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

[zwk500]

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

Do the overlaps lock out the junctions? Obviously you'd be able to wait for the overlap on the first train to time out, but would prevent the trains being signalled in simultaneously

 

[Nottingham59]

I see EWR are going to have their very own Bat Tunnel:

15.3 Harlton and Haslingfield

We propose to construct a tunnel for the railway to pass through Chapel Hill. This would avoid having to construct a very large cutting, which would require significant construction works and could affect the flight paths of Barbastelle bats which live in the area. The tunnel would be approximately 700m (770 yards) long and have a maximum depth of approximately 26m (85 feet).

The press are going to love this.

 

[jfowkes]

I see EWR are going to have their very own Bat Tunnel:



The press are going to love this.

That area of Cambridgeshire is anti-EWR central. I suspect the tunnel is as much about trying to placate local NIMBYs as it is about protecting the bats.

Frankly I care more about the bats.

 

[The Planner]

Do the overlaps lock out the junctions? Obviously you'd be able to wait for the overlap on the first train to time out, but would prevent the trains being signalled in simultaneously

I'd be surprised if they didn't, but to say there isn't capacity seems a bit far fetched.

 

[zwk500]

I see EWR are going to have their very own Bat Tunnel:



The press are going to love this.

At least that sounds like they are building an actual tunnel, rather than the 'shed' that has been talked about (yes I know it's a very substantial structure).

 

[Magdalia]

I see EWR are going to have their very own Bat Tunnel:



The press are going to love this.

As its name implies, Chapel Hill is a hill. The usual way for railways to go through hills is in a tunnel.

In my younger and fitter days I used to cycle over Chapel Hill. By Fenland standards, it is a big and steep hill. If you look at the map then you will see that the highest point of Chapel Hill is 61m, but the River Rhee valley nearby is only 14m, a height difference of almost 50m. If I remember rightly the road over Chapel Hill has a 1 in 10 gradient on the Haslingfield side, with gradient warning road signs, and I doubt that the local highway authority has to buy many of those.

The proposal in the previous consultation was for the railway to be at a high elevation with a deep cutting through Chapel Hill and a high embankment/viaduct over the River Rhee valley, allowing the A10 road to pass underneath the railway. This was what became known as the Great Wall of Cambridgeshire, with the local NIMBYs erecting scaffolding towers on farmland to demonstrate how high it would be.

I doubt that I was the only one, but, at the previous consultation, I advocated a railway at lower elevation with a tunnel through Chapel Hill, a much lower viaduct over the River Rhee, and the A10 going over the railway instead of under. This makes for a better railway, especially for freight, and, at the same time, a railway that is much less intrusive in the landscape.

I am delighted that the current proposal does almost exactly as I suggested. What is proposed now is so much better than what was in the previous consultation. The fact that the bats benefit too is incidental, this is a real improvement for the railway and for the locality, though I doubt that the NIMBYs will admit that. For me it demonstrates that the consultation process does help to get a better project, just as it did with Cambridge South station.

 

[LalRattyMember]

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?

Nothing explicitly stated in the info from National Grid about railway connections. The main concern seems to be replacing the existing substation as it's reached end of life and a capacity uplift to support development in the area.

 

[a good off]

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

Which in my opinion should have been left in the plan and built. As soon as anything is going wrong north of Denbigh Hall on the WCML this loop would become a vital bolt hole for any freight traffic that had already passed Claydon.

 

[bnc2018]

As its name implies, Chapel Hill is a hill. The usual way for railways to go through hills is in a tunnel.

In my younger and fitter days I used to cycle over Chapel Hill. By Fenland standards, it is a big and steep hill. If you look at the map then you will see that the highest point of Chapel Hill is 61m, but the River Rhee valley nearby is only 14m, a height difference of almost 50m. If I remember rightly the road over Chapel Hill has a 1 in 10 gradient on the Haslingfield side, with gradient warning road signs, and I doubt that the local highway authority has to buy many of those.

The proposal in the previous consultation was for the railway to be at a high elevation with a deep cutting through Chapel Hill and a high embankment/viaduct over the River Rhee valley, allowing the A10 road to pass underneath the railway. This was what became known as the Great Wall of Cambridgeshire, with the local NIMBYs erecting scaffolding towers on farmland to demonstrate how high it would be.

I doubt that I was the only one, but, at the previous consultation, I advocated a railway at lower elevation with a tunnel through Chapel Hill, a much lower viaduct over the River Rhee, and the A10 going over the railway instead of under. This makes for a better railway, especially for freight, and, at the same time, a railway that is much less intrusive in the landscape.

I am delighted that the current proposal does almost exactly as I suggested. What is proposed now is so much better than what was in the previous consultation. The fact that the bats benefit too is incidental, this is a real improvement for the railway and for the locality, though I doubt that the NIMBYs will admit that. For me it demonstrates that the consultation process does help to get a better project, just as it did with Cambridge South station.

This is the exact same thing that happened with HS2 though - there's no engineering reason for there to be a tunnel, there's just the complaints of some people nearby.

So as a result, the government is going to spend (presumably) north of £100M to placate some people that don't want an embankment built near their house.

I'm sure it's a lovely hill, but if we were going to spend that money on something to improve the environment, is this really the best use of it? It would probably be cheaper to just give everyone living nearby 10 grand.

 

[jfowkes]

This is the exact same thing that happened with HS2 though - there's no engineering reason for there to be a tunnel, there's just the complaints of some people nearby.

So as a result, the government is going to spend (presumably) north of £100M to placate some people that don't want an embankment built near their house

Placating the NIMBYs isn't the only reason. As @Magdalia says the gradients are better for freight. It's also to help protect local bat populations.

Would there still be a tunnel without the NIMBYs? Maybe not. But you make an engineering and environmental case for one regardless.

 

[12LDA28C]

Do the overlaps lock out the junctions? Obviously you'd be able to wait for the overlap on the first train to time out, but would prevent the trains being signalled in simultaneously

I'm pretty sure that's standard but that is not what is being claimed. Why could one train not be signalled into the loop then once 'in clear' the route can be set for the next train to be signalled into the adjacent loop from the opposite direction?

 

[Magdalia]

there's no engineering reason for there to be a tunnel

With the railway at a lower elevation, it would be a very deep cutting.

The lower elevation also means that the embankment/viaduct across the River Rhee valley will cost less not more.

My suggestion was for a cut and cover tunnel, using the A505 Baldock bypass as an example/precedent. The cut and cover tunnel became the baseline option in section 12.2.5.3 of the Technical Report. As it turns out, in section 12.2.5.4, all of the mined tunnel options scored better than the cut and cover option, which has costs that are not much different from a cutting.

Various other options, including an open cutting, are considered and rejected in section 12.2.5.2 of the Technical Report. And, given that the mined tunnel options score better than the cut and cover tunnel, they will score better than an open cutting too.

I haven't looked at the HS2 tunnels in the same detail, but I doubt this is "the exact same thing". It is still the case that most of the proposed new railway is not in tunnel.

It's also to help protect local bat populations.

It isn't just about the bat corridors. A major advantage of a mined tunnel is elimination of a need for a highway diversion of the Chapel Hill road and the associated utilities.

 

[LUYMun]

It is despicable nonsense designed entirely to deliver the closure of most of the MV stations. [...] The station closure plan (consolidation is just a pr guff word to hide the truth) is on the plans. Locals are gearing up to fight it. The users group has been very quiet about the plans to close most of the stations on the line they are supposed to advocate for!

One of the stations up for closure and relocation is Stewartby. Though I've only been on the MVL a handful of times, I note that a large number of students travel to/from this station for the nearby Kimberley Sixth Form College. Should the current one close, the new site would place itself further to the north near Broadmead Road, inconveniencing these students by extending a short walk up the road to a 1.5 mile long trek - truly a shining example of getting more youngsters to use public transport!

The plan also does make issue of its lightly-used nature and bare-bones facilities, but when there are plans for redevelopment, including at the former brickwork site, along the line it seems short-sighted not to forecast the potential growth in local passenger traffic.

 

[zwk500]

I'm pretty sure that's standard but that is not what is being claimed. Why could one train not be signalled into the loop then once 'in clear' the route can be set for the next train to be signalled into the adjacent loop from the opposite direction?

Agree on that point - unless there's an operational restriction on using the 2nd loop for some reason.

 

[12LDA28C]

Agree on that point - unless there's an operational restriction on using the 2nd loop for some reason.

Not to my knowledge. I've certainly seen a train in each of the loops at Bicester simultaneously.

 

[cle]

One thing of interest is that this is the most official, connected and positive I have seen Cowley mentioned, and that it is graduating from Oxford City/County wishlist to NR. And the dependency at Oxford for where to put these 4tph from EWR - ie a broader strategic need for it.

I did think Cowley was destined for the Chilter Marylebone services - but if that happens, EWR will have the two bays to themselves, fine for 4tph. And maybe more, re the Stewartby situation (a bit random) - the consultation also mentions merging with Didcot services.

But of course these things may change, if Didcot-Oxford is wired for example, and those stoppers go back to being the London stopper service.

 

[Falcon1200]

I see EWR are going to have their very own Bat Tunnel:

Even though the line will be in tunnel at this point, it is still apparently going to cause environmental destruction, as per the BBC News website;

East West Rail: Mixed views for railway project in Cambridgeshire

The project will bring new train stations and an altered landscape, so what do people think?

www.bbc.co.uk

A brother-and-sister farming duo have said a multi-billion-pound railway project could tunnel through 200 acres (80 hectares) of their land.
East West Rail (EWR) is a project to link Oxford and Cambridge by rail, which includes building a new track in countryside between Cambourne and Cambridge.

 

[Andyjs247]

Not to my knowledge. I've certainly seen a train in each of the loops at Bicester simultaneously.

If we’re being picky, the Sectional Appendix shows a loop at Bicester with a separate run round. When Chiltern were undertaking driver training I don’t doubt both tracks were occupied at times. But you won’t get two 775m trains in there at the same time and two trains won’t be arriving at the same time. You can get into the loop on a main aspect signal but not the run round - the loop was designed to fit a 775m train. A train stood in the loop at the main aspect signal will be foul of the (shorter) run round.

At Claydon the Sectional Appendix shows that there is one loop. The other track is the arrival/departure line for the future HS2 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot.

 

[12LDA28C]

If we’re being picky, the Sectional Appendix shows a loop at Bicester with a separate run round. When Chiltern were undertaking driver training I don’t doubt both tracks were occupied at times. But you won’t get two 775m trains in there at the same time and two trains won’t be arriving at the same time. You can get into the loop on a main aspect signal but not the run round - the loop was designed to fit a 775m train. A train stood in the loop at the main aspect signal will be foul of the (shorter) run round.

At Claydon the Sectional Appendix shows that there is one loop. The other track is the arrival/departure line for the future HS2 Infrastructure Maintenance Depot.

I'm well aware of the arrangement at Bicester (Bicester Depot Goods Loop and Bicester Depot Run Round Loop) and I never suggested you would be able to have two trains signalled into the loops at the same time, indeed it would be very rare for that to ever need to be done even if it were possible. However, these loops could be used to accommodate two trains at the same time if they both fit in the loops, simple as that.

At Claydon you have one loop and the other is the Reception Road which has been signalled as, and acts as a loop, at least until the HS2 IMD is built and commissioned. So again, it can accommodate two trains of appropriate length.

 

[The Planner]

- the loop was designed to fit a 775m train. A train stood in the loop at the main aspect signal will be foul of the (shorter) run round.

Eventually it was....

 

[59CosG95]

Going through the Technical Report, I've spied the following OLE-related possible interventions:

• Oxford - Bletchley: Diversion of existing 33kV powerline to the north of North Oxford Golf Club (Clause 6.2.4, page 66);
• Oxford - Bletchley: Feeder Station to be located at
  • East Claydon (south of Verney Jn); or
  • Quainton. (Clause 6.6.1, page 113)
• Oxford - Bletchley: Significant HV diversions may be required in Verney Jn area if full electrification chosen. (as above)
• Bletchley - Bedford: "Consolidated Stations" (Concept 2) would fully support discontinuous OLE, while Concepts 1a ("Existing Stations") and 1b ("Hybrid Stations") are implied to work better with full OLE (Clause 7.1.4.5, pages 147-148);
• Bletchley - Bedford: Existing HV transmission line might be diverted in the Millbrook area. Potential for Feeder Station, tying in to new Millbrook Power Station or associated National Grid compound (Clause 7.8.2, page 190);
• Bletchley - Bedford: Ampthill Rd (Kempston, nr Bedford St Johns) might require reconstruction if full OLE chosen (Clause 8.1.1, page 208);
• Bletchley - Bedford: Cauldwell St (north of Bedford St Johns) might also require reconstruction and track lowering if full OLE chosen (Clause 8.1.3, page 209);
• Bletchley - Bedford: Ford End Rd bridge (south of Bedford Midland) would require further reconstruction if full OLE chosen. Likely to be similar style of rebuild to that used with MMLE recently (Clause 8.1.4, page 213);
• Bedford - Cambridge: OLE alterations required for WAML where EWR will tie in (Clause 12.4.1, page 356);
• North of Cambridge: Potential OLE reconfiguration at Cambridge North (outwith current EWR scope; subject to wider industry plans) (Clause 13.3.1; page 380)
• North of Cambridge: Potential upgrade of Milton Feeder Station - land take to accommodate this is included within the Draft Order (Clause 13.3.1, page 381)
• North of Cambridge: Potential reconstruction of 2no. pedestrian bridges to accommodate 2nd track & OLE as far as Cherry Hinton, at:
  • Coldham's Common; and
  • The Tins. (Clause 13.4.1, page 382)

More generally, Section 14 of the Technical Report states the following points:

• Provision has been made within the Draft Order for full electrification, subject to modelling & surveys. (Clause 14.1.1)
• System Types depend on electrification type - Classic feeding can use continuous or discontinuous, but Autotransformer feeding MUST use continuous OLE. (Clause 14.1.2)
• Incoming supplies could be at:
  • East Claydon/Quainton (mentioned earlier),
  • Millbrook (mentioned earlier),
  • Little Barford (upgrade/addition to existing ECML site). (Clause 14.1.3)
• Assessment Factors appraisal to be carried out to determine the preferred solution (Clause 14.1.4).

I think that covers it!

 

[edwin_m]

I got the impression the report has just identified all the overhead cables that cross the line, rather than trying to work out which ones would need modifying. I don't recall this being a significant thing for previous electrification schemes (unless they are to feed a lineside substation).

 

[InTheEastMids]

Oxford - Bletchley: Significant HV diversions may be required in Verney Jn area if full electrification chosen. (as above)

Thanks for trawling. I guess this will be the big one on Oxford-Bletchley. There are (I think) 3x132kV and 1x400kV overhead lines that cross EWR in this area. Of course, we don't yet know how much heavy lifting the word "may" is doing here. Rail OHL pass underneath these kinds of networks in lots of places...

This probably pinpoints a wider criticism that the words "may" and "could" are everywhere, I guess I am wondering whether their optioneering is really mature enough to make a decision, and if not why they are expressing a preference. In the case of the NG-owned power lines near Verney Junction, it doesn't feel like it's rocket science to find out how high they are above the line, what the maximum sag would be, and whether there's enough clearance to get OHLE underneath, and be a bit less equivocal (e.g. "If we use continuous electrification, these power lines will need to be raised/diverted and this is expected to incur additional costs in the region of £X. If we use discontinuous, the cost will be £0")

Is the lack of bridge raising on Oxford-Bletchley because they aren't needed, or just aren't mentioned?

Bletchley - Bedford: "Consolidated Stations" (Concept 2) would fully support discontinuous OLE, while Concepts 1a ("Existing Stations") and 1b ("Hybrid Stations") are implied to work better with full OLE (Clause 7.1.4.5, pages 147-148);

Do you have a view on why you think there is this link between the station options and the electrification options? My first thought was that moving all the stations means lots of legacy infra gets demolished and some of the clearance issues go with them.

 

[12LDA28C]

Is the lack of bridge raising on Oxford-Bletchley because they aren't needed, or just aren't mentioned?

The Western end of the route between Bicester and Oxford was built with the necessary clearance for OHLE however I believe this is not the case for Bicester to Bletchley so some bridge raising would be required.

 

[edwin_m]

Thanks for trawling. I guess this will be the big one on Oxford-Bletchley. There are (I think) 3x132kV and 1x400kV overhead lines that cross EWR in this area. Of course, we don't yet know how much heavy lifting the word "may" is doing here. Rail OHL pass underneath these kinds of networks in lots of places...

This probably pinpoints a wider criticism that the words "may" and "could" are everywhere, I guess I am wondering whether their optioneering is really mature enough to make a decision, and if not why they are expressing a preference. In the case of the NG-owned power lines near Verney Junction, it doesn't feel like it's rocket science to find out how high they are above the line, what the maximum sag would be, and whether there's enough clearance to get OHLE underneath, and be a bit less equivocal (e.g. "If we use continuous electrification, these power lines will need to be raised/diverted and this is expected to incur additional costs in the region of £X. If we use discontinuous, the cost will be £0")

Is the lack of bridge raising on Oxford-Bletchley because they aren't needed, or just aren't mentioned?


Do you have a view on why you think there is this link between the station options and the electrification options? My first thought was that moving all the stations means lots of legacy infra gets demolished and some of the clearance issues go with them.

It's a tradeoff between what the client wants and what they are prepared to pay for. They may have decided that assessing all the power lines isn't worth doing at this stage, but have identified them all so they can fill in the relevant boxes on the cost spreadsheet in the future.

On the station/electrification options it may be just that the options with more stations have the trains slowing down and speeding up more, which might empty the batteries too quickly?

 

[camflyer]

Even though the line will be in tunnel at this point, it is still apparently going to cause environmental destruction, as per the BBC News website;

East West Rail: Mixed views for railway project in Cambridgeshire

The project will bring new train stations and an altered landscape, so what do people think?

www.bbc.co.uk

So more of a NUMBY than an NIMBY

Just what sort of "environmental destruction" is caused by a tunnel?

 

[coppercapped]

The Western end of the route between Bicester and Oxford was built with the necessary clearance for OHLE however I believe this is not the case for Bicester to Bletchley so some bridge raising would be required.

I read somewhere that all the new bridges on the Western end were built with suitable clearance but existing bridges were not touched. It may be necessary to raise some of these if the line is electrified.

 

[LUYMun]

Just what sort of "environmental destruction" is caused by a tunnel?

Vibrations and 'sound booms' at tunnel ends.

 

[zwk500]

So more of a NUMBY than an NIMBY

Just what sort of "environmental destruction" is caused by a tunnel?

Well there's plenty of burrowing animals, plant root systems, and water table/drainage issues.

 

[hwl]

I read somewhere that all the new bridges on the Western end were built with suitable clearance but existing bridges were not touched. It may be necessary to raise some of these if the line is electrified.

From memory most of the problem existing bridges are been upgraded leaving just handful (3 spring to mind immediately) needing work for electrification.