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

[12LDA28C]

8 extra, (4 EWR each way), so 12 per hour with Chiltern Marylebone services?

(But maybe this isn't really a current construction progress matter, as it’s part of the new consultation for the future Bedford and Cambridge services that has its own thread.)

4 EWR trains each way every hour? That frequency of service is many years away yet, if it ever happens.

 

[swt_passenger]

4 EWR trains each way every hour? That frequency of service is many years away yet, if it ever happens.

That’s what the latest consultation is referring to isn’t it? That’s why I think it’s out of place in this thread.

 

[eastdyke]

I assume that the Written statement to Parliament today by Louise Haigh, in tandem with the Consultation will be a [very]
short summary of some of the main objectives.
As such I will read that first!

Next steps for East West Rail

East West Rail will kickstart economic growth and productivity and connect communities across the Oxford-Cambridge region.

www.gov.uk

I note [my bold]:

By 2050, East West Rail is set to boost the Oxford-Cambridge regional economy by £6.7 billion every year.

 

[ABB125]

I'm currently reading though the various documents in order, so apologies if this is mentioned elsewhere.
The consultation brochure states that two westbound passing loops are planned between Bletchley and Oxford. But no eastbound loops?
This seems a bit odd - surely there would need to be at least one eastbound passing loop as well? Or is the plan for freights etc to be looped somewhere adjacent to the WCML between Bletchley and Milton Keynes, before heading north? If so, why not do the same where EWR joins the line towards Oxford?
Also, 2 passing loops seems like a lot, when a less than hourly freight service is expected...

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm currently reading though the various documents in order, so apologies if this is mentioned elsewhere.
The consultation brochure states that two westbound passing loops are planned between Bletchley and Oxford. But no eastbound loops?
This seems a bit odd - surely there would need to be at least one eastbound passing loop as well? Or is the plan for freights etc to be looped somewhere adjacent to the WCML between Bletchley and Milton Keynes, before heading north? If so, why not do the same where EWR joins the line towards Oxford?
Also, 2 passing loops seems like a lot, when a less than hourly freight service is expected...

There already is one completed eastbound passing loop on EWR, just after the HS2 crossing.

 

[Magdalia]

I assume that the Written statement to Parliament today by Louise Haigh, in tandem with the Consultation will be a [very]
short summary of some of the main objectives.
As such I will read that first!

The penultimate paragraph of the statement says something that I've not found in the consultation documents:

The Department for Transport will also be issuing safeguarding directions for East West Rail today to protect land from conflicting development. I am placing a copy of the safeguarding directions in the Libraries of both Houses.

 

[eastdyke]

The penultimate paragraph of the statement says something that I've not found in the consultation documents:
The Department for Transport will also be issuing safeguarding directions for East West Rail today to protect land from conflicting development. I am placing a copy of the safeguarding directions in the Libraries of both Houses.

No consultation needed on that!
It does of course impose obligations and cost upon The Authorities along the safeguarded route.

 

[12LDA28C]

I'm currently reading though the various documents in order, so apologies if this is mentioned elsewhere.
The consultation brochure states that two westbound passing loops are planned between Bletchley and Oxford. But no eastbound loops?
This seems a bit odd - surely there would need to be at least one eastbound passing loop as well? Or is the plan for freights etc to be looped somewhere adjacent to the WCML between Bletchley and Milton Keynes, before heading north? If so, why not do the same where EWR joins the line towards Oxford?
Also, 2 passing loops seems like a lot, when a less than hourly freight service is expected...

The loops at Claydon are bi-directional, as are the loops at Bicester so in actual fact there are already four loops along the route which can be used by both eastbound and westbound trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2024 ==

There already is one completed eastbound passing loop on EWR, just after the HS2 crossing.

See above.

 

[jfowkes]

The consultation document proposes dualling the Newmarket line between Coldhams Lane Junction and Cherry Hinton LC to act as a turnback siding, and proposes rebuilding the two footbridges over that section:

We are planning to reconstruct two footbridges at Coldham’s Common and The Tins footpath to allow for electrification of the railway and the addition of a second track.

Two things I note:

• Neither the proposal nor the technical report mention the foot/cyclepath underpass at the far west of this section, which as far as I can tell from google maps would also need a rebuild. This is a very well used path and the narrow underpass is a chokepoint on it. Dualling the line would be an excellent opportunity to improve this path. I will be bringing this up at a consultation meeting - hopefully this omission is just an oversight by EWR.
• It's not entirely clear to me why they need to go all the way to Cherry Hinton just for a turnback siding?

 

[Magdalia]

The consultation document proposes dualling the Newmarket line between Coldhams Lane Junction and Cherry Hinton LC to act as a turnback siding, and proposes rebuilding the two footbridges over that section:


Two things I note:

• Neither the proposal nor the technical report mention the foot/cyclepath underpass at the far west of this section, which as far as I can tell from google maps would also need a rebuild. This is a very well used path and the narrow underpass is a chokepoint on it. Dualling the line would be an excellent opportunity to improve this path. I will be bringing this up at a consultation meeting - hopefully this omission is just an oversight by EWR.
• It's not entirely clear to me why they need to go all the way to Cherry Hinton just for a turnback siding?

Have you read section 13.4.1 of the Technical Report?

I'm presuming that the underpass (now part of the Chisholm Trail) is covered as part of this:

Realignment of the existing track at several locations to accommodate the new parallel track within the same track formation. Remedial and extension works to the existing track formation would be required to accommodate the additional tracks.

And this in the same section may be a clue about Cherry Hinton:

EWR Co has identified the potential for a new station to the east of Cambridge on the line to Newmarket, which would enable services to turn around and would also provide additional connectivity for this part of Cambridge. A station at Cambridge East is not within the current scope of EWR, but it is recognised this could deliver benefits including supporting wider growth and opportunities for local people in this area of Cambridge. Third-party funding would be required to take forward a scheme in this area.

 

[ABB125]

There already is one completed eastbound passing loop on EWR, just after the HS2 crossing.

Ah, I see. Thanks

 

[jfowkes]

Have you read section 13.4.1 of the Technical Report?

Yeah I was just a bit surprised it mentioned the two footbridges explicitly but not the underpass.

 

[ABB125]

Something else I've noticed - there seem to be an awfully large number of proposed power line diversions throughout the scheme, including existing sections and Oxford-Bletchley (which is currently being rebuilt has now finished being rebuilt). These diversions are presumably due to proposed electrification? Which would imply full electrification across the entire line.
Alternatively, if these diversions are not due to electrification, what are they for? For example, the 4 high-voltage transmission lines heading north from East Claydon substation (3x132kV, 1x400kV) are all listed as being proposed for diversion. Yet they weren't diverted for the current rebuilding works, so the only reasonable explanation is electrical clearances if the line is electrified.
However, have diversions of every electricity grid power line along an electrification scheme been required previously, such as the MML? If not, why are they required for EWR? Are they just being overly pessimistic?
Taking the 400kV transmission line north of East Claydon, there is a pylon immediately south of EWR (which, remember, has just been rebuilt and didn't need diversion for that). Therefore, the wires will be at their highest point; there is a huge amount of vertical clearance, compared to the (newly-constructed) bridge next to it (as shown here).

Transmission line diversions are not cheap. Is there an element of gold-plating going on here?

 

[LalRattyMember]

Something else I've noticed - there seem to be an awfully large number of proposed power line diversions throughout the scheme, including existing sections and Oxford-Bletchley (which is currently being rebuilt). These diversions are presumably due to proposed electrification? Which would imply full electrification across the entire line.
Alternatively, if these diversions are not due to electrification, what are they for? For example, the 4 high-voltage transmission lines heading north from East Claydon substation (3x132kV, 1x400kV) are all listed as being proposed for diversion. Yet they weren't diverted for the current rebuilding works, so the only reasonable explanation is electrical clearances if the line is electrified.
However, have diversions of every electricity grid power line along an electrification scheme been required previously, such as the MML? If not, why are they required for EWR? Are they just being overly pessimistic?
Taking the 400kV transmission line north of East Claydon, there is a pylon immediately south of EWR (which, remember, has just been rebuilt and didn't need diversion for that). Therefore, the wires will be at their highest point; there is a huge amount of vertical clearance, compared to the (newly-constructed) bridge next to it (as shown here).

Transmission line diversions are not cheap. Is there an element of gold-plating going on here?

The plan AIUI for Claydon is a complete rebuild/resiting of the current 1960s substation. As part of that there are some planned OHL diversions to connect to the new substation site. There's some local info here

 

[12LDA28C]

Something else I've noticed - there seem to be an awfully large number of proposed power line diversions throughout the scheme, including existing sections and Oxford-Bletchley (which is currently being rebuilt). These diversions are presumably due to proposed electrification? Which would imply full electrification across the entire line.
Alternatively, if these diversions are not due to electrification, what are they for? For example, the 4 high-voltage transmission lines heading north from East Claydon substation (3x132kV, 1x400kV) are all listed as being proposed for diversion. Yet they weren't diverted for the current rebuilding works, so the only reasonable explanation is electrical clearances if the line is electrified.

Oxford - Bletchley is complete and has been handed over to Network Rail.

 

[Starmill]

That frequency of service is many years away yet, if it ever happens.

Only 6 years so now is the time it needs to be planned.

 

[12LDA28C]

Only 6 years so now is the time it needs to be planned.

Do we really expect to see 2tph Oxford - MKC and 2tph Oxford - Bedford in 2030?

 

[Starmill]

Do we really expect to see 2tph Oxford - MKC and 2tph Oxford - Bedford in 2030?

If it weren't possible it'd be quite bizarre to consult on it.

 

[12LDA28C]

If it weren't possible it'd be quite bizarre to consult on it.

I'm sure there were consultations on plenty of infrastructure projects that didn't materialise within their envisaged timescale.

 

[Starmill]

I'm sure there were consultations on plenty of infrastructure projects that didn't materialise within their envisaged timescale.

No project of any kind can ever be 100% certain of timescales though, can it? So your argument is what? That the level crossing doesn't need to be considered at all, because a delay is a possibility? That would apply to any enhancement you could mention.

The scale of the works isn't exactly ground-breaking. Can you comment on why six years isn't adequate time to close a level crossing?

 

[Andyjs247]

The loops at Claydon are bi-directional, as are the loops at Bicester so in actual fact there are already four loops along the route which can be used by both eastbound and westbound trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2024 ==



See above.

There is one loop at Claydon on the Down side and a loop at Bicester on the up side. So only 2 loops which could be used in either direction if needed. It would require crossing moves if they were to be used in the opposite direction. The bi-directional capability of both loops will be more useful for reversals - to access the MOD site at Bicester or at Claydon to access the future HS2 infrastructure depot or perhaps towards Calvert and Aylesbury.

 

[The Planner]

The loops at Claydon are bi-directional, as are the loops at Bicester so in actual fact there are already four loops along the route which can be used by both eastbound and westbound trains.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Nov 2024 ==



See above.

There was a planned loop at Newton Longville that got canned in the Bletchley direction. Got left as passive provision.

 

[mr_jrt]

I can't recall offhand - are any loops planned on the Bletchley to Bedford section? I do however note some are planned near Cambourne, if I read the literature correctly.

 

[ABB125]

I can't recall offhand - are any loops planned on the Bletchley to Bedford section? I do however note some are planned near Cambourne, if I read the literature correctly.

Yes, one in each direction, plus a 3rd platform at Stewartby for services to terminate

 

[GRALISTAIR]

The plan AIUI for Claydon is a complete rebuild/resiting of the current 1960s substation. As part of that there are some planned OHL diversions to connect to the new substation site. There's some local info here

Wow - thanks for that. I did not realise there were plans in the works for this. East-West rail will factor in of course and I assume HS2?

 

[Magdalia]

I can't recall offhand - are any loops planned on the Bletchley to Bedford section? I do however note some are planned near Cambourne, if I read the literature correctly.

Yes, see section 7.9.5 in the Technical Report:

Six options have been identified for the location of passing loops which would be constructed in the Ridgmont and Stewartby area as shown in Figure 63. There are three westbound loop options and three eastbound options, with only one loop required in each direction.

I do however note some are planned near Cambourne, if I read the literature correctly.

Yes see section 11.2.2 in the Technical Report.

A track maintenance access point directly to the east of the St Neots Road overbridge would be accessed from St Neots Road to the north of the railway, and St Neots Road/Cambourne Road roundabout to the south. 250m further east, passing loops both sides of the railway would be constructed approximately 1.3km (0.8 miles) in length to allow faster passenger trains to overtake slower trains.

Passing loops are also proposed at Hauxton junction in section 12.3.2.2 of the Technical Report.

During design development, the operational analysis for the railway identified a requirement for passing loops to be constructed at certain locations along the route. Hauxton Junction was one of the identified locations for these loops, therefore, the options were revised to include provision for this.

 

[12LDA28C]

There is one loop at Claydon on the Down side and a loop at Bicester on the up side. So only 2 loops which could be used in either direction if needed. It would require crossing moves if they were to be used in the opposite direction. The bi-directional capability of both loops will be more useful for reversals - to access the MOD site at Bicester or at Claydon to access the future HS2 infrastructure depot or perhaps towards Calvert and Aylesbury.

As stated above, there are two loops at Claydon and two at Bicester. So, four loops.

 

[Andyjs247]

There is not capacity to loop two trains in opposite directions at the same time at either location.

 

[12LDA28C]

There is not capacity to loop two trains in opposite directions at the same time at either location.

Why not? Surely the signalling allows it? As long as neither train is overlength for the loop of course.

 

[TheHSRailFan]

Finished reading the document an hour ago.
I read both this and the 2021 consultation document and this one feels more refined (as expected) compared to the document in 2021. It does seem like they are willing to get their hands on the Marston Vale as soon as possible, getting straight to the point with many things. I really don't get however why they really split the Marston Vale part into 2 when the "Consolidated stations" option feels like the best choice. Also, EWR Ltd's favouring of discontinuous electrification than full electrification is a weird choice, even with their "reasons".