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

[Tobbes]

The operational and capacity benefits of six tracks north of Bedford and segregation by route seem entirely sensible, but if it can be accomodated in such a way as to minimise the land take in the Poets' area then that of course should happen. Am I the only one cynical enough to wonder if a maximalist land take proposal for six tracks can "magically" be slimmed down in the wake of the consultation to produce a compromise six track proposal?

 

[Steve Harris]

The operational and capacity benefits of six tracks north of Bedford and segregation by route seem entirely sensible, but if it can be accomodated in such a way as to minimise the land take in the Poets' area then that of course should happen. Am I the only one cynical enough to wonder if a maximalist land take proposal for six tracks can "magically" be slimmed down in the wake of the consultation to produce a compromise six track proposal?

After the release of a "you said, we did" booklet it certainly wouldn't surprise me!

 

[Cantab26]

Am I the only one cynical enough to wonder if a maximalist land take proposal for six tracks can "magically" be slimmed down in the wake of the consultation to produce a compromise six track proposal?

As far as I am aware, a lot turns on whether the terraces of houses can be stabilised after the end one or two are demolished. If so, that would eliminate a lot of the demolitions at a stroke.

I assume that structural surveys of some sort would need to be undertaken in order to establish that though.

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

this route is the most expensive but the dust fairy has been along and now its the cheapest

Can you send the dust fairy my way? Might finally be able to buy a house!

More seriously, has East West Rail actually said that?

 

[jfowkes]

Am I the only one cynical enough to wonder if a maximalist land take proposal for six tracks can "magically" be slimmed down in the wake of the consultation to produce a compromise six track proposal?

It's not cynical, it's accurate. They openly say that their land take estimates are worst case.

 

[Tobbes]

It's not cynical, it's accurate. They openly say that their land take estimates are worst case.

Thanks, that's helpful - six tracks within a narrowed ground trace is looking like a winner....

 

[mwmbwls]

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

An article on page 11 of the June 2021 edition of Modern Railways suggests that 6 two-car class 196's from the current West Midlands order will be used pending the opening of the Bletchley to Bedford section

 

[swt_passenger]

An article on page 11 of the June 2021 edition of Modern Railways suggests that 6 two-car class 196's from the current West Midlands order will be used pending the opening of the Bletchley to Bedford section

It has been discussed already in the existing thread about 196s.

 

[edwin_m]

It's not cynical, it's accurate. They openly say that their land take estimates are worst case.

So rather than setting lots of hares running, they should have commissioned a bit more design to find out what the actual land take is, and also what that means for demolition.

 

[Ianno87]

So rather than setting lots of hares running, they should have commissioned a bit more design to find out what the actual land take is, and also what that means for demolition.

That takes time and money, which would be arguably inappropriate for still a relatively "concept" stage of development, when there are still multiple detailed route options on the table.

If anything, the consultation will inform the more detailed design in terms of "we're more worried about this bit of land than that one", to give the engineers some local parameters to work with and devise the best solution.

 

[Tobbes]

That takes time and money, which would be arguably inappropriate for still a relatively "concept" stage of development, when there are still multiple detailed route options on the table.

If anything, the consultation will inform the more detailed design in terms of "we're more worried about this bit of land than that one", to give the engineers some local parameters to work with and devise the best solution.

Let's hope so. Personally, I back a six-track solution, but want it to be as unobtrusive as possible, and it goes without saying that those who are subject to compulsory purchase should be suitably compensated.

 

[Bald Rick]

So rather than setting lots of hares running, they should have commissioned a bit more design to find out what the actual land take is, and also what that means for demolition.

That would also hold up the whole project. Important to consult, and get views on the whole scheme. This is the difficulty with all such proposals: delay consultation until you know the answer - and be accused of keeping stuff secret, not engaging, and presenting a fait accompli; or consult whenever you can and be accused of not giving enough info or not being certain.

 

[Cantab26]

This is the difficulty with all such proposals delay consultation until you know the answer - and be accused of keeping stuff secret, not engaging, and pres ting a fair accomplishment; or consult whenever you can and be accused of not giving enough info or not being certain.

This.

 

[edwin_m]

So it's better to scare everyone witless with a proposal for demolition of dozens of houses, alienate your allies such as the council, and hand ammunition to all those who oppose your scheme whether for valid reasons or totally spurious ones and whether in Bedford or nowhere near it? There are many properties in that part of Bedford that must now be blighted - can they claim compensation like with HS2 or do they have to remain in limbo?

 

[Bald Rick]

There are many properties in that part of Bedford that must now be blighted - can they claim compensation like with HS2 or do they have to remain in limbo?

AIUI they can claim.

 

[Cantab26]

There are many properties in that part of Bedford that must now be blighted - can they claim compensation like with HS2 or do they have to remain in limbo?

In strictly legal terms, no property is blighted unless and until an application for a DCO is made.

Even if property is blighted, this does not confer a right to compensation.

I expect that once a preferred alignment is announced some form of discretionary purchase scheme would be introduced at the same time. That is generally how things work for linear infrastructure projects like this one.

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

AIUI they can claim.

Unfortunately not.

 

[Bald Rick]

In strictly legal terms, no property is blighted unless and until an application for a DCO is made.

Even if property is blighted, this does not confer a right to compensation.

I expect that once a preferred alignment is announced some form of discretionary purchase scheme would be introduced at the same time. That is generally how things work for linear infrastructure projects like this one.

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


Unfortunately not.

My apologies, you are correct. EWR are consulting on the ‘need to sell’ scheme for the section.

 

[Cantab26]

My apologies, you are correct. EWR are consulting on the ‘need to sell’ scheme for the section.

I can’t go into the details, but there was a massive bunfight over this between EWR Co, the DfT and HM Treasury.

Complete mess...

 

[Tobbes]

That would also hold up the whole project. Important to consult, and get views on the whole scheme. This is the difficulty with all such proposals: delay consultation until you know the answer - and be accused of keeping stuff secret, not engaging, and presenting a fait accompli; or consult whenever you can and be accused of not giving enough info or not being certain.

And in fairness to EWRCo, they've been excellent as far as I can see with the consultation. If they can take this quality forward to building the line, we're in good hands.

 

[Steve Harris]

So it's better to scare everyone witless with a proposal for demolition of dozens of houses, alienate your allies such as the council, and hand ammunition to all those who oppose your scheme whether for valid reasons or totally spurious ones and whether in Bedford or nowhere near it? There are many properties in that part of Bedford that must now be blighted - can they claim compensation like with HS2 or do they have to remain in limbo?

This

 

[Nottingham59]

they should have commissioned a bit more design to find out what the actual land take is, and also what that means for demolition

Precisely. As far as I can see, it would be entirely possible to shift the MML slow lines a bit closer to the fasts. I don't see the need for 5m space to the East of the new EWR tracks, and 5.5m between EWR and the MML. Access could be via gates at the end of Milton Rd and Chaucer Rd, as it is now.

Saying that we might want to knock down your house, because we don't want to move recently installed electrification gantries and can't be bothered to use the space we already own more efficiently is just going to get people's backs up.

 

[BrianW]

Surely someone (many?) (at EWR and wherever else) gave a lot of thought to the various possible arrangements, and decided this was the best way to go forward into 'consultation'. I have a fairly low opinion oof so-called 'consultation'- it's about trying to garner support for what you've decided anyway. I do however think 'they' have got it wrong on this occasion.

Precisely. As far as I can see, it would be entirely possible to shift the MML slow lines a bit closer to the fasts. I don't see the need for 5m space to the East of the new EWR tracks, and 5.5m between EWR and the MML. Access could be via gates at the end of Milton Rd and Chaucer Rd, as it is now.

Saying that we might want to knock down your house, because we don't want to move recently installed electrification gantries and can't be bothered to use the space we already own more efficiently is just going to get people's backs up.

I agree with this very much- I would do everything to resist if it were MY house, and I would be on Mayor Dave's back constantly and resisting EWR totally. Do 'they' have a reverse gear?
It will take time and probably money now to somehow regain trust- the 'threat' of six tracks will live on, so they may as well be built now on as narrow a strip as can be done, preferably with NO additional land take- is that possible?

 

[edwin_m]

Precisely. As far as I can see, it would be entirely possible to shift the MML slow lines a bit closer to the fasts. I don't see the need for 5m space to the East of the new EWR tracks, and 5.5m between EWR and the MML. Access could be via gates at the end of Milton Rd and Chaucer Rd, as it is now.

Saying that we might want to knock down your house, because we don't want to move recently installed electrification gantries and can't be bothered to use the space we already own more efficiently is just going to get people's backs up.

We have to be aware of the safety requirement for track centre spacing (the so-called ten-foot), which if it isn't large enough would prevent maintenance of some tracks unless the adjacent ones are also closed to traffic. New infrastructure will have to meet new standards, which are almost certainly quite a bit larger than what is there now. That's why I'm somewhat skeptical about narrowing the 6-track options, though I haven't checked it in any detail.

 

[Nottingham59]

New infrastructure will have to meet new standards

If you were building a new 6-track-wide viaduct to new standards, how wide would it have to be? That gives you the answer to how wide this 6-track section needs to be.

would prevent maintenance of some tracks unless the adjacent ones are also closed to traffic

And so what if you have to close adjacent tracks for maintenance? If you close the MML Up Slow overnight, you still have three MML tracks open. With 4tph Thameslink services terminating at Bedford, that should be plenty not to impede MML traffic too much.

 

[zwk500]

It will take time and probably money now to somehow regain trust- the 'threat' of six tracks will live on, so they may as well be built now on as narrow a strip as can be done, preferably with NO additional land take- is that possible?

Not possible north of Bedford within the Existing boundary: [picture of Bromham Rd Bridge north of Bedford Midland station]

I believe you can do it taking out only the lower 4 or 5 houses in the bottom left corner, but the penalty will be heavy retaining walls and a slow linespeed for the sharp curve/kink.

 

[Ianno87]

And so what if you have to close adjacent tracks for maintenance? If you close the MML Up Slow overnight, you still have three MML tracks open. With 4tph Thameslink services terminating at Bedford, that should be plenty not to impede MML traffic too much.

It is generally wise to not build such constraints into a scheme at such an early stage, as there's no chance to roll back later.

 

[Nottingham59]

picture of Bromham Rd Bridge north of Bedford Midland station

Thank you for posting that. Bromham Rd bridge will have to be replaced, and I assume it will be a clear span, so as not to constrain the track layout.
So looking at that picture, I'd say that you could do the following:

• move the 3 or 4 OHLE gantries nearest the camera one metre to the West (i.e. to the right in the photo) without encroaching outside the existing boundary.
• Move the MML Fast lines 2m West
• Move the MML Slow lines 3m to the West

which would give you space to fit one EWR track to the East of the MML where the Up Slow is currently, and two EWR tracks within the existing boundary or with only minimal land take. Any kink/curvature on the EWR shouldn't be an issue because all EWR trains will call at Bedford.

But it doesn't matter what I think; I'm just a bloke on the internet. What matters is that people who live in this part of Bedford and have had their houses blighted without compensation will think this; and so will local councillors.

As I said upthread, I believe EWR have been extraordinarily clumsy in how they have approached this aspect of their consultation.

 

[Dr Hoo]

Thank you for posting that. Bromham Rd bridge will have to be replaced, and I assume it will be a clear span, so as not to constrain the track layout.
So looking at that picture, I'd say that you could do the following:

• move the 3 or 4 OHLE gantries nearest the camera one metre to the West (i.e. to the right in the photo) without encroaching outside the existing boundary.
• Move the MML Fast lines 2m West
• Move the MML Slow lines 3m to the West

Bear in mind that this is just at the end of a very finely-calculated transition from the high speed curve through the Down Fast Platform! This isn't some bucolic branch line that can just be shunted across.

 

[Ianno87]

Bear in mind that this is just at the end of a very finely-calculated transition from the high speed curve through the Down Fast Platform! This isn't some bucolic branch line that can just be shunted across.

And shifting tracks individually by a small amount tends to be much, much more disruptive than plonking two new tracks alongside existing tracks.

 

[Nottingham59]

a very finely-calculated transition from the high speed curve through the Down Fast Platform

Sure, but can you explain how that is a constraint? The curve through Bedford has a radius of approximately 2km. Extending that curve by 20m before starting to transition would change the direction of the track by 1/100 of a radian (0.6 degrees). In the 250m between Bedford station and Bromham Road, this would give you 2.5m of slew, which is more than you need, isn't it?

And shifting tracks individually by a small amount tends to be much, much more disruptive

Sure. But they're going to have to replace Bromham Road bridge, which is going to be much more disruptive to the railway in the great scheme of things, I'd have thought.

 

[zwk500]

Sure, but can you explain how that is a constraint? The curve through Bedford has a radius of approximately 2km. Extending that curve by 20m before starting to transition would change the direction of the track by 1/100 of a radian (0.6 degrees). In the 250m between Bedford station and Bromham Road, this would give you 2.5m of slew, which is more than you need, isn't it?

Because even a change of 1/100 of a radian could change the dynamic actions of the train (wear profile, sideways forces on passengers, the train leaning out in the corner so cant needing to be changed), meaning the current linespeed may not be able to be maintained.

Sure. But they're going to have to replace Bromham Road bridge, which is going to be much more disruptive to the railway in the great scheme of things, I'd have thought.

Not if you leave the existing bridge and build a new span alongside, so the railway only needs to be closed for very short period.

If the new gantries for OLE or signals need to be mounted where the current tracks are, you can't begin piling until you have the tracks out of the way. This means installing new temporary structures, slueing the track, then piling and installing the permanent equipment. If you laid new tracks alongside, you skip straight to stage 3.