerated message across, eg freight. NR would naturally write in a spec that such a such an infrastructure change would be designed to allow for up to a certain number of paths per hour, passenger or freight. But allowing for 2 freight paths per hour doesn’t mean there will be 48 per day used guaranteed, but let’s round that up to 50 anyway.

Reading to Southampton “allows for” 2 freights most hours, but nothing runs at all in many hours of the typical weekday.

I wonder what the response would be if you asked them whether they'd like 1 freight train per hour in each direction on the railway or 80 lorries per hour in each direction on the road.

I agree with you, they've taken 1 freight train per hour, per direction, and multiplied by 24 then rounded up. Totally misleading and ignores things like hourly passenger service patterns forcing a regular 1tph slot for freight, but then it is a clever move from the campaigners as EWR can't put an upper limit on the potential maximum number of freights in 20-30 years time.

 

[Bald Rick]

It’s a 9km cutting with vertical sides, lined in concrete, through a floodplain, with a 2metre high concrete wall sticking up on each side at the top.

HS2 are building something similar at Euston, albeit not in a floodplain. £93m for 1km just for the box....

 

[edwin_m]

Some interesting commentary on Bedford Rail plus a link to a report that claims the four tracks north of the station will work after all.

East West Rail 2021 consultation: wrap-up – Bedford Rail (wordpress.com)

The report looks at existing timetables, track layouts, planned commitments for future services and rules around times required between trains for safe operation, to evaluate whether the current tracks will offer enough availability to accommodate EWR. It concludes that if the track layout remains as it is, obviously apart from the new EWR route diverging from it north of the built-up area, EWR’s planned four trains per hour (tph) in each direct would take up 16 of the available 28 minutes in a standard hour when the tracks would not otherwise be in use. With an additional crossover installed on the existing tracks, the available minutes for eastbound services can be raised to as much as 40 minutes in a standard hour, making the task of accommodating EWR services easily achievable.

In fact, these findings reinforce calculations carried out by Network Rail in a report dated 2019, which finds that not only could a 4tph EWR service be accommodated on the existing tracks, but so could a 6tph service. The report explicitly advises that this option would be preferable to any option involving the construction of additional tracks – a point we will return to shortly.

 

[richieb1971]

As far as freight goes, the consensus among those not in the loop is that 20 trains a day will be on top of the 80 lorries an hour, not in replacement of.

Maybe they are right. You cannot at any time assume or calculate that a single train is taking 80 lorries an hour off the roads, because the freight flow will be additional to any lorries. It never says anywhere if the train flows are in replacement to currently existing lorries. Also, if those lorries were to be taken off the road a train depot would need to be locally built if one is not there already. In the case of Felixstowe, has there been a case made that freight flows will replace cargo currently transported by lorry?

Personally Councillor Headley hit the nail on the head. To get these trains on EWR central section (at least the new infrastructure that isn't built yet) will require unmandated alterations to junctions and Cambridge has a bottleneck of 12 freight paths a day. The current existing flows all take more direct routes, bar the exception of where wires need to be followed. So the freight argument is all hot air until a mandated build of new infrastructure is put in place for the provision of more freight or where freight flows will benefit from the shorter route of EWR.

 

[edwin_m]

As far as freight goes, the consensus among those not in the loop is that 20 trains a day will be on top of the 80 lorries an hour, not in replacement of.

Maybe they are right. You cannot at any time assume or calculate that a single train is taking 80 lorries an hour off the roads, because the freight flow will be additional to any lorries. It never says anywhere if the train flows are in replacement to currently existing lorries. Also, if those lorries were to be taken off the road a train depot would need to be locally built if one is not there already. In the case of Felixstowe, has there been a case made that freight flows will replace cargo currently transported by lorry?

Personally Councillor Headley hit the nail on the head. To get these trains on EWR central section (at least the new infrastructure that isn't built yet) will require unmandated alterations to junctions and Cambridge has a bottleneck of 12 freight paths a day. The current existing flows all take more direct routes, bar the exception of where wires need to be followed. So the freight argument is all hot air until a mandated build of new infrastructure is put in place for the provision of more freight or where freight flows will benefit from the shorter route of EWR.

Having the ability to move more freight by rail may create a certain amount more freight ton-miles, for example if it shifts the balance of economics more from a point to point to a hub and spoke model. But I think the sort of logistics that might be amenable to transfer to rail is on that sort of model already, so I suspect most of the ton-miles on rail would replace ton-miles on road. However the road in question may not be going past the back gardens of the same people that the railway would.

 

[richieb1971]

People are more prone to be anti rail because not everyone has a railway near their home, but everyone has roads. I guess same would be for a new airport, distribution centre or anything on a larger scale.

The question for me is if extra infrastructure to support freight would be built later. As it would be very easy to add it afterwards.

My other question not related to freight is if hydrogen trains of a 3 car variety would becone a reality on British rails by 2030.

These are the 2 unknowns and whilst I dont agree with this approach by the nimbys I do wonder if some of their concerns have merit somewhere down the line.

 

[hwl]

People are more prone to be anti rail because not everyone has a railway near their home, but everyone has roads. I guess same would be for a new airport, distribution centre or anything on a larger scale.

The question for me is if extra infrastructure to support freight would be built later. As it would be very easy to add it afterwards.

My other question not related to freight is if hydrogen trains of a 3 car variety would becone a reality on British rails by 2030.

These are the 2 unknowns and whilst I dont agree with this approach by the nimbys I do wonder if some of their concerns have merit somewhere down the line.

With EWR service levels and train lengths it is better to electrify.

 

[camflyer]

With EWR service levels and train lengths it is better to electrify.

Presumably the cost problem is having to electrify the lines to Ipswich and Norwich to allow through services.

 

[Nottingham59]

What can/should be done to combat the misinformation?

I do think the EWR have been asking for it rather.

EWR try to justify six tracks north of Bedford because future growth in freight on the railways in the UK will be so great that the railway can't possibly manage with just four. (And they claim they will need a 5m wide access road alongside the sixth track, because the service will be so intensive, even at night, that they can't get access by taking possessions and walking along the track itself)

And then they seem surprised that other people futher down the line worry that there might be freight trains on the new line.

They can't have it both ways.

 

[Steve Harris]

I do think the EWR have been asking for it rather.

EWR try to justify six tracks north of Bedford because future growth in freight on the railways in the UK will be so great that the railway can't possibly manage with just four. (And they claim they will need a 5m wide access road alongside the sixth track, because the service will be so intensive, even at night, that they can't get access by taking possessions and walking along the track itself)

And then they seem surprised that other people futher down the line worry that there might be freight trains on the new line.

They can't have it both ways.

Indeed.

You reap what you sow !!

 

[richieb1971]

I was down Bromham way today. Now usually I'll spend all day there not seeing any use of the up slow. But today around 10 or 12am 3 trains were queued back to back. Tunstead, Derby unit move then the Hope cement within 25 30 mins.

The rest of the day, nothing. Even if the Up slow was bi directional as far as EWR it would easily be sufficient for 90 percent of the day.

What you have to ask yourself is if the plan is to do today, instead of tomorrow.
Maybe it's not EWR but the government wanting maximum potential to grow from the outset. Because as illustrated in the above link there is confusion why 6 tracks at Bedford went out of favour but crept back in as the ideal choice.

 

[jfowkes]

I do think the EWR have been asking for it rather.

EWR try to justify six tracks north of Bedford because future growth in freight on the railways in the UK will be so great that the railway can't possibly manage with just four. (And they claim they will need a 5m wide access road alongside the sixth track, because the service will be so intensive, even at night, that they can't get access by taking possessions and walking along the track itself)

And then they seem surprised that other people futher down the line worry that there might be freight trains on the new line.

They can't have it both ways.

Indeed.

You reap what you sow !!

Cambridge Approaches and BFare were talking about massive amounts of freight long before this latest consultation document came out. And they both state other inaccuracies about EWR as truth.

The 6-track thing doesn't give anyone license to just make up stuff, or to justify stuff they've made up in the past.

 

[Ianno87]

I do think the EWR have been asking for it rather.

EWR try to justify six tracks north of Bedford because future growth in freight on the railways in the UK will be so great that the railway can't possibly manage with just four. (And they claim they will need a 5m wide access road alongside the sixth track, because the service will be so intensive, even at night, that they can't get access by taking possessions and walking along the track itself)

And then they seem surprised that other people futher down the line worry that there might be freight trains on the new line.

They can't have it both ways.

Yes they can, if the forecast freight is predominantly on the MML.

 

[mwmbwls]

What you have to ask yourself is if the plan is to do today, instead of tomorrow.
Maybe it's not EWR but the government wanting maximum potential to grow from the outset. Because as illustrated in the above link there is confusion why 6 tracks at Bedford went out of favour but crept back in as the ideal choice.

I am inclined to agree with you about the six track solution being designed with a long term perspective. There is a general lack of awareness in both Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire as to the long term implications of the Oxford Cambridge Arc.. In part this stems from a failure until recently by the Government to spell out the implications of the Arc's Spatial framework. I also suspect that EWR are designing a project with a long term operating life (KISS) and hence long term capital, operating and maintenance costs - say, for example. 100 years plus. We have seen this before with the rebuilding of the Thameslink routes. I attended a briefing by Thameslink where the scale and scope of the detangling exercise from the junctions north of Croydon through London Bridge - where an exercise known as "Unravelling the Spaghetti "was undertaken resulting in today's specific platforms for specific routes solution.

• Platforms 1, 2 and 3 serve trains to/from Cannon Street and southeast London and Kent.
• Platforms 4 and 5 serve Thameslink trains between the Brighton main line and the Thameslink core via Blackfriars.
• Platforms 6–9 serve trains to/from Charing Cross to southeast London, Kent and East Sussex.
• Platforms 10–15 serve mainly Southern services toward south London and the south coast.

The existing southern end flyover to Bletchley facilitates a similar solution at Bedford. There will be life cycle cost savings by not having to install, inspect and maintain points and signalling at the north east end of Bedford station. Passenger flows will also more orderly within a new Bedford station building which I suspect will look at lot like Reading.

It is not unreasonable to expect that stations north of Bedford will experience a "Sparks" effect which could increase over time. Housing is far more affordable in Corby - a key demand driver. Given that trains from Peterborough and Cambridge run through the Thameslink central core - primarily to eliminate notchy interchanges at St Pancras for access to Farringdon, City Thameslink etc - it is not unreasonable to expect Corby, MH and Kettering to join that network at some point.

 

[Ianno87]

I am inclined to agree with you about the six track solution being designed with a long term perspective. There is a general lack of awareness in both Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire as to the long term implications of the Oxford Cambridge Arc.. In part this stems from a failure until recently by the Government to spell out the implications of the Arc's Spatial framework. I also suspect that EWR are designing a project with a long term operating life (KISS) and hence long term capital, operating and maintenance costs - say, for example. 100 years plus. We have seen this before with the rebuilding of the Thameslink routes. I attended a briefing by Thameslink where the scale and scope of the detangling exercise from the junctions north of Croydon through London Bridge - where an exercise known as "Unravelling the Spaghetti "was undertaken resulting in today's specific platforms for specific routes solution.

• Platforms 1, 2 and 3 serve trains to/from Cannon Street and southeast London and Kent.
• Platforms 4 and 5 serve Thameslink trains between the Brighton main line and the Thameslink core via Blackfriars.
• Platforms 6–9 serve trains to/from Charing Cross to southeast London, Kent and East Sussex.
• Platforms 10–15 serve mainly Southern services toward south London and the south coast.

The existing southern end flyover to Bletchley facilitates a similar solution at Bedford. There will be life cycle cost savings by not having to install, inspect and maintain points and signalling at the north east end of Bedford station. Passenger flows will also more orderly within a new Bedford station building which I suspect will look at lot like Reading.

It is not unreasonable to expect that stations north of Bedford will experience a "Sparks" effect which could increase over time. Housing is far more affordable in Corby - a key demand driver. Given that trains from Peterborough and Cambridge run through the Thameslink central core - primarily to eliminate notchy interchanges at St Pancras for access to Farringdon, City Thameslink etc - it is not unreasonable to expect Corby, MH and Kettering to join that network at some point.

The alternative reality is only putting 4 tracks in, and then a generation of complaining about how "short sighted" it was.

 

[hwl]

Presumably the cost problem is having to electrify the lines to Ipswich and Norwich to allow through services.

Or EWR making themselves a hostage to NR electrifying the Norwich and Ipswich routes and DfT funding it in time!

Hence keep options open.

 

[Wyrleybart]

It’s a 9km cutting with vertical sides, lined in concrete, through a floodplain, with a 2metre high concrete wall sticking up on each side at the top.

No idea of the geography of the area but this is seriously worrying. Whenever there is prolonged heavy rain in the UK there are always spots on the UK network where flooding naturally occurs - and some of these aren't even on floodplains. Cowley Bridge Jn / Staffords Bridge, Barnt Green, Chesterfield are just three of the many.

So based on what you have described, why on earht would anyone put a cutting into a flood plain ? Presume the water table is normally very low to even consider it ?

 

[Tobbes]

Or EWR making themselves a hostage to NR electrifying the Norwich and Ipswich routes and DfT funding it in time!

Hence keep options open

GA does have some very nice bimode 755s which could be used pending electrification - EWR could do much worse than ringing Stadler!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2021 ==

No idea of the geography of the area but this is seriously worrying. Whenever there is prolonged heavy rain in the UK there are always spots on the UK network where flooding naturally occurs - and some of these aren't even on floodplains. Cowley Bridge Jn / Staffords Bridge, Barnt Green, Chesterfield are just three of the many.

So based on what you have described, why on earht would anyone put a cutting into a flood plain ? Presume the water table is normally very low to even consider it ?

I'd always thought that a northerly approach would be on an embankment for precisely this reason.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2021 ==

No idea of the geography of the area but this is seriously worrying. Whenever there is prolonged heavy rain in the UK there are always spots on the UK network where flooding naturally occurs - and some of these aren't even on floodplains. Cowley Bridge Jn / Staffords Bridge, Barnt Green, Chesterfield are just three of the many.

So based on what you have described, why on earht would anyone put a cutting into a flood plain ? Presume the water table is normally very low to even consider it ?

I'd always thought that a northerly approach would be on an embankment for precisely this reason.

 

[Cantab26]

So based on what you have described, why on earht would anyone put a cutting into a flood plain ? Presume the water table is normally very low to even consider it ?

Simple: it’s further away from the places where those proposing it live which is the entire object. Pure NIMBYism.

And the water table is not low: it’s in the fens!

 

[Steve Harris]

Cambridge Approaches and BFare were talking about massive amounts of freight long before this latest consultation document came out. And they both state other inaccuracies about EWR as truth.

The 6-track thing doesn't give anyone license to just make up stuff, or to justify stuff they've made up in the past.

Don't take up a life in politics, as with that attitude you won't last long !

As both sides are playing politics (EWR trying to hide detail in different documents or just saying " we haven't worked that out yet" or this route is the most expensive but the dust fairy has been along and now its the cheapest)! So of course the other side makes assumptions (correctly or incorrectly about freight, (of course we don't know yet if their fears are founded as EWR doesn't know yet what the freight plans are)) and so it goes on with both sides trying to "spin" the advantages and disadvantages of the project, with the truth coming out after the fact !!

Now if the truth was out there from the start! There wouldn't be no assumptions/half truths/lies and none of what you talk about should happen (with "stuff" being made up), because everything is clear to see and people can see what they are signing up to.

Btw, I'm not taking either side. Yes, I'm pro rail but I'm looking at this project objectively.