East West Rail (EWR) Consultation - speculation

[Wyrleybart]

The 196s are temporary.

How temporary ?
AIUI there is no current plan to electrify EWR so they will need diesel or batteries or hydrogen to run the service after 196s have come to the end of their "temporary" tenure. Where do the 196s then go, back to WMR ? I would have thought those 196s would be needed for the new Camp Hill service which wont be electrified,

 

[zwk500]

What is this electrification I see you mention !!!!
Shurely if they were serious they wouldn't be storing nearly-new class 196s ready for EWR !!

The government has talked about discontinuous electrification - if you were to electrify only part of the route, the bit in the middle with few overbridges that is between two already electrified sections would be the obvious one to do!

It's 31 miles from Oxford to Bletchley, 16.5 miles from Bletchley to Bedford, and the old Bedford to Cambridge line via Sandy took a further 30 miles, the new route will be slightly longer I guess. Battery units used around the world have up to 80km (50 mile) range, although Vivarail was claiming 100 miles/160km for the 230s with 10-min fast charge. The two options are either extending electrification from the ends in, or to wire the bit in the middle with as much run-out either side as practical.

That's not to say it'll definitely be this option that's chosen - hence I said electrification was a variable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While that is true, there has been some suggestion of their successors being as yet unbuilt battery units, and discontinuous electrification.

Indeed, but it's still electrification and modern battery units are much quicker off the mark than Class 150s are.

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

How temporary ?
AIUI there is no current plan to electrify EWR so they will need diesel or batteries or hydrogen to run the service after 196s have come to the end of their "temporary" tenure. Where do the 196s then go, back to WMR ? I would have thought those 196s would be needed for the new Camp Hill service which wont be electrified,

The consultation addresses the question of future approaches to powering trains - discontinuous electrification is the preferred option (much as I disagree strongly with that and think it should be wired conventionally).

 

[Magdalia]

The proposed service from the Oxford end is 2tph to Cambridge and 2 tph to Milton Keynes. It is only from the Cambridge direction that there are no through trains to Milton Keynes.

Even if the east to north curve at Bletchley existed, Cambridge could only have through trains to Milton Keynes under the Marston Vale consolidation option, which allows one of the 2tph Cambridge-Stewartby to run through to Bletchley or Milton Keynes.

However, it is not clear why only 1 of the 2tph Cambridge-Stewartby runs through to Bletchley in the consolidation option, possibly capacity at Bletchley?

This is all in the consultation document section 5.1.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The proposed service from the Oxford end is 2tph to Cambridge and 2 tph to Milton Keynes. It is only from the Cambridge direction that there are no through trains to Milton Keynes.

Even if the east to north curve at Bletchley existed, Cambridge could only have through trains to Milton Keynes under the Marston Vale consolidation option, which allows one of the 2tph Cambridge-Stewartby to run through to Bletchley or Milton Keynes.

Of the options offered, yes. I can't see any capacity issue with terminating 2tph at Bletchley, Platform 6 is not used for anything else (freights can go through 5 which isn't used in normal service aside from when someone going to/from the Vale requests assistance, plus for early morning/late evening starting/terminating, and a lift could be fitted to 6 to solve that).

Personally (assuming HS2 Phase 1 completion by then) I'd run everything via MKC (and a Denbigh East Chord) and abandon the through service, given the usage patterns I would expect to see. I don't expect to see significant Bicester/Winslow to Bedford/Tempsford/Cambridge traffic, nor significant Bedford/Tempsford/Cambridge to Oxford traffic. Like it was years ago when there were almost no or very few through services, the demand will largely be split by Milton Keynes (whose existence has made the line viable again by creating a significant source and sink of additional traffic). Bletchley can provide for it as a source with people driving there, but as a sink it's poor aside from the footy - most people want Central MK.

 

[zwk500]

Of the options offered, yes. I can't see any capacity issue with terminating 2tph at Bletchley, Platform 6 is not used for anything else (freights can go through 5 which isn't used in normal service aside from when someone going to/from the Vale requests assistance, plus for early morning/late evening starting/terminating, and a lift could be fitted to 6 to solve that).

Not to/from the terminals at Bletchley itself they can't. The southern connection is before either platform but the northern/eastern connection is the wrong side of the crossovers (unless OTT and Signalmaps have it wrong). However sensible planning should be able to accomodate 2tph turning round between 5 and 6 for the freight that does need to use 6.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not to/from the terminals at Bletchley itself they can't. The southern connection is before either platform but the northern/eastern connection is the wrong side of the crossovers (unless OTT and Signalmaps have it wrong). However sensible planning should be able to accomodate 2tph turning round between 5 and 6 for the freight that does need to use 6.

As in the aggregates factory? I can't see that having long left to be honest - its potential value as residential development land is massive. With that gone you could even squash in a P6A on the other side of the island.

 

[Magdalia]

ersonally (assuming HS2 Phase 1 completion by then) I'd run everything via MKC (and a Denbigh East Chord) and abandon the through service

That would require 8tph in each direction between Denbigh Hall and Milton Keynes Central. 4tph each way all via Milton Keynes is not going to happen.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That would require 8tph in each direction between Denbigh Hall and Milton Keynes Central. 4tph each way all via Milton Keynes is not going to happen.

I'd seriously question if 4tph along the whole route will ever happen. Demand is unlikely to ever justify more than 2 apart from potentially short additional shuttles.

A sensible long-term service would be 2tph from Oxford to Cambridge via MKC, running as an 8-car EMU (or 6-car if 24m vehicles are used).

EWR Ltd have high-flying plans, but when the time to cough up the subsidy for those plans comes I think they won't go anywhere near what they're proposing. The demand just won't require it.

 

[Magdalia]

The government has talked about discontinuous electrification - if you were to electrify only part of the route, the bit in the middle with few overbridges that is between two already electrified sections would be the obvious one to do!

The consultation document says this in section 5.2.2

Our preference for discontinuous electrification with hybrid battery electric trains would mean overhead lines would only need to be installed along some sections of the route. It would mean less disruption to existing structures, such as road bridges over the existing railway between Oxford and Bedford, and may have the potential to reduce visual impacts in more sensitive locations on the new railway between Bedford and Cambridge.

The technical report has this on incoming traction power supply in 14.1.2:

A number of potential substation compound locations are being considered in either Quainton/Steeple Claydon, Millbrook and Little Barford (optionality is present for some of these). This is likely to be supported by existing railway electrification substation upgrades in Oxford, Bedford and north of Cambridge.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I'd seriously question if 4tph along the whole route will ever happen. Demand is unlikely to ever justify more than 2 apart from potentially short additional shuttles.

A sensible long-term service would be 2tph from Oxford to Cambridge via MKC, running as an 8-car EMU (or 6-car if 24m vehicles are used).

If it turns out you are correct that Milton Keynes turns out to be by far the the biggest destination for trains along the route, then maybe in the long run, through Oxford-Cambridge services isn't the best way to use the line. Would we be better off aiming to do something like 2tph Milton Keynes-Bristol, and separately 2tph Milton Keynes-Norwich?

 

[Magdalia]

I'd seriously question if 4tph along the whole route will ever happen.

4tph will happen at the Cambridge end. The Ely, Royston and Audley End routes all have that already.

 

[Bletchleyite]

4tph will happen at the Cambridge end. The Ely, Royston and Audley End routes all have that already.

That's viable because at least some of the service (all of it in some case) has the very large demand centre of London at one end of it. East West Rail isn't Merseyrail or Thameslink, it's a glorified country branch line running through an awful lot of rural nothingness.

I simply cannot see the demand for 4tph from Bedford to Cambridge existing unless a big load of new eco-towns with new stations were to be developed along the line of route (think a big load of Buckshaw Villages, perhaps five or so of them along the route), and even then 2tph of longer trains would likely suffice.

 

[Magdalia]

it's a glorified country branch line running through an awful lot of rural nothingness.

That's where you are going wrong. Cambourne is expanding, Tempsford New Town is likely to happen, smaller numbers will commute to Cambridge from Bedford and Stewartby. By the time the line opens it will not be rural nothingness.

The Cambridge Biomedical Campus alone already has more than 22k jobs and will be above 30k by the time EWR opens. All those people need to get to and from work and lots of them will use EWR.

 

[bspahh]

I simply cannot see the demand for 4tph from Bedford to Cambridge existing unless a big load of new eco-towns with new stations were to be developed along the line of route (think a big load of Buckshaw Villages, perhaps five or so of them along the route), and even then 2tph of longer trains would likely suffice.

A big load of new eco-towns are going to be developed.

When I moved to work in Cambridge in 2000, on a scientist salary, I could have a nice house in a nasty part of Cambridge, or a nasty house in a nice part. In Ely, I could afford a nice house in a nice part. Now you would need two incomes to afford that, or to move further out.

With two incomes, you then need to live somewhere within commuting distance for two jobs.

Science jobs can be pretty specialised, so you don't have a lot of choice. The last time I had to look for a job, I had choices in Cambridge, Ongar which would have been a 60 mile drive, or Oxford, which would have been a move.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Freight:
In the document "our approach to freight" - it outlines a long-term requirement for up to 10 additional freight trains/day each way between Oxford and the WCML.

Whilst I'm very excited by the prospects for batteries, even for freight locomotives, it might suggest that full electrification of this section could be a better option. A new substation at Quainton/Claydon could also perhaps feed other future electrification including around Oxford or Aylesbury.

However, the document does make it clear that this is what EWR is thinking about in the absence of other upgrades, so being more pessimistic, they might not be considering this impact because their terms of reference assume that all freight is going to need diesel haulage anyway South of Oxford.

 

[The Planner]

Although I wouldn't say never, I'll be astonished if I see a Denbigh East curve in the next 50 years.

I might take that bet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I might take that bet.

It needs doing sooner rather than later, before someone gets the idea to redevelop the rather ranshackle, cheap sets of mostly-small-business industrial units that are in the way of it into housing, which they probably will at some stage!

It's one that needs consideration before deciding on the Marston Vale station options, in a way, because direct services to MKC, particularly if more than 1tph, have the potential to take the Marston Vale from a backwater into a busy commuter route, particularly as Milton Keynes' car-friendliness is likely to subside somewhat as it gets bigger (traffic congestion, which wasn't a thing in 2001 when I moved here, is starting to be a thing at times and will only get worse).

 

[Magdalia]

A new substation at Quainton/Claydon could also perhaps feed other future electrification including around Oxford or Aylesbury.

This is in the Technical Report section 14.1.3.

Quainton and Steeple Claydon area There is an option in this area is to obtain an electricity connection from the existing grid site (at Quainton) on the Aylesbury Line, approximately 6km (4 miles) from the route. Electricity cabling would then be laid along the Aylesbury Line up to the EWR Oxford to Bletchley route section. There are two sub-options at Quainton, either to connect to National Grid’s or HS2’s grid system. These options are subject to integration with HS2’s planned works to provide a cost-effective approach. There is an alternative option to obtain an electricity supply in the East Claydon area by cabling from the existing National Grid site that is situated 1.5km (1 mile) from the route beside the disused Metropolitan Railway Line south of Verney Junction.

 

[Magdalia]

A big load of new eco-towns are going to be developed.

This will hopefully become clear when the New Towns Taskforce report in summer 2025.

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

Science jobs can be pretty specialised, so you don't have a lot of choice. The last time I had to look for a job, I had choices in Cambridge, Ongar which would have been a 60 mile drive, or Oxford, which would have been a move.

Once EWR opens, Milton Keynes and Bedford will be attractive locations for people wanting the option of working in Cambridge or the other place, and especially suitable for couples where one works in each.

 

[jfowkes]

It needs doing sooner rather than later, before someone gets the idea to redevelop the rather ranshackle, cheap sets of mostly-small-business industrial units that are in the way of it into housing, which they probably will at some stage!

EWR are willing to take out some light industrial buildings at Cauldwell Walk to move Jowitt Sidings, so doing the same at Bletchley shouldn't be an issue. You wouldn't even necessarily lose any land, as the existing sidings/depot/whatever would presumably get cut off and be useless to the railway, and so could be sold off...?

 

[bspahh]

Once EWR opens, Milton Keynes and Bedford will be attractive locations for people wanting the option of working in Cambridge or the other place, and especially suitable for couples where one works in each.

Yes. At the moment, if you have a couple where one works in Cambridge and the other in Oxford, you either need to like driving, or live in London.

 

[12LDA28C]

Freight:
In the document "our approach to freight" - it outlines a long-term requirement for up to 10 additional freight trains/day each way between Oxford and the WCML.

Whilst I'm very excited by the prospects for batteries, even for freight locomotives, it might suggest that full electrification of this section could be a better option. A new substation at Quainton/Claydon could also perhaps feed other future electrification including around Oxford or Aylesbury.

However, the document does make it clear that this is what EWR is thinking about in the absence of other upgrades, so being more pessimistic, they might not be considering this impact because their terms of reference assume that all freight is going to need diesel haulage anyway South of Oxford.

Electrification at Aylesbury is not possible and will not feature in any discontinuous electrification of the Chilterns, due to power supply capacity constraints in the area although maybe the connection to HS2 grid might work.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes. At the moment, if you have a couple where one works in Cambridge and the other in Oxford, you either need to like driving, or live in London.

True. Bletchley might be a good choice for such people - it does have nice bits!

 

[cle]

Personally (assuming HS2 Phase 1 completion by then) I'd run everything via MKC (and a Denbigh East Chord) and abandon the through service, given the usage patterns I would expect to see. I don't expect to see significant Bicester/Winslow to Bedford/Tempsford/Cambridge traffic, nor significant Bedford/Tempsford/Cambridge to Oxford traffic. Like it was years ago when there were almost no or very few through services, the demand will largely be split by Milton Keynes (whose existence has made the line viable again by creating a significant source and sink of additional traffic). Bletchley can provide for it as a source with people driving there, but as a sink it's poor aside from the footy - most people want Central MK.

If it turns out you are correct that Milton Keynes turns out to be by far the the biggest destination for trains along the route, then maybe in the long run, through Oxford-Cambridge services isn't the best way to use the line. Would we be better off aiming to do something like 2tph Milton Keynes-Bristol, and separately 2tph Milton Keynes-Norwich?

There is not a soul in Cambridge who would want or need to travel to Milton Keynes itself. Maybe it will be a quicker route to Manchester and Birmingham, but let's not overplay its importance from afar of from the east. Oxford and Cambridge are the draws, passenger numbers attest to this.

MKC is a big source for sure, but I see that heading westwards (for EWR) with little need for Cambridge-MKC services, unless they go onwards. And Bletchley can be the railhead also, it's not as if the option won't be there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is not a soul in Cambridge who would want or need to travel to Milton Keynes itself. Maybe it will be a quicker route to Manchester and Birmingham, but let's not overplay its importance from afar of from the east. Oxford and Cambridge are the draws, passenger numbers attest to this.

MKC is a big source for sure, but I see that heading westwards (for EWR) with little need for Cambridge-MKC services, unless they go onwards.

Cambridge perhaps not. But certainly people will travel there from along the Marston Vale and Bedford. And they don't by train because there's no direct service.

I think you understate the potential draw of Milton Keynes, though. The Snowdome (Xscape) is one example of something that draws from wide around. There are only low single figures of these in the country.

And Bletchley can be the railhead also, it's not as if the option won't be there.

As a traffic source only. The main reason for building MKC to start with is because people travel to Milton Keynes for work and leisure - if it was only for outbound traffic Bletchley and Wolverton would have been enough on their own. Bletchley is only a destination for the football and for Bletchley Park, it's otherwise a pure traffic source - the jobs available there are not the sort you commute a long way to, they're mostly low-wage manual, warehouse and retail jobs.

 

[Magdalia]

There is not a soul in Cambridge who would want or need to travel to Milton Keynes itself.

But there will be people wanting to come to Cambridge from Milton Keynes. However, I suspect that those who drive will go to Ridgmont to get the train to Cambridge, especially if Ridgmont station is moved to the MK side of the M1.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But there will be people wanting to come to Cambridge from Milton Keynes. However, I suspect that those who drive will go to Ridgmont to get the train to Cambridge, especially if Ridgmont station is moved to the MK side of the M1.

More likely Bletchley, it's more easily accessed from within MK than going all the way to the M1 down the notoriously congested A421.

But MKC is a big demand centre inbound from its hinterland. Maybe not past Bedford/Winslow (or Bicester), but certainly from that section of the route.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

That's viable because at least some of the service (all of it in some case) has the very large demand centre of London at one end of it. East West Rail isn't Merseyrail or Thameslink, it's a glorified country branch line running through an awful lot of rural nothingness.

It won't be once all the housing development earmarked for the line is finished.

 

[cle]

I think you understate the potential draw of Milton Keynes, though. The Snowdome (Xscape) is one example of something that draws from wide around. There are only low single figures of these in the country.

I'm not down on MK a a whole - it does have demand but I just don't think the sphere of influence is quite as big/far - and I love the idea of better commuting options inbound (MV if better and electric) - but I see this route more as a V.

I don't think indoor skiing will move the needle on rail use though. Most will drive, but maybe people from 'Anglia' are going already. Who knows, but edge.... Universal however will definitely have an impact, and many will come via MKC/Bletchley I'm sure.