East-West Rail (EWR): Oxford-Bletchley construction progress

[Sun Chariot]

I'm conscious the EWR route construction topic has finished. This post is actually a question to the wise, as I haven't found an answer via Internet searches.

A couple of days ago, I scouted out a road overbridge just north of Whaddon village, about 2 miles west of Bletchley. I'd missed that location when photographing October's week of IET/168 runs.

At Whaddon, the two running lines diverge, passing through different arches. The lines have a low mound of earth piled between them - and what I'd initially thought was remnants of a wide island platform.
Except.... LNWR never built a station or halt at Whaddon. I've found a photo of the location in pre-EWR days - both running lines pass under just one bridge arch and no line separation.

So, my question: why have the running lines been laid with a separation for EWR?

Thanks in advance.

 

[mr_jrt]

I would presume to provide better gauge clearance, either before electrification was cancelled, or to enable larger freight.

 

[swt_passenger]

I would presume to provide better gauge clearance, either before electrification was cancelled, or to enable larger freight.

This has been discussed in the forum before, I‘ll try and find the discussion, it started about post #532.

I think they simply took adavantage of the fact that an additional arch had already been previously in use at that bridge, the embankment had been dug out and a third track laid for entrance to the adjacent sidings. (That’s the WW2 Swanbourne sidings.) So rather than alter the bridge to increase gauge, they left a single track through the central arch, and the newer track of the two is diverging.

Here’s a link to an NLS Maps side by side view, confirming the sidings location:

Side by side georeferenced maps viewer - Map images - National Library of Scotland

maps.nls.uk

 

[Nottingham59]

I'm conscious the EWR route construction topic has finished. This post is actually a question to the wise, as I haven't found an answer via Internet searches.

A couple of days ago, I scouted out a road overbridge just north of Whaddon village, about 2 miles west of Bletchley. I'd missed that location when photographing October's week of IET/168 runs.

At Whaddon, the two running lines diverge, passing through different arches. The lines have a low mound of earth piled between them - and what I'd initially thought was remnants of a wide island platform.
Except.... LNWR never built a station or halt at Whaddon. I've found a photo of the location in pre-EWR days - both running lines pass under just one bridge arch and no line separation.

So, my question: why have the running lines been laid with a separation for EWR?

Thanks in advance.

That bridge unusually for EWR has two arches that could carry tracks. In the 1950s, the north arch accommodated a single track to access what look like carriage sidings, in addition to the twin track mainline in the south arch.


[from https://maps.nls.uk/view/188679031 ]

By using both arches, the new line will go through the centre of each arch, which will give each track better clearance for future electrification.

EDIT: see post #1285

 

[swt_passenger]

Here‘s a screenshot from the TWA order drawings, it shows that in the pre-existing condition it had vertical walls either side of the northern abutment:

 

[BlueLeanie]

I'm conscious the EWR route construction topic has finished. This post is actually a question to the wise, as I haven't found an answer via Internet searches.

More paused than finished.

Electrification has been promised, so there is more construction discussion to come, not forgetting the eventual connection to Aylesbury.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Many thanks @swt_passenger and @Nottingham59 - the wider permanent way for Swanbourne yard, makes perfect sense. I know Swanbourne station area - as was - fairly well and for years I'd been puzzled where the WW2 marshalling yard could have been.
Now that I realise it was a little farther east of Swanbourne - thanks for the maps - it all fits together. Solved!

 

[Elecman]

Wasn’t that’s the area of land that needed the legal correction as the sidings weren’t actually wholly on Railway owned land ?

 

[zwk500]

Electrification has been promised,

has it? Last i heard they were talking of dicontinuous electrification but I haven't kept up with the political news lately.

 

[12LDA28C]

More paused than finished.

Electrification has been promised, so there is more construction discussion to come, not forgetting the eventual connection to Aylesbury.

I'll believe electrification when I see it. Already some progress on the Aylesbury connection, however.

 

[fishwomp]

More paused than finished.

It's been built with electrification-ready structures / clearances.
Whether the standards change for the stricter between now and its implementation is another question!

Electrification has been promised, so there is more construction discussion to come, not forgetting the eventual connection to Aylesbury.

[promised] has it? Last i heard they were talking of dicontinuous electrification but I haven't kept up with the political news lately.

.. if it hasn't been announced at least three times by a politician, it's not promised!

 

[Sun Chariot]

It's been built with electrification-ready structures / clearances.

The old brick bridge at Launton, plus this one near the former site of Swanbourne station (which itself was nearly two miles from Swanbourne village!), seem to have tight clearances for OHLE. Perhaps they'll both be "discontinuous" parts, if / when electrification happens.

 

[12LDA28C]

It's been built with electrification-ready structures / clearances.

The new overbridges have been built with the necessary clearance. The existing overbridges have not been modified to the required clearance however.

 

[Elecman]

The new overbridges have been built with the necessary clearance. The existing overbridges have not been modified to the required clearance however.

Is correct although use of modern techniques (Surge Arrestors/non conducting surfaces) may assist in some cases

 

[midlandred]

Didn’t they recently lower the track bed by the Bicester Road bridge at Launton?

 

[Sun Chariot]

Didn’t they recently lower the track bed by the Bicester Road bridge at Launton?

Yes the tracked was lowered on the approaches for the brick bridges at Launton and Swanbourne and, I suspect, others too.

However post #2022 shows the clearance is low, despite that

 

[Nottingham59]

this one near the former site of Swanbourne station (which itself was nearly two miles from Swanbourne village!), seem to have tight clearances for OHLE.

I'm sure they would not have spent money on raising the parapet on the bridge in the photo unless it was suitable for electrification.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I'm sure they would not have spent money on raising the parapet on the bridge in the photo unless it was suitable for electrification.

I suspect there might be an OHLE voltage drop under those bridges, if need be. The Swanbourne bridge I've visited for nearly 40 years (since cycling there as a mid teen). I have a photo at the exact same location, in days before EWR, and you're right - the brick parapet was lower and definitely not "H&S friendly" for a high speed permanent way, let alone an electrified one.

 

[swt_passenger]

I suspect there might be an OHLE voltage drop under those bridges, if need be. The Swanbourne bridge I've visited for nearly 40 years (since cycling there as a mid teen). I have a photo of the exact same location, in days before EWR, and you're right - the brick parapet was lower and definitely not "H&S friendly" for high speed permanent way, let alone an electrified one.

Neither of the bridges you’ve recently mentioned are shown as being cleared for electrification in the TWA drawings. For all the bridges that were to be cleared for wires they show the pantograph position. It’s possible the parapets needed updating anyway for vehicle containment.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Neither of the bridges you’ve recently mentioned are shown as being cleared for electrification in the TWA drawings. For all the bridges that were to be cleared for wires they show the pantograph position. It’s possible the parapets needed updating anyway for vehicle containment.

Ah - perfect, that all figures, thanks.

 

[Nottingham59]

Neither of the bridges you’ve recently mentioned are shown as being cleared for electrification in the TWA drawings. For all the bridges that were to be cleared for wires they show the pantograph position. It’s possible the parapets needed updating anyway for vehicle containment.

could you possibly post a link to the TWA drawings, please? There must be one upthread, but I can't find it

EDIT: Found them in another thread:

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

This is what has been published so far on the service pattern. What will actually happen is just conjecture Route tph Calling at Oxford to Milton Keynes Central 2 Oxford Parkway, Bicester Village, Winslow, Bletchley Oxford to Bedford 1 Oxford Parkway, Bicester Village, Winslow, Bletchley...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[swt_passenger]

could you possibly post a link to the TWA drawings, please? There must be one upthread, but I can't find it

Here you go, this link is to the earlier consultations thread. In that post I included a direct link to one of the two sets of bridge drawings, the one that covers the west end of the route, Bicester to Bletchley.

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

This is what has been published so far on the service pattern. What will actually happen is just conjecture Route tph Calling at Oxford to Milton Keynes Central 2 Oxford Parkway, Bicester Village, Winslow, Bletchley Oxford to Bedford 1 Oxford Parkway, Bicester Village, Winslow, Bletchley...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Nottingham59]

Here you go,

Thanks

I'm sure they would not have spent money on raising the parapet on the bridge in the photo unless it was suitable for electrification.

The TWA drawing shows that they raised the parapet to 1.55m, but the arch is only cleared for W12 non-electrified loading gauge.

 

[Sun Chariot]

The TWA drawing shows that they raised the parapet to 1.55m, but the arch is only cleared for W12 non-electrified loading gauge.

View attachment 171456

Thanks. That might concur with my comment in post #2022

 

[12LDA28C]

I'm sure they would not have spent money on raising the parapet on the bridge in the photo unless it was suitable for electrification.

I’m not sure of that at all. The bridge in the photo does not appear to have enough clearance for OHLE and I’d imagine that the modern standards for parapets over a new 100mph railway are rather stricter than they were prior to closure of the line in the early 1990s.

 

[zwk500]

Perhaps they'll both be "discontinuous" parts, if / when electrification happens.

I would expect Discontinuous electrification to mean from Bletchley to the next bridge that needs work and similar from Oxford/Bicester eastwards. It is most efficient to have electrified sections as extensions of the existing setups, so Oxford-Bicester will need to wait for Didcot-Oxford.

 

[fishwomp]

Perhaps they'll both be "discontinuous" parts, if / when electrification happens.

Apparently this is the preferred path for EWR..

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/news/latest-stories/plans-for-powering-trains-and-details-of-our-upcoming-consultation

"As part of our latest proposals, which we'll be sharing for public consultation from 14 November, we’re providing information on our preference for green traction power in the form of discontinuous electrification with hybrid battery-electric trains, after the Chancellor confirmed government support for the project in yesterday’s budget."

Bonkers.

 

[Halish Railway]

Apparently this is the preferred path for EWR..

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/news/latest-stories/plans-for-powering-trains-and-details-of-our-upcoming-consultation

"As part of our latest proposals, which we'll be sharing for public consultation from 14 November, we’re providing information on our preference for green traction power in the form of discontinuous electrification with hybrid battery-electric trains, after the Chancellor confirmed government support for the project in yesterday’s budget."

Bonkers.

So there goes any ambitions of electric intermodal work and the ‘electric spine’. This is a scheme that capitalised on the benefits of HS2 and more freight paths on the WCML as well. Just completely inept governance.

 

[jfowkes]

I'm still unsure if "discontinuous" in the context of EWR means "short sections under bridges" or "sections of several miles". I'm sort-of OK with the first, not at all about the second.

 

[The Planner]

So there goes any ambitions of electric intermodal work and the ‘electric spine’. This is a scheme that capitalised on the benefits of HS2 and more freight paths on the WCML as well. Just completely inept governance.

Electric spine died long ago.