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

[BrianW]

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.

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.

Surely it is incumbent on 'the railway' to demonstrate it is taking 'all reasonable measures' to avoid demolitions, and to as large an extent reductions of 'amenity'- like homes looking out onto bridge support walls.
How close can a gantry be placed to a garden boundary; how deep sheet piles in lieu of a cutting; how distant a track from that; in short how narrow a strip of land for six tracks; how 'doable' given local pressure?
Where there's a will? It's not the locals' fault- or are they being unreasonable?

Moderator note: part of this post, and some replies, have been moved to:

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/should-a-level-of-futureproofing-be-built-into-public-transport-infrastructure-upgrades.218331/

 

[Bald Rick]

From your excellent and helpful photo Bromham Road bridge doesn't look exactly old- are we looking at some more lack of forethought there?

The bridge was rebuilt a couple of years ago for electrification.

Surely it is incumbent on 'the railway' to demonstrate it is taking 'all reasonable measures' to avoid demolitions

Indeed. And had it been built for extra tracks at the time of electrification, it would have been justifiably kicked out as there was no reasonable need at that time.

 

[zwk500]

Hmmh. From your excellent and helpful photo Bromham Road bridge doesn't look exactly old- are we looking at some more lack of forethought there? A new bridge alongside will surely involve more demolitions; more homes 'swept away'. Maybe 'replacement homes' will be planned onto the site of the current bridge?

A new span, as part of the existing bridge - so the footprint of the road is the same.

Surely it is incumbent on 'the railway' to demonstrate it is taking 'all reasonable measures' to avoid demolitions, and to as large an extent reductions of 'amenity'- like homes looking out onto bridge support walls.

It is, but at some point you reach the limit of 'reasonable'

How close can a gantry be placed to a garden boundary; how deep sheet piles in lieu of a cutting; how distant a track from that;

Given what's happened in Birmingham, a gantry needs to be at least arm's length from the boundary fence to stop people attempting to climb it. Sheet piles are possible, but risk damage to nearby homes during installation. The track will need to be the standard distance from the gantry.

in short how narrow a strip of land for six tracks;

As a comparison, the approach to Preston is c.25m over the 6 tracks, Manchester Piccadilly viaduct is 27m over the gantry edges. However both of those were electrified some time ago, and don't have high tree fall or trespass risk. Also both locations have 6-track span gantries for OLE and Signalling, which if built to today's standards would have a rather significant visual impact on the neighbours' amenities. So the Absolute minimum is 25m, but you have a hefty set of compromises on the local area to get it that narrow. The distance between the abutment walls of Brohman road bridge is c.18m, so even if you knocked it down and built it from scratch with 1 span, you'd still need to widen it by 7m.

how 'doable' given local pressure?
Where there's a will? It's not the locals' fault- or are they being unreasonable?

It's doable - for a price. The will's not the problem, but the wallet. It's certainly not the locals' fault. I don't blame them at all. It's about finding the balance between doing it once correctly or being very accommodating but painting yourself into a corner and creating a bottleneck for future generations.

 

[BrianW]

It's doable - for a price. The will's not the problem, but the wallet. It's certainly not the locals' fault. I don't blame them at all. It's about finding the balance between doing it once correctly or being very accommodating but painting yourself into a corner and creating a bottleneck for future generations.

Thank you for that. Meantime I came across this:

Network Rail announces reopening date of Bromham Road bridge for motorists

Network Rail has announced that Bromham Road bridge in Bedford will reopen to motorists on Tuesday, 9 June following its closure to allow major improvement work to take place as part of the Midland Main Line Upgrade.

www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk

You couldn't make it up! I thought that bridge looked new- rebuilt and reopened just last year??!!
Thankfully no event in a brewery to be organised, only a wallet to be reopened, and so soon!
Was no thought given to designing for six-tracking at that time? If not, why not? Why now??
My guess is that no-one felt brave enough to face matters then?
I'm understanding and sympathising with locals big-time now.
Are no heads hanging, if not rolling?
Am I missing something?

 

[The Planner]

Yes you are, its still not a committed scheme so no amount of passive provision is going to be put in unless the prior scheme is funded to do it. Consider the fact of how long the MML electrifcation was in design for before it got built and whether E-W in that area was even past the back of a fag packet design at that point. Lets face it, that bridge will still have been there a decade or more before anything happens.

 

[BrianW]

Thank you. I'm learning lots.

Yes you are, its still not a committed scheme so no amount of passive provision is going to be put in unless the prior scheme is funded to do it. Consider the fact of how long the MML electrifcation was in design for before it got built and whether E-W in that area was even past the back of a fag packet design at that point. Lets face it, that bridge will still have been there a decade or more before anything happens.

 

[RSimons]

And to think that there are people who insist it would be relatively straightforward to put an extra pair of tracks alongside the London to Manchester line!

 

[Bald Rick]

You couldn't make it up! I thought that bridge looked new- rebuilt and reopened just last year??!!
Thankfully no event in a brewery to be organised, only a wallet to be reopened, and so soon!
Was no thought given to designing for six-tracking at that time? If not, why not? Why now??

As I said a couple of posts previously, had that Bridge come forward for rebuilding as a six track span at the time fo electrification, it would have required exactly the same sort of planning process about to be embarked on now, but several years ago. And it would have been refused, as the promoter (NR) would not have been able to make a compelling case for why it was needed. Just saying ‘someone else might come along in a few years to build some more railway’ doesn’t cut it. You have to have a very clear intention, and a statement (from Governement) that funding will be provided.

 

[BrianW]

As I said a couple of posts previously, had that Bridge come forward for rebuilding as a six track span at the time fo electrification, it would have required exactly the same sort of planning process about to be embarked on now, but several years ago. And it would have been refused, as the promoter (NR) would not have been able to make a compelling case for why it was needed. Just saying ‘someone else might come along in a few years to build some more railway’ doesn’t cut it. You have to have a very clear intention, and a statement (from Governement) that funding will be provided.

Thank you. I recognise I have a tendency to think I know best, neglecting what will be clear to others but not me and esp in terms of trying to think and plan a long way ahe ...

 

[Nottingham59]

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.

I just found this analysis dated 2020 in "Routeing of rail freight forecasts: A study for Network Rail" by MDS Transmodal at https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Routeing-of-rail-freight-forecasts.pdf

Interestingly it highlights the long-term possibility of EWR carrying up to 50 diverted freights per day from East Coast ports through to the WCML at Bletchley.

A valuable alternative route could be available via the proposed East–West Rail route from Cambridge to Bedford
- providing access to the Golden Triangle distribution park destinations from the Haven - improving its investment case. particularly if electrified
- requiring a new chord at Bletchley to access Daventry and Northampton, which appears feasible.
- capitalising on HS2 relieving WCML capacity, although suburban traffic would compete for capacity particularly between Bletchley and Milton Keyne

 

[ABB125]

I just found this analysis dated 2020 in "Routeing of rail freight forecasts: A study for Network Rail" by MDS Transmodal at https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Routeing-of-rail-freight-forecasts.pdf

Interestingly it highlights the long-term possibility of EWR carrying up to 50 diverted freights per day from East Coast ports through to the WCML at Bletchley.




View attachment 97465

I wonder if this document is the source of the "there will be 50 freight trains a day" claim by the anti-groups?

 

[jfowkes]

I wonder if this document is the source of the "there will be 50 freight trains a day" claim by the anti-groups?

Yes, it is. They've taken a possibility expressed in one document that's contingent on a lot of upgrades to the rest of the network and contingent on EWR design itself and basically said that's definitely what's going to happen as soon as EWR starts operating.

 

[BrianW]

REMINDER

EWR 'Consultation' (Informal!) ends 9 June- range of response methods available.

Sign in | East West Rail Community Hub

communityhub.eastwestrail.co.uk

Questions about each section: Oxford- Bicester- Bletchley- Bedford- Cambridge.
Not Aylesbury or MK IIRC?

 

[ABB125]

Yes, it is. They've taken a possibility expressed in one document that's contingent on a lot of upgrades to the rest of the network and contingent on EWR design itself and basically said that's definitely what's going to happen as soon as EWR starts operating.

What a surprise...

 

[eMeS]

Whatever, BBC TV "Look East" has had a major piece about East-West Rail discussions this evening.
Not sure if there was any new information but certainly, many people are now getting annoyed. (I was suprised to see that Bletchley Station was shown as "off line" and on some route to Milton Keynes which I know is "off line", but I always thought that the platforms for EWR would be accessed via the Bletchley Station ticket office. Presentation licence?)

 

[D365]

Don't worry. A computer games player in Harston will come up with an ingenious solution that Network Rail and EWR engineers haven't been able to.

NIMBY Rails?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Jun 2021 ==

And to think that there are people who insist it would be relatively straightforward to put an extra pair of tracks alongside the London to Manchester line!

Or London to Newcastle!

 

[camflyer]

Whatever, BBC TV "Look East" has had a major piece about East-West Rail discussions this evening.
Not sure if there was any new information but certainly, many people are now getting annoyed. (I was suprised to see that Bletchley Station was shown as "off line" and on some route to Milton Keynes which I know is "off line", but I always thought that the platforms for EWR would be accessed via the Bletchley Station ticket office. Presentation licence?)

Here's a recording

 

[swt_passenger]

…(I was suprised to see that Bletchley Station was shown as "off line" and on some route to Milton Keynes which I know is "off line", but I always thought that the platforms for EWR would be accessed via the Bletchley Station ticket office. Presentation licence?)

Yes, there’s a footbridge link. It’s all considered the same station there are accurate detailed drawings earlier in this thread.

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

There's a few photos - including some aerial ones - searching Twitter for @networkraileus.

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[ashkeba]

And to think that there are people who insist it would be relatively straightforward to put an extra pair of tracks alongside the London to Manchester line!

It would be straightforward to them. Their homes would not be in the demolition corridor.

 

[jfowkes]

Here's a recording

Argh, that was infuriating to watch in places. The person from CPRE who complained that the railway was "going through pristine countryside" - well it's going between Bedford and Cambridge, short of building on top of the A421 and A428 you can't avoid that. The person who emailed in to say they've looked at the Cambridge timetable and think they can make a northern approach work with two tracks - good to know, you should apply to NR to be a planner.

I don't know why EWR are being blamed for not having sufficiently good answers on housing development plans for the next 30 years.How is that their remit?

I did like the person from Dry Drayton who didn't want a northern route. A perfect demonstration that no matter where you put a railway, some people are going to experience disruption.

 

[Cantab26]

The person from CPRE who complained that the railway was "going through pristine countryside" - well it's going between Bedford and Cambridge, short of building on top of the A421 and A428 you can't avoid that.

The mask slipped at the end, if you noticed: “They want to build houses so that people can move here from elsewhere.”

Pure NIMBYism.

The person who emailed in to say they've looked at the Cambridge timetable and think they can make a northern approach work with two tracks - good to know, you should apply to NR to be a planner.

Here is more dross from the same chap from one of the local Cambridge newspapers.

Opinion | By James Perry

As a scientist, local resident and keen builder of transport networks in computer games, I’ve found myself drawn to the debate about East West Rail, and the question of how to connect a new line from the west with Cambridge’s existing railways.

And East West Rail’s response.

We asked East West Rail Company to respond to community concerns and questions about the new £5bn East West Rail line that will run from Oxford to Cambridge via Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambourne. Consultation on the route it will take is ongoing.

Here is their response in full.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And to think that there are people who insist it would be relatively straightforward to put an extra pair of tracks alongside the London to Manchester line!

Best comment I have heard for a while.

 

[BrianW]

Argh, that was infuriating to watch in places. The person from CPRE who complained that the railway was "going through pristine countryside" - well it's going between Bedford and Cambridge, short of building on top of the A421 and A428 you can't avoid that. The person who emailed in to say they've looked at the Cambridge timetable and think they can make a northern approach work with two tracks - good to know, you should apply to NR to be a planner.

I don't know why EWR are being blamed for not having sufficiently good answers on housing development plans for the next 30 years.How is that their remit?

I did like the person from Dry Drayton who didn't want a northern route. A perfect demonstration that no matter where you put a railway, some people are going to experience disruption.

However irrational and ill-directed I think we understand that folk 'lash out' at whoever's to hand- like when I've fallen over 'I'm ok'!
It's right that people think there should be some 'planning' in 'town and country planning'. In the meantine, EWR (a private company) tries to pick its way through, past or round Mayor Dave, EEH, NR, DfT, local councils whether county or district and parish and MPs and NIMBYs and CPRE ...
Which of us would trust anyone of those, or anyone, to 'represent' us? Even the so-called 'government' is not allowed to do as it believes it should.
And we (I) want to complain that it takes so long and costs so much ...!
BTW-IIUC/ Did I hear right, the CPRE guy thinks freight shouldn't go through town and railways not spoil the countryside? I just can't be bothered enough to replay. Feeling sorry for those who have to.
And sorry for the woman just moved into the Poets area unaware- has she a case against her solicitors (conveyancers?) for turning up nothing in their 'searches', or did she invest hundreds of thousands in a new home without?

 

[Cantab26]

And sorry for the woman just moved into the Poets area unaware- has she a case against her solicitors (conveyancers?) for turning up nothing in their 'searches', or did she invest hundreds of thousands in a new home without?

I know for a fact that the project is disclosed on the standard local authority searches.

Therefore, we can only surmise that:

1. the conveyancers did not carry out the standard search;
2. they did, but did not carry out appropriate enquiries to investigate the matter;
3. they did investigate, but did not report their findings to the emptor;
4. they did report them, but not clearly enough; or
5. the report was clear, but the emptor did not read it.

In my experience, 2. and 5. are the most likely explanations.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know for a fact that the project is disclosed on the standard local authority searches.

Therefore, we can only surmise that:

1. the conveyancers did not carry out the standard search;
2. they did, but did not carry out appropriate enquiries to investigate the matter;
3. they did investigate, but did not report their findings to the emptor;
4. they did report them, but not clearly enough; or
5. the report was clear, but the emptor did not read it.

In my experience, 2. and 5. are the most likely explanations.

Or 6. The property being purchased was sufficiently distant from the proposed works that it doesn’t come up on the searches.

 

[Cantab26]

Or 6. The property being purchased was sufficiently distant from the proposed works that it doesn’t come up on the searches.

Since this particular householder is complaining about demolition then, unless the extra two tracks are over 200 metres wide, unlikely!

There is a separate part of the search that would pick up the project even outwith that distance.

Either way, it would come up on the standard search for this house in Bedford.

 

[Steve Harris]

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 ==


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?

Yes.

https://eastwestrail-production.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/public/ListsBlockMedia/fe0f74c338/EWR-Consultation-Document.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjRuPmg6f7wAhWIFxQKHdCkBqcQFjADegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw36S4d2iqFGyHpFhNgjuvcC

Route E in the 2019 consultation was the most expensive (see link).

But route E is now preferred because costs have come down !!

 

[weeklycommuter]

I just found this analysis dated 2020 in "Routeing of rail freight forecasts: A study for Network Rail" by MDS Transmodal at https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Routeing-of-rail-freight-forecasts.pdf
Interestingly it highlights the long-term possibility of EWR carrying up to 50 diverted freights per day from East Coast ports through to the WCML at Bletchley.

East West Rail are not currently proposing a chord at Bletchley to enable trains from the East to continue North on the West Coast Mainline. Only trains from the West, including Oxford, Aylesbury and possibly freight trains from Southampton, will be able to go to Milton Keynes and continue North on the West Coast Mainline. Freight trains from Felixstowe to South Wales would be able to use East West Rail but the Network Rail study states "Note that all trains between Ipswich and Bristol/South Wales would remain on the Great Eastern and through London."

 

[Cantab26]

Yes.

https://eastwestrail-production.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/public/ListsBlockMedia/fe0f74c338/EWR-Consultation-Document.pdf&sa=U&ved=2ahUKEwjRuPmg6f7wAhWIFxQKHdCkBqcQFjADegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw36S4d2iqFGyHpFhNgjuvcC

Route E in the 2019 consultation was the most expensive (see link).

But route E is now preferred because costs have come down !!

Unfortunately, the link is redirecting me to an error page.

 

[Steve Harris]

But how "future" proof is reasonable?


Look around the motorway network at the weird junctions with earthworks in place for their extensions which never happened.

But some extensions do happen !! For example Hardwicke roundabout (A47/A10 Junction) just outside Kings Lynn. (No it's not a motorway, but it is a major trunk road).

I have no idea when the dual carriageway to the west of that roundabout was built, but the approach to the roundabout was left wide with room in the middle left for a future flyover over the roundabout. As a kid in the 1970's I can remember the junction clealy (due to the oddity). Come the 2000's and the flyover was finally built !!!!

I know it's only 1 example but at least my statment is true/factual and can be backed up with maps. Were as you haven't actually listed places on the motorway network with these so called "weird junctions".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2021 ==

The sensible definition of "Future proof" is either:
-Don't do anything that you know you are going to have to come back and change very shortly afterwards, or
-For everything else, don't do anything that makes coming back and doing something else you might want to do prohibitively expensive or impossible. But you may have to accept changing something you are building at a later date.

Exactly.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Jun 2021 ==

Unfortunately, the link is redirecting me to an error page.

Sorry, I just google searched East West Rail 2019 consultation, the link is the above with a downloadable PDF.