• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

East West Rail: Bedford - Cambridge will it ever get built?

Status
Not open for further replies.

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
2,133
a better question might not be about overcrowding, but about the difference in observed passenger numbers after reopening compared to the predicted passenger numbers. Is there a consistent pattern in that difference? or is it just 'random' scatter (one line a bit under, another a bit over, etc.)?
I would imagine that 'predictions' would tend to 'confirmation bias' on the part of supporters- i.e highish numbers - and likely to be borne out by use by inquisitive rail geeks (like us!). There may be some 'transference' however by some of the users of the 'new' service from the way they had been travelling, hence some related losses of travellership. Some of that may be desirable modal shift, some not.

Is there not research which might support or deny that hypothesis?

Cynical view- 'bad' results buried; 'good' trumpeted.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
Completely right, there is definetly a need to travel from Bedford/MK to Cambridge however the cost of the current plan is quite frankly, ridicuulous. A far simpler plan is a junction moving north onto the ECML from the cambridge flyover and then a single track route from Sandy to Bedford on the varsity line trackbed. This could probably sustain up to 2tph between Cambridge and Bedford along with a travel time competeive with drivng in the region of 50 minutes.

Except you'd then need capacity on the full length of the Hitchin - Cambridge branch, which there isn't a huge amount of.

The old Varsity line formation has been built on at Sandy, including the A1junction, at Blunham, at Willington, the A421 Bedford bypass and Cardington Road. And that's before you also would need to build a suitable station at St Johns and couldn't serve Bedford Midland without a huge time penalty.
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,726
very selective, well done. For example you report one train between Alloa and Edinburgh was overcrowded 3 1/2 years ago when the previous one had been cancelled.

can you show me regular* overcrowding on these lines? Or any on Aylesbury - Aylesbury Vale? Or Vale of Glamorgan? Or Larkhall? Or Airdrie Bathgate? Or Barking Riverside?
* as in daily, where multiple trains have more than 10% standing.

Almost certainly not to your satisfaction. I don't have pictures of all the trains that contributed to these lines more than doubling forecasts. I "cherry picked" them because they're the only new railway lines with a few new stations that I can think of. Happy to be supplied with details of others... like Airdrie Bathgate. Lets have a look...

Drumgelloch. Was c170k Forecast c275-350c Pre-covid c400k
Caldercruix Forecast 50-100k Pre-covid c100k
Blackridge Forecast 25-50k Pre-covid c55-60k
Armadale Forecast 50-100k Pre-covid c250k
Bathgate Was c650k, Forecast 1,000-1,200k Pre-covid c1.2m
Livingston North Was c550k Forecast 800-900k Pre-covid c1.2m
Uphall Was ? Forecast 350-450k Pre-covid c600k (Can't find before figure with quick search, but apparently increase was "dramatic")

I'd say that worked? That's no surprise. Trains do work! ( I don't, however, have pictures of all of the people.)

(I don't think Aylesbury Vale Parkway is comparable, and as well as not being comparable Barking Riverside hasn't been open very long.)

I find the bias against the guided busway almost comical. People aren’t ‘desperate’ to use it at all. Have you used it, or asked those who do?

Well... so... it goes past my window actually...
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,929
Almost certainly not to your satisfaction. I don't have pictures of all the trains that contributed to these lines more than doubling forecasts. I "cherry picked" them because they're the only new railway lines with a few new stations that I can think of. Happy to be supplied with details of others... like Airdrie Bathgate. Lets have a look...

Drumgelloch. Was c170k Forecast c275-350c Pre-covid c400k
Caldercruix Forecast 50-100k Pre-covid c100k
Blackridge Forecast 25-50k Pre-covid c55-60k
Armadale Forecast 50-100k Pre-covid c250k
Bathgate Was c650k, Forecast 1,000-1,200k Pre-covid c1.2m
Livingston North Was c550k Forecast 800-900k Pre-covid c1.2m
Uphall Was ? Forecast 350-450k Pre-covid c600k (Can't find before figure with quick search, but apparently increase was "dramatic")

I'd say that worked? That's no surprise. Trains do work! ( I don't, however, have pictures of all of the people.)

(I don't think Aylesbury Vale Parkway is comparable, and as well as not being comparable Barking Riverside hasn't been open very long.)



Well... so... it goes past my window actually...

Excellent!

what year were those forecasts for? And what year were the actuals that you quoted?

Why isn’t Aylesbury Vale comparable?

as the busway goes past your window, you presumably see how frequent the buses are, and how busy they are. And how full the park and ride car parks are at, say, St Ives, and the types of cars parked there. Do you really think everyone who uses it is “desperate“? If so, why?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==


Is there a consistent pattern in that difference? or is it just 'random' scatter (one line a bit under, another a bit over, etc.)?

There are two consistent patterns:

1) forecasts for the build up in passenger numbers in years 1-3 are consistently undercooked, but year 4 onwards are much closer to forecasts. This is mostly because the assumed ramp up of demand is purely finger in the air without any science behind it, and partly (cynically) that early years are deliberately under forecast precisely so that after 1 year the promoter can put out a press release stating that use is above forecast.

2) residential development occurs near new stations that is over and above assumptions made in the forecast (which are usually based on local authority local development plans). This happens in most cases. Because the new development is specifically sold on the basis of the rail connection, there is a much higher % use of rail per resident (sometimes as many as 10% residents using rail for commuting) than at comparable existing stations, ie even a smallish development of, say, 200 homes can boost patronage at the nearest station by 20k pa / 20%.

1) is easy to change, but promoters are reluctant to do so, 2) is difficult to predict Because local authorities tend not to want to admit that a new railway will bring lots of new development.
 
Last edited:

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
2,133
Excellent!

what year were those forecasts for? And what year were the actuals that you quoted?

Why isn’t Aylesbury Vale comparable?

as the busway goes past your window, you presumably see how frequent the buses are, and how busy they are. And how full the park and ride car parks are at, say, St Ives, and the types of cars parked there. Do you really think everyone who uses it is “desperate“? If so, why?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==




There are two consistent patterns:

1) forecasts for the build up in passenger numbers in years 1-3 are consistently undercooked, but year 4 onwards are much closer to forecasts. This is mostly because the assumed ramp up of demand is purely finger in the air without any science behind it, and partly (cynically) that early years are deliberately under forecast precisely so that after 1 year the promoter can put out a press release stating that use is above forecast.

2) residential development occurs near new stations that is over and above assumptions made in the forecast (which are usually based on local authority local development plans). This happens in most cases. Because the new development is specifically sold on the basis of the rail connection, there is a much higher % use of rail per resident (sometimes as many as 10% residents using rail for commuting) than at comparable existing stations, ie even a smallish development of, say, 200 homes can boost patronage at the nearest station by 20k pa / 20%.

1) is easy to change, but promoters are reluctant to do so, 2) is difficult to predict Because local authorities tend not to want to admit that a new railway will bring lots of new development.
- Aylesbury Vale Parkway- was its construction supported by Section 106 money squeezed out of developers of the related developments? How 'persuasive'?

- East-West Rail- Housing MUST be built to support the case for it, as per Bicester expansions. Eco/ Mini New Towns at whatever the appropriate (re) locations for stations. There must be calculations can be/ will have been made of how many bikeable houses needed to support 4tph e.w.

I note that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer's Growth Plan includes
  • Bedford Borough Council
  • Central Bedfordshire Council
as two of the 38 local authorities identified for potential tax-free 'investement Zones'. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-growth-plan-2022

In passing, the Growth Plan also includes Essex, Norfolk and Suffolk County Councils in the 38, so scope for improvements east of Cambridge?
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,929
Aylesbury Vale Parkway- was its construction supported by Section 106 money squeezed out of developers of the related developments?

No - mostly funded by DfT, Chiltern (speculatively) and Bucks CC (The smallest contributor).

it was a rare example of infrastructure being built ahead of the houses. Unfortunately the financial crisis arrived, and the houses didn’t get built. Until recently.
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
2,133
No - mostly funded by DfT, Chiltern (speculatively) and Bucks CC (The smallest contributor).

it was a rare example of infrastructure being built ahead of the houses. Unfortunately the financial crisis arrived, and the houses didn’t get built. Until recently.
Thank you Bald Rick.

I came across this encomium- such success: https://www.chilternrailways.co.uk/news/aylesbury-vale-parkway-celebrates-10th-anniversary

I note the contributions from John Laing plc (why?) and the Community Infrastructure Fund (aka Community Infrastructure Levy- CIL?)

I thought Laing's went bust building the Principality Stadium (sold out to groundworker o'Rourke); not dead then?; and this item refers also to Carillion- remember them too? https://www.laing.com/media/news/john-laing-achieves-financial-close-on-aylesbury-vale-parkway/

This also states that: It is expected that 250,000 passengers will use the station each year

206,834 in 2019/20 - https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/statistics/usage/estimates-of-station-usage
 

gingerheid

Established Member
Joined
2 Apr 2006
Messages
1,726
Excellent!

what year were those forecasts for? And what year were the actuals that you quoted?

Are you one of those people that would demand evidence that a parachute can protect against injury from hitting the ground? I feel like I'm in danger of having to explain to you if and why grass is* green. If you're interested then go find out, it's not difficult! And once the upper range of a passenger forcasts like those you can find here: https://www.parlamaid-alba.scot/cha...-questions-and-answers/question?ref=S3W-37086 (not quoting as big table) have been exceeded within seconds of a line opening AND this is then sustained, it's not really relevant when it was for; the point being demonstrated already stands! However the actuals are an average of the published figures for the three years before the line opened and for the three years prior to covid; as fair a before and after as is available.

Why isn’t Aylesbury Vale comparable?

It's a station built about 4km away from the existing station that actually served the town, and was built to serve an area that essentially didn't exist as at the time it was opened. St Neots & Cambourne on the other hand very much exist (if you require proof of this please refer to Google maps or something; please don't challenge me to provide it!) and don't have within a couple of km rail links on the corridor (you can also verify this from Google Maps or the National Rail website) where East West Rail would provide them (you can verify this from the maps on the East West Rail website).


as the busway goes past your window, you presumably see how frequent the buses are, and how busy they are.

Correct; I do. I see that they're the busiest and most successful buses in Cambridge (you can verify this because it's the only bus route in Cambridge that has a higher level of service than around 2005, where very few even have the same level of service as at that time). Most remarkably it's a route that gained an unsubsidised Sunday evening service that didn't exist before, which I suspect^ must put it into a very select group indeed. I often see people standing on them off peak, I often see them full at peak hours, and I often see them bunched.

And how full the park and ride car parks are at, say, St Ives, and the types of cars parked there. Do you really think everyone who uses it is “desperate“? If so, why?

It's a terrible way to travel, and I'm lucky to be close enough to Cambridge that I can cycle instead. I use it when I'm too ill to cycle, if I'm carrying too much to cycle, if the weather is too bad to cycle, or when about once a year I make the mistake of thinking that as it is raining it would be more pleasant to take the bus than cycle (it's not). It's horribly unreliable (you can verify this by looking at a live bus tracking app at rush hour) and on the way back it's hard to work out which is the best stop to wait at to reduce your risk of peak time A buses passing you full (you will likely never be able to verify this because any full bus you would ever see only proves that single bus was full...). You will struggle to find a regular user with much good to say about it other than that it exists. I used to commute from Huntingdon in pre-busway times, moved to a much smaller more expensive property because that was a nightmare, and on considering moving back once the busway opened had changed my mind somewhere between St Ives and Huntingdon.

*or at least, is commonly accepted to be by people that aren't shouting "prove it prove it" at anything that isn't convenient to their argument. Sometimes it isn't. But usually it is.
^I have no proof of this. It's just a suspicion, but one that I believe is reasonable in all the circumstances.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
35,929
I note the contributions from John Laing plc (why?)

Laing’s are the main shareholder in Chiltern Trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Are you one of those people that would demand evidence that a parachute can protect against injury from hitting the ground?

I‘d damn well want to see the it being packed correctly Before committing to jump, yes!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

can find here: https://www.parlamaid-alba.scot/cha...-questions-and-answers/question?ref=S3W-37086 (not quoting as big table) have been exceeded within seconds of a line opening AND this is then sustained, it's not really relevant when it was for;

Im afraid it is entirely relevant for what it is for. If those forecasts are for year 1 (2011) of that line , or even year 3, then they do not represent an accurate figure for forecast demand in 2019. As I have explained upthread, how demand is predicted to grow from nothing to ‘something’ in the early years is arbitrary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

It's a terrible way to travel

In your opinion


buses passing you full

but evidently others find it the best way to travel, otherwise they wouldn’t use it?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

You will struggle to find a regular user with much good to say about it other than that it exists.

Interestingly, 100% of my friends in the Huntingdon / Cambridge arc who use it say it’s great. A small sample, admittedly, but it wasn’t a struggle!
 
Last edited:

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,414
Location
The Fens
Solution - provide new/additional Park & Ride services from the fringe of the urban area to the new centres of employment within the conurbation, if that is where a lot of the jobs are now situated.
And who is going to drive them, when Stagecoach can't even retain enough drivers to operate the existing service?
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
2,133
And who is going to drive them, when Stagecoach can't even retain enough drivers to operate the existing service?
'To be fair' many/ most/ all operators are finding it difficult to recruit, train and retain sufficient drivers. Who would have imagined the pretty much full employment we 'suffer' today? The current government's 'answer' seems to be a more skilled workforce (which will take time) and/or more automation (which will take investment (so money and confidence, and job losses). What is 'the industry's' response going to be?
Automatic train operation ('driverless' trains) has been in operation on the Victoria Line since its inception sixty years ago.
Driverless road vehicles are well on the way.
Cambridge- centre of technological innovation!! (and MK and Oxford similarly!)
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,414
Location
The Fens
'To be fair' many/ most/ all operators are finding it difficult to recruit, train and retain sufficient drivers. Who would have imagined the pretty much full employment we 'suffer' today?
Anyone who bothered to look at population statistics.
 

Brubulus

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2022
Messages
974
Location
Cambridge
you're suggesting using ECML paths for an East-West Railway? that doesn't seem like a sensible way to use limited capacity?
The ECML is bottlenecked at Welwyn viaduct for London and between Huntingdon and Peterborough, therefore it should not infringe masively on paths as paths used south of Hitchin for Cambridge services can be used for EWR
You are suggesting two new flyovers over the ECML (one at Hitchin, and one at Sandy), plus rebuilding Bedford to enable 4tph to reverse, plus lots of extra capacity and level crossing work between Hitchin and Cambridge (as the line is at capacity), plus a new line from Sandy to Bedford that somehow avoids the businesses and homes in Sandy, Blunham and Bedford, and the School in Sandy… with lower capacity and a much longer journey time …is better value than the current proposal?
The current proposal seems to involve suggest way too many trains running on the route when the most trains I can see running is 2tph, remember that Cambridge to Peterbrough is 1tph and so is Cambridge to ipswich/Norwich.
Except you'd then need capacity on the full length of the Hitchin - Cambridge branch, which there isn't a huge amount of.

The old Varsity line formation has been built on at Sandy, including the A1junction, at Blunham, at Willington, the A421 Bedford bypass and Cardington Road. And that's before you also would need to build a suitable station at St Johns and couldn't serve Bedford Midland without a huge time penalty.
The main reason I was proposing this is as a way to get the route done on the cheap so it can be proved there is demand, later on a route from shepreth/royston to sandy can be built in a phase 2 to speed up journey times. I did however forget just how expensive flyovers are.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,414
Location
The Fens
The current proposal seems to involve suggest way too many trains running on the route when the most trains I can see running is 2tph, remember that Cambridge to Peterbrough is 1tph and so is Cambridge to ipswich/Norwich.
More suitable comparisons are Ely-Cambridge and Royston-Cambridge both 4tph (though latter currently reduced to 3tph off peak).

Once all the housebuilding, hospital building and laboratory building are done then 4tph will be needed St Neots-Cambridge.
 

Brubulus

Member
Joined
13 Oct 2022
Messages
974
Location
Cambridge
More suitable comparisons are Ely-Cambridge and Royston-Cambridge both 4tph (though latter currently reduced to 3tph off peak).

Once all the housebuilding, hospital building and laboratory building are done then 4tph will be needed St Neots-Cambridge
Royston to Cambridge only has that many trains because London to Cambridge trains call there, I wouldn't think services to London would go via St Neots. Ely gets 2tph to London plus the Birmingham and Norwich trains making 4tph.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,414
Location
The Fens
Royston to Cambridge only has that many trains because London to Cambridge trains call there,
Did you ever try to travel between Royston and Cambridge in pre-Thameslink days? I did.

The old 2tph 4 car train service was woefully inadequate: very busy off peak and at peak times severely overcrowded. The overcrowding was so bad that for many years bikes on trains were banned at peak times.

Royston-Cambridge is a busy traffic flow that is growing all the time. The more frequent and longer trains since 2018 have rectified a long standing (literally) overcrowding issue.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I wouldn't think services to London would go via St Neots.
No, but they will be running through to/from Bedford, Bletchley and Oxford.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Ely gets 2tph to London plus the Birmingham and Norwich trains making 4tph.
Prior to the introduction of 8 car trains, Cambridge-Kings Lynn trains were Great Northern's most overcrowded, evening peak Kings Cross-Kings Lynn were more overcrowded between Cambridge and Ely than they were between Kings Cross and Cambridge.
 
Last edited:

fishwomp

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
1,346
Location
milton keynes
In the 7 weeks that this thread has been running, it seems to be that the likelihood of going beyond Bedford has shrunk: the government has run out of money and money is now more expensive.

As a line from Oxford to Milton Keynes, it will be very useful. It will offer more and faster journey options for Oxford area to Manchester and Scotland. That is until HS2 stops Milton Keynes being called at by those services or reduces them to stoppers. It also adds resilience to classic WCML, and XC routes by diversion options.

Perhaps Bletchley to Bedford is at risk even, if Bedford-Cambridge is dropped. Bedford doesn't open that many journey options, and doesn't have the size to be a driver of significant journeys. If MML stopping patterns are changed, then Oxford/Didcot to Nottingham and Leicester, or connections for Luton airport, may be the only selling point.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,736
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I don't think the Marston Vale would be at risk of closure, if only because of the freight on it. However it is not at all unlikely that EWR might not use it, i.e. it will remain an hourly local connection from Bletchley, with EWR simply being 2tph Oxford to MKC.
 

fishwomp

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
1,346
Location
milton keynes
I don't think the Marston Vale would be at risk of closure, if only because of the freight on it. However it is not at all unlikely that EWR might not use it, i.e. it will remain an hourly local connection from Bletchley, with EWR simply being 2tph Oxford to MKC.
Right - sorry, I meant the big spend on Marston Vale, rather than closure of what is currently there!
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,724
In the 7 weeks that this thread has been running, it seems to be that the likelihood of going beyond Bedford has shrunk: the government has run out of money and money is now more expensive.

As a line from Oxford to Milton Keynes, it will be very useful. It will offer more and faster journey options for Oxford area to Manchester and Scotland. That is until HS2 stops Milton Keynes being called at by those services or reduces them to stoppers. It also adds resilience to classic WCML, and XC routes by diversion options.
I am still not convinced many TOCs will use it as a diversionary route. Especially if the WCML gets back to normal.
 

fishwomp

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
1,346
Location
milton keynes
I am still not convinced many TOCs will use it as a diversionary route. Especially if the WCML gets back to normal.
Well, at most three TOCs would be able to use it (those using WCML and/or Ox-Leamington).. or 4 if you include the Caledonian sleeper. It'd be unlikely to see use as a diversion route for the Island Line..

The nature of diversionary routes is for when and where there need to be diversions:

* WCML has gone route Bicester on many weekends to London. That was only feasible post Chiltern redoubling Bicester.. Any blockade from Rugby to Euston - this lets them break that in half (at least the south side).
* XC have always had to use buses for anything between Oxford and Leamington, and that's very regular indeed. There was also the Harbury blockade.
* WMT wouldn't really use it as it misses all their stops south of MKC.

You can already see network benefits on the existing Chiltern and EWR route: GWR diverted via Banbury from Didcot to get to London during the Reading blockade, even to the extent of installing brand new semaphores there for the duration. That wouldn't have been possible prior to redoubling Bicester route (phase 1 of Chiltern), and if that were done today, a diversion could be even shorter due to the final Chiltern piece of work that created Gavray Jct curve at Bicester.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,724
Well, at most three TOCs would be able to use it (those using WCML and/or Ox-Leamington).. or 4 if you include the Caledonian sleeper. It'd be unlikely to see use as a diversion route for the Island Line..

The nature of diversionary routes is for when and where there need to be diversions:

* WCML has gone route Bicester on many weekends to London. That was only feasible post Chiltern redoubling Bicester.. Any blockade from Rugby to Euston - this lets them break that in half (at least the south side).
* XC have always had to use buses for anything between Oxford and Leamington, and that's very regular indeed. There was also the Harbury blockade.
* WMT wouldn't really use it as it misses all their stops south of MKC.

You can already see network benefits on the existing Chiltern and EWR route: GWR diverted via Banbury from Didcot to get to London during the Reading blockade, even to the extent of installing brand new semaphores there for the duration. That wouldn't have been possible prior to redoubling Bicester route (phase 1 of Chiltern), and if that were done today, a diversion could be even shorter due to the final Chiltern piece of work that created Gavray Jct curve at Bicester.
Except all of this relies on the TOCs wanting to.

Virgin/Avanti haven't done that for years, and even when they have had the opportunity to do so over the last good few years with Voyagers they aren't interested. With Watford North back in and the fast to fast crossover I cannot see them even considering it.

XC are also not considering it as it stands, it will be 45 minutes Oxford to MK, and even with the cleanest path possible another 30 to Coventry. Oxford to Coventry is 46, then they will drop back a path so they don't have to retime either side so the impact compounds.

How are WMT and the sleeper going to use it? you cannot run a full sleeper set on diesel and what are WMT going to use, 196s?

Even with the generally agreed notion that passengers would rather stay on a train, if a RRB is that much quicker then journey planners will point that way.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,629
Location
Northampton
Perhaps Bletchley to Bedford is at risk even, if Bedford-Cambridge is dropped. Bedford doesn't open that many journey options, and doesn't have the size to be a driver of significant journeys. If MML stopping patterns are changed, then Oxford/Didcot to Nottingham and Leicester, or connections for Luton airport, may be the only selling point.
I think given the proposed amount of housing to be built in the area there will be some sort of upgrade to the Marston Vale, although it may not as big as it might otherwise have been.
The nature of diversionary routes is for when and where there need to be diversions:

You can already see network benefits on the existing Chiltern and EWR route: GWR diverted via Banbury from Didcot to get to London during the Reading blockade, even to the extent of installing brand new semaphores there for the duration. That wouldn't have been possible prior to redoubling Bicester route (phase 1 of Chiltern), and if that were done today, a diversion could be even shorter due to the final Chiltern piece of work that created Gavray Jct curve at Bicester.
The logistics of maintaining knowledge and competencies is likely to make any diversionary use unviable for passenger TOCs. FOCs might move 66-hauled Freight to EWR but a lot of the WCML traffic is bound for London or Felixstowe anyway so there won't be much to move.
 

fishwomp

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
1,346
Location
milton keynes
The logistics of maintaining knowledge and competencies is likely to make any diversionary use unviable for passenger TOCs. ..

Except all of this relies on the TOCs wanting to.

Virgin/Avanti haven't done that for years, ...

XC are also not considering it as it stands ...

How are WMT and the sleeper going to use it? you cannot run a full sleeper set on diesel and what are WMT going to use, 196s?.
Ahem.. that was my point. WMT wouldn't for commercial reason let alone needing to drag a unit.

As for the sleeper, well perhaps not.

My point was that someone says the majority of TOCs won't use it, and I was pointing out that the majority of TOCs aren't users of that part of WCML.... i.e. the number of TOCs to pick from is 4, which is already not a majority of TOCs.. No-one seems to doubt that the island line aren't going to be a candidate user... Although someone probably would argue they might, if taking unit to refurb in Derby or Doncaster..

Seriously, you both say for XC and WCML it won't happen, and I say that far more unusual and harder diversions have happened, some of which EWR can make easier..

So, here's my suggestion. Put a note in your diary, and in 10 years, if neither XC not WCML have used EWR to divert in that period, I will send both of you a crisp £10. On the other hand, if any time before then they do, please send me £10... We can agree to disagree for now.

FOCs might move 66-hauled Freight to EWR but a lot of the WCML traffic is bound for London or Felixstowe anyway so there won't be much to move.
A lot of container traffic through Oxford is from Southampton to the North. Often uses the Kenilworth section too... an alternative route will definitely be welcome and am sure used..
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,308
[…]
A lot of container traffic through Oxford is from Southampton to the North. Often uses the Kenilworth section too... an alternative route will definitely be welcome and am sure used..
I’d always thought Southampton to Daventry could be well used. But at the same time I don’t really see any good reason for Felixstowe to the midlands or north west freight services to use EWR, as the obvious junctions clearly face the wrong way.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,629
Location
Northampton
No-one seems to doubt that the island line aren't going to be a candidate user... Although someone probably would argue they might, if taking unit to refurb in Derby or Doncaster.
[Pedant] Island line aren't a TOC (it's part of SWR) and they'd have no need to take their units any further than Eastleigh, I'd have thought. [/Pedant]
Seriously, you both say for XC and WCML it won't happen, and I say that far more unusual and harder diversions have happened, some of which EWR can make easier..

So, here's my suggestion. Put a note in your diary, and in 10 years, if neither XC not WCML have used EWR to divert in that period, I will send both of you a crisp £10. On the other hand, if any time before then they do, please send me £10... We can agree to disagree for now.
Noted!
A lot of container traffic through Oxford is from Southampton to the North. Often uses the Kenilworth section too... an alternative route will definitely be welcome and am sure used..
Don't expect too much from daytime WTT paths. Northampton and MK are very congested and paths will want to be preserved for electric-hauled Wembley-Crewe slots and Daventry trains. However, I would expect the route to be used for overnight engineering diversions, when the passenger service is a much smaller problem. Especially as Bi-Mode freight locos come into service, as being able to minimise the diesel running will be very attractive to TOCs. There will also be potential new flows to Daventry because of the much reduced running distance and to the new Northampton Gateway terminal. However, with no loops planned on EWR other than the HS2 maintenance compound transfer lines, I believe EWR will only be capable of 1x class 4 /hr between the proposed passenger service.
 

fishwomp

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
1,346
Location
milton keynes
[. ] However, with no loops planned on EWR other than the HS2 maintenance compound transfer lines, I believe EWR will only be capable of 1x class 4 /hr between the proposed passenger service.
It surely won't be worth looping freightliners - if average speed of passenger is 60 mph (45 mins to MKC). Presumably bottlenecks are actually Oxford itself and Bletchley to MKC.

Bedford may be an interesting option (even without serious upgrade to the line) for freight too, there are Southampton-Leeds, Wakefield, Aldwarke and Doncasters coming through Oxford that may find MML capacity?
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,629
Location
Northampton
It surely won't be worth looping freightliners - if average speed of passenger is 60 mph (45 mins to MKC). Presumably bottlenecks are actually Oxford itself and Bletchley to MKC.
The loops will be needed to be able to pick the gaps at Oxford and MKC independently. And Bletchley to Northampton is the challenge, not just to MKC. Come out in the wrong gap and you'll get squeezed between a southbound departure and the Leighton Buzzard Fast coming in to Northampton.
Bedford may be an interesting option (even without serious upgrade to the line) for freight too, there are Southampton-Leeds, Wakefield, Aldwarke and Doncasters coming through Oxford that may find MML capacity?
You might need to wait until the wires get through Leicester itself if you want to send containers over the MML. IIRC Bedford-Wigston will be W10 compliant for the OLE, but Wigston north to Trent Junctions isn't clear for W10. Fairly sure There's no route through Chesterfield for W10/12 traffic either, but may be wrong on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top