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

[fishwomp]

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.

I'd be happier with the latter as it'd imply that whole sections were done, eg. say Oxford to Bedford, which is more useful than a 200 yard gap in each of the sections and prevents any use by typical freight electrics!

The missing short sections idea is just bad, as it's like the 'for want of a nail' situation when you're almost done it right - it must be a better investment to lift a handful of bridges than have to buy and lug a battery or diesel engine around in all the rolling stock. You'd also think the more unique the rolling stock, the more the leasing companies have you over the barrel. It's not like there are going to be tunnels to enlarge on the route..

 

[jfowkes]

I'd be happier with the latter as it'd imply that whole sections were done, eg. say Oxford to Bedford, which is more useful than a 200 yard gap in each of the sections and prevents any use by typical freight electrics!

The missing short sections idea is just bad, as it's like the 'for want of a nail' situation when you're almost done it right - it must be a better investment to lift a handful of bridges than have to buy and lug a battery or diesel engine around in all the rolling stock. You'd also think the more unique the rolling stock, the more the leasing companies have you over the barrel. It's not like there are going to be tunnels to enlarge on the route..

I had assumed that case 2 also encompassed case 1. You'd get both large unelectrified sections AND small sections. Because if you've accepted that you're going to have battery hybrids operating over large unelectrified sections, why would you bother raising bridges on the electrified sections? Just have them use the battery.

 

[swt_passenger]

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 first bridge from the west end that can’t be wired is only a few hundred yards along the route, at Bicester Road Launton. It’s about 150 yards past the brand new bridge on the Bicester Bypass, Charbridge Lane, and that is clear for wires, but I suspect it’s just far too close to be useful.

 

[jfowkes]

The first bridge from the west end that can’t be wired is only a few hundred yards along the route, at Bicester Road Launton. It’s about 150 yards past the brand new bridge on the Bicester Bypass, Charbridge Lane, and that is clear for wires, but I suspect it’s just far too close to be useful.

Does it not make more sense to do this analysis from the POV of Oxford being the start of the route, not Bicester?

 

[swt_passenger]

Does it not make more sense to do this analysis from the POV of Oxford being the start of the route, not Bicester?

Maybe. What I’m suggesting is it’s pretty daft, (albeit in hindsight), to have built a brand new bridge cleared for wires that is so close to an unmodifed bridge that makes its neighbour unusable.

 

[12LDA28C]

I'd be happier with the latter as it'd imply that whole sections were done, eg. say Oxford to Bedford, which is more useful than a 200 yard gap in each of the sections and prevents any use by typical freight electrics!

The missing short sections idea is just bad, as it's like the 'for want of a nail' situation when you're almost done it right - it must be a better investment to lift a handful of bridges than have to buy and lug a battery or diesel engine around in all the rolling stock. You'd also think the more unique the rolling stock, the more the leasing companies have you over the barrel. It's not like there are going to be tunnels to enlarge on the route..

Like Wolvercote tunnel just west of Oxford Parkway for example?

 

[jfowkes]

Like Wolvercote tunnel just west of Oxford Parkway for example?

Wasn't the track in Wolvercote lowered for electrification when they re-doubled it?

 

[12LDA28C]

Wasn't the track in Wolvercote lowered for electrification when they re-doubled it?

Not to my knowledge although happy to be corrected.

 

[JamesT]

Not to my knowledge although happy to be corrected.

https://mycouncil.oxford.gov.uk/documents/s25906/1501978CND%20Appendix%207%20-%20Table%20of%20works%20to%20be%20undertaken.pdf

I can’t seem to copy from it, but it’s an excerpt from the TWAO and lists track lowering for Wolvercot Tunnel.

 

[jfowkes]

Not to my knowledge although happy to be corrected.

It's not exactly the best source, but this Railfuture newsletter (and @JamesT above) suggests that it was lowered, but it's not clear if this was for electrification or just for gauge clearance.

The rebuild involved ¾ mile new railway, 11 miles rebuilt railway, 36 level crossings removed, 14 new bridges as well as track lowering in Wolvercote tunnel by 700mm with the foundations needing underpinning.

 

[Sun Chariot]

Maybe. What I’m suggesting is it’s pretty daft, (albeit in hindsight), to have built a brand new bridge cleared for wires that is so close to an unmodifed bridge that makes its neighbour unusable.

For the benefit of those less familiar, what @swt_passenger describes, are just visible in the background of this shot at the former site of Launton station and level crossing.

The permanent way visibly falls as it approaches the new pedestrian footbridge, then rises, then almost immediately falls again to pass under the (just visible) single arch brick bridge and new overbridge (concrete coloured bridge in the distance by the church). That new overbridge - Charbridge Lane - replaces a level crossing on the old road.

Not visible in this shot, however, is the old bridge's restricted clearance; it's very similar to Swanbourne's (post #2022).

Annoyingly, when I lived in Bicester 1991-93, I never actually photographed the Whatley - Wolverton stone or the Calvert - Avonmouth domestic waste at those two level crossings.

 

[fishwomp]

The first bridge from the west end that can’t be wired is only a few hundred yards along the route, at Bicester Road Launton. It’s about 150 yards past the brand new bridge on the Bicester Bypass, Charbridge Lane, and that is clear for wires, but I suspect it’s just far too close to be useful.

I swear I saw a plan that originally had that bridge being closed, taking a strip from the farmland between the two bridges and diverting the road - the bridge is also too narrow for cars to pass and is traffic light controlled.

 

[td97]

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

Bonkers.

Discontinuous electrification would have to be endorsed by both Network Rail and DfT.

 

[InTheEastMids]

With pointing out that EWR are at least considering substations at either Quainton or East Clayton (ie collocated with HS2 or NG), so presumably a "centre out" strategy is at least being thought about (can't find the link but I'm sure potential supply point locations are in the consultation somewhere)

Maybe just piggy back of HS2 since their electricity demand is going to be a lot less than hoped for, at least for the foreseeable future

 

[swt_passenger]

For the benefit of those less familiar, what @swt_passenger describes, are just visible in the background of this shot at the former site of Launton station and level crossing.

The permanent way visibly falls as it approaches the new pedestrian footbridge, then rises, then almost immediately falls again to pass under the (just visible) single arch brick bridge and new overbridge (concrete coloured bridge in the distance by the church). That new overbridge - Charbridge Lane - replaces a level crossing on the old road.

Not visible in this shot, however, is the old bridge's restricted clearance; it's very similar to Swanbourne's (post #2022).

Annoyingly, when I lived in Bicester 1991-93, I never actually photographed the Whatley - Wolverton stone or the Calvert - Avonmouth domestic waste at those two level crossings.

It’s worth a look back at the photo in post #801, taken from a point west of Charbridge Lane, it shows the new OHLE ready bypass bridge acting as a ‘photo frame’ for the lower arch bridge on Bicester Road beyond it. The foreshortened view makes them look almost like one structure, as was discussed in subsequent posts.

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

Railways are very beautiful things Indeed so! Perhaps someone should build a new one in Bedford…

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Sun Chariot]

It’s worth a look back at the photo in post #801, taken from a point west of Charbridge Lane, it shows the new OHLE ready bypass bridge acting as a ‘photo frame’ for the lower arch bridge on Bicester Road beyond it. The foreshortened view makes them look almost like one structure, as was discussed in subsequent posts.

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

Railways are very beautiful things Indeed so! Perhaps someone should build a new one in Bedford…

www.railforums.co.uk

Ooh, marvellous - thanks for that. I'd not read the pre-2024 pages of this thread.

 

[swt_passenger]

Ooh, marvellous - thanks for that. I'd not read the pre-2024 pages of this thread.

In that area of the thread you’ll also find some good photos of the initial track laying, eg around the former Launton station and level crossing. There’ll be some good before and after comparisons available with your more recent shots.

 

[12LDA28C]

It's worth noting that the raised curve from EWR towards Calvert and Aylesbury is in the process of being built up and now has ballast on top of the track formation where it joins EWR at Claydon. The signal OB1810 also has two junction indicators on it for the future diverging route towards Aylesbury.

 

[swt_passenger]

It's worth noting that the raised curve from EWR towards Calvert and Aylesbury is in the process of being built up and now has ballast on top of the track formation where it joins EWR at Claydon. The signal OB1810 also has two junction indicators on it for the future diverging route towards Aylesbury.

That’s interesting about the junction indicators, because wasn’t it suggested by someone way back that the signalling wasn’t going to include the route? Or am I thinking of the S&C not being installed? Can’t really remember now…

 

[Sun Chariot]

In that area of the thread you’ll also find some good photos of the initial track laying, eg around the former Launton station and level crossing. There’ll be some good before and after comparisons available with your more recent shots.

At a risk of straying OT The other week, I was perusing my 35mm shots of the trains on the route 1991-93. the Binliner services, the Whatley-Wolverton stone and a few of the COD Bicester turns including coal supplies (the latter service was obviously taken on Bicester - Islip - Oxford segment).
Shepherd's Furze Farm, the curve joining Alyesbury's route to Claydon Jcn, was one favoured spot. Also, looking east from atop Bicester Road's brick overbridge at Launton.

 

[Meerkat]

Wasn't the track in Wolvercote lowered for electrification when they re-doubled it?

This post in an earlier thread says the tunnel was lowered for W12 and electrification.

Wolvercote Tunnel Proposal

Anyone know why this tunnel is planned to stay single tracked despite the rest of the line being re doubled, seems so pointless creating a bottle neck when surely all that needs doing is deepening the tunnel and rework the gradients to allow for future electrification? Seems so pointless doing...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[hwl]

Does it not make more sense to do this analysis from the POV of Oxford being the start of the route, not Bicester?

But then EWR would have to pay for wiring all of Oxford, so no

It's worth noting that the raised curve from EWR towards Calvert and Aylesbury is in the process of being built up and now has ballast on top of the track formation where it joins EWR at Claydon. The signal OB1810 also has two junction indicators on it for the future diverging route towards Aylesbury.

Excellent news.

 

[Nottingham59]

But then EWR would have to pay for wiring all of Oxford, so no

Excellent news.

The taxpayer would be paying.

I'd expect that the most cost-effective wiring scheme, overall, would be to wire Didcot to Oxford, and run BEMUs on EWR between Oxford and MKC.

EDIT: With appropriate run-outs towards Wolvercote from Oxford, and over the flyover from Bletchley, if advantageous to do so.

 

[12LDA28C]

That’s interesting about the junction indicators, because wasn’t it suggested by someone way back that the signalling wasn’t going to include the route? Or am I thinking of the S&C not being installed? Can’t really remember now…

Pointwork is not currently installed for the junction towards Aylesbury, that's correct.

 

[Andyjs247]

I don’t think it has been mentioned yet but as part of the latest consultation announced on 14 November, East West Rail are proposing to construct two new loops for freight in the Up direction around Steeple Claydon and near Islip. It would mean there would be 3 loops in total in the up direction towards Oxford but only one in the down direction. Presumably this is reflecting that more freight is expected in that direction - it will be easier to find paths for freight heading south at Denbigh Hall Jn and at Oxford North Jn due to there being fewer crossing moves than when going north.

Also being proposed is closure of Bicester London Road level crossing. This is without a suitable alternative for motorised vehicles being provided. There would be either a subway or ramped bridge for pedestrians and cyclists at London Road.

As such it will mean longer journeys around the existing ring road etc for motorists and bus users. The road system is regularly congested even now without the additional traffic flows that closing the level crossing will cause.

It is fair to say that this proposal has not gone down well locally and is being challenged.

 

[12LDA28C]

I don’t think it has been mentioned yet but as part of the latest consultation announced on 14 November, East West Rail are proposing to construct two new loops for freight in the Up direction around Steeple Claydon and near Islip. It would mean there would be 3 loops in total in the up direction towards Oxford but only one in the down direction. Presumably this is reflecting that more freight is expected in that direction - it will be easier to find paths for freight heading south at Denbigh Hall Jn and at Oxford North Jn due to there being fewer crossing moves than when going north.

I've mentioned before that the existing loops at Claydon and Bicester are bi-directional so to say there would be 'only one in the down direction' is not correct. Down direction trains would have to cross the Up line to access the loops but they can still be recessed in the Down direction. I assume any new loops proposed would also be bi-directional.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Dec 2024 ==

It is fair to say that this proposal has not gone down well locally and is being challenged.

And what alternative do people challenging this proposal suggest? There is not the space to construct a road bridge, and I believe a tunnel is not possible either. All options have surely been explored.

 

[jfowkes]

And what alternative do people challenging this proposal suggest? There is not the space to construct a road bridge, and I believe a tunnel is not possible either. All options have surely been explored.

I imagine they would challenge the basic idea that that more rail services need to exist. If it comes down to a choice between keeping the road open or EWR existing, they'll pick the road.

 

[12LDA28C]

I imagine they would challenge the basic idea that that more rail services need to exist. If it comes down to a choice between keeping the road open or EWR existing, they'll pick the road.

Seems like the definition of NIMBYism. "I won't be using the new service so I disagree with it / don't see why we need it". They are unable to see the bigger picture / wider benefit to society and instead focus on themselves being inconvenienced.

 

[Sun Chariot]

I imagine they would challenge the basic idea that that more rail services need to exist. If it comes down to a choice between keeping the road open or EWR existing, they'll pick the road.

London Road is a key access route for east-side residents and businesses alike.
I cannot see how east-destined commercial traffic benefits from being routed along the bypass then down the existing narrow roads such as Church Street and Market Square.

I was a Bicester resident Jan 1991 until Dec 1993 - prior to Sheep Street commerce was ruined from pedestrianisation (I was on the local Chamber Of Commerce objecting to that act of vandalism); and a few years before redevelopment of the old Tesco site (now a Sainsburys and cinema).

 

[12LDA28C]

London Road is a key access route for east-side residents and businesses alike. I cannot see how east-destined commercial traffic benefits from being routed along the bypass and then down the existing narrow roads such as Church Street and Market Square.

I'm fairly sure nobody is suggesting that traffic will 'benefit' from the closure of London Road.