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

[TheWierdOne]

Vibrations and 'sound booms' at tunnel ends.

Unless they’re building a varsity Shinkansen I doubt tunnel boom will be an issue

 

[swt_passenger]

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

My understanding is that there were 3 possibilities:

1. All new road and foot bridges were designed and built for the required freight gauge# and future wiring.
Of the original bridges:
2. Any that already allowed for the freight gauge were not significantly altered, although some parapets were rebuilt to current height standards.
3. The other existing bridges that did not allow for the planned freight gauge were rebuilt to provide for both freight and future wiring.

But as you note the number requiring additional work is relatively small.

(# I’m not sure from memory if W10 or W12 was the aim, but it’s an academic point as it‘s a small width bonus.)

 

[bspahh]

The consulatation is now open at https://eastwestrail.co.uk/consultation2024

 

[swt_passenger]

EWR have uploaded a short video highlighting the issue of the large number of stations between Bletchley and Bedford. Shown in line diagram format the way they’ve done it certainly makes it look as if the station density on that section is unusually high.

So I get the impression they want to go for the ‘consolidation‘ option:

(The video shows a comparison of the route with two options, either retain the status quo, or reduce to 4 intermediate stations at Woburn Sands, Ridgmojt, Lidlington, and Stewartby.)

 

[D365]

Interesting to see that a tunnel is proposed at Bourne Airfield. Presumably this will be cut-and-cover.

Is grade separation still planned at Hauxton Junction?

 

[12LDA28C]

EWR have uploaded a short video highlighting the issue of the large number of stations between Bletchley and Bedford. Shown in line diagram format the way they’ve done it certainly makes it look as if the station density on that section is unusually high.

So I get the impression they want to go for the ‘consolidation‘ option:

(The video shows a comparison of the route with two options, either retain the status quo, or reduce to 4 intermediate stations at Woburn Sands, Ridgmojt, Lidlington, and Stewartby.)

There are a lot of stations on the Marston Vale route - this is not news. I don't believe it has ever been proposed that EWR should serve every station and indeed that would make no sense at all, greatly increasing journey times, not to mention the huge cost of upgrading every platform, signalling, level crossing etc. These stations will still be served by the local stopping services.

 

[swt_passenger]

There are a lot of stations on the Marston Vale route - this is not news. I don't believe it has ever been proposed that EWR should serve every station and indeed that would make no sense at all, greatly increasing journey times, not to mention the huge cost of upgrading every platform, signalling, level crossing etc. These stations will still be served by the local stopping services.

I agree the number is not news. I‘m referring to how the way they show it on a line diagram connecting Oxford to Cambridge highlights it.

 

[Magdalia]

Interesting to see that a tunnel is proposed at Bourne Airfield. Presumably this will be cut-and-cover.

Yes. See section 11.3 of the Technical Report:

11.3.1 A428/Bourn Airfield crossing East of Cambourne station and Knapwell Wood Road, the railway would drop into a cutting up to approximately 8m (26 feet) deep on the approach to a cut and cover tunnel. Two Pots Farm and an adjacent residential property would be directly impacted by the cutting and tunnel construction and is expected to require demolition. The approximately 1.5km (0.9 miles) long cut and cover tunnel would pass beneath the A428, the north-east corner of the proposed Bourn Airfield development, the proposed Cambourne to Cambridge busway and active travel path, Wellington Way and Highfields Road. A tunnel services building and an emergency rescue area would be required at each tunnel portal exit. The tunnel would also require an emergency escape shaft at the midpoint of the tunnel within the northern side of the Bourn Airfield development site. A tunnel solution has been identified as the preferred option in this location to cross the features described in the previous paragraph. In determining the preferred solution, a range of alternative options were considered using the Assessment Factors process. Further detail on the Assessment Factors process is provided in the following sections.

Is grade separation still planned at Hauxton Junction?

Yes. See section 12.3 of the Technical Report:

12.3 Harston A series of infrastructure modifications are being proposed as the route continues around the southern edge of Harston to converge with the SBR. Hauxton Junction itself would see the SBR realigned over the EWR lines with passing loops either side. EWR services would then use the two existing SBR line tracks continuing all the way through to Shepreth Junction, where the SBR merges with the existing WAML.

Where the railway would pass to the south of Harston towards the grade-separated junction, the main line tracks would diverge to join the realigned SBR line. The eastbound track (Down Main Line) would broadly follow the existing ground terrain skirting around Harston before joining the SBR in the approximate location of London Road. The westbound track (Up Main Line) would pass underneath the realigned SBR in a new Harston tunnel box structure. There would be two retaining walls required on the approaches to this structure. The westbound track would be in cutting through this section to limit the height of the SBR where it passes over the westbound track on an embankment. After crossing under the SBR, the westbound track would then loop round and converge with the SBR in the approximate location of London Road.

 

[D365]

Yes. See section 11.3 of the Technical Report:




Yes. See section 12.3 of the Technical Report:

Thanks, that’s appreciated and I will save a copy of the report.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There are a lot of stations on the Marston Vale route - this is not news. I don't believe it has ever been proposed that EWR should serve every station and indeed that would make no sense at all, greatly increasing journey times, not to mention the huge cost of upgrading every platform, signalling, level crossing etc. These stations will still be served by the local stopping services.

Not so. EWR's favoured proposal is to withdraw the local service.

 

[12LDA28C]

Not so. EWR's favoured proposal is to withdraw the local service.

I don't really see how that would be their decision. If they only want to serve limited stations along the route then they surely have to accept that the all-stations stopping service needs to remain and integrate accordingly.

 

[Nottingham59]

I don't really see how that would be their decision. If they only want to serve limited stations along the route then they surely have to accept that the all-stations stopping service needs to remain and integrate accordingly.

They are proposing two options. Their preferred option is to close five stations and retain / rebuild four. From Ch9 of the consultation:

We are presenting alternative options for how the line could be upgraded.
• Existing Stations Option: would retain the existing nine stations and the current hourly Bletchley to Bedford stopping service which calls at all nine stations. In addition, there would be two East West Rail services an hour calling at four of the stations (Woburn Sands, Ridgmont, Lidlington, Stewartby) on their way between Oxford and Cambridge.
• Consolidated Stations Option: would consolidate the nine existing stations to four new, modern and easy-toaccess stations at Woburn Sands, Ridgmont, Lidlington and Stewartby. Three East West Rail trains would service these four stations every hour. Two of these would run between Oxford and Cambridge, whilst the third would run between Bletchley and Cambridge.

 

[12LDA28C]

They are proposing two options. Their preferred option is to close five stations and retain / rebuild four. From Ch9 of the consultation:

This is all a bit odd... there are ten intermediate stations for a start, twelve if you count Bletchley and Bedford Midland. Why the repeated reference to the 'existing nine stations'?

 

[duffield]

I don't really see how that would be their decision. If they only want to serve limited stations along the route then they surely have to accept that the all-stations stopping service needs to remain and integrate accordingly.

I don't think there's any suggestion that it's up to EWR to decide whether to close stations; ultimately, if the DfT accepts EWR's consolidated option including the closure proposals, it will be the the DfT that initiates the closure procedure, which is within their powers and remit.

 

[swt_passenger]

This is all a bit odd... there are ten intermediate stations for a start, twelve if you count Bletchley and Bedford Midland. Why the repeated reference to the 'existing nine stations'?

They’re talking about nine intermediate stations between, (but not including), Bletchley and Bedford St John’s. In the video introduction they quite clearly limit the subject area to the section from Fenny Stratford to Kempston.

 

[D365]

They’re talking about nine intermediate stations between, (but not including), Bletchley and Bedford St John’s. In the video introduction they quite clearly limit the subject area to the section from Fenny Compton to Kempston.

Don’t you mean Fenny Stratford? (or are you thinking of the sub-postmasters?!)

 

[swt_passenger]

Don’t you mean Fenny Stratford? (or are you thinking of the sub-postmasters?!)

Yes I keep getting that wrong…

 

[12LDA28C]

They’re talking about nine intermediate stations between, (but not including), Bletchley and Bedford St John’s. In the video introduction they quite clearly limit the subject area to the section from Fenny Stratford to Kempston.

Ah, that'll explain it.

 

[Cantab26]

I don't think there's any suggestion that it's up to EWR to decide whether to close stations; ultimately, if the DfT accepts EWR's consolidated option including the closure proposals, it will be the the DfT that initiates the closure procedure, which is within their powers and remit.

This is not necessarily the case because the project has been directed into the development consent order process under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008. This could potentially mean that the ‘normal’ closure process is not required or that EWR Co is empowered to promote closure itself.

 

[duffield]

This is not necessarily the case because the project has been directed into the development consent order process under section 35 of the Planning Act 2008. This could potentially mean that the ‘normal’ closure process is not required or that EWR Co is empowered to promote closure itself.

So with the DCO, would it be ultimately up to the Secretary of State to decide whether to accept the consolidated option (or not) and if they did, the closures would then proceed without going through the normal closure process?

Presumably, the SoS does get to decide, surely it's not just EWR being able to say "we've decided on the consolidated option" and the stations then being closed without reference to the SoS?

 

[Magdalia]

So with the DCO, would it be ultimately up to the Secretary of State to decide whether to accept the consolidated option (or not) and if they did, the closures would then proceed without going through the normal closure process?

Presumably, the SoS does get to decide, surely it's not just EWR being able to say "we've decided on the consolidated option" and the stations then being closed without reference to the SoS?

The DCO process is set out in the Consultation Document section 4.4.

EWR make a DCO application to the Planning Inspectorate, who appoint inspector(s) to examine the application and make a recommendation.

The Secretary of State decides whether to accept the recommendation of the Planning Inspectorate see here:

Once we have completed the two rounds of consultation and finalised our proposals, we will prepare and submit our DCO application to the Planning Inspectorate, which processes applications on behalf of the Secretary of State. If our application is accepted, the Planning Inspectorate will appoint an independent inspector or panel of inspectors to carry out an examination into the application – a process which lasts up to six months. Anyone who is interested in the application will be able to participate in the examination and submit comments in writing and at a series of hearings that will take place over the six months. Following the examination, the inspectors will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State who will decide whether development consent should be granted. If you would like to know more about the DCO application process, please visit the Planning Inspectorate’s website: infrastructure. planninginspectorate.gov.uk/application-process/the-process

 

[Cantab26]

So with the DCO, would it be ultimately up to the Secretary of State to decide whether to accept the consolidated option (or not) and if they did, the closures would then proceed without going through the normal closure process?

Potentially, if that’s what the DCO says. If the consolidation option was put forward and the Secretary of Dtate didn’t like it then the whole application would have to be rejected.

Presumably, the SoS does get to decide, surely it's not just EWR being able to say "we've decided on the consolidated option" and the stations then being closed without reference to the SoS?

Not necessarily: if the DCO includes provision to this effect then EWR Co might well be able to do this without further reference to the Secretary of State.

 

[Class 170101]

Cambridge North changes mentioned but not explicit - I read it as making platform 3 a through platform and focusing platform 2 as the primary turnback platform. Proposals to add train facilities on or near the old sidings. Naively, I would imagine it would be relatively cheap to add a platform 4 at Cambridge North (just put another platform by the entrance) but that wouldn't play nice with stabling.

Is there actually room at Cambridge North / Chesterton for extra sidings? I thought NR had sold off the land for development?

 

[jfowkes]

Is there actually room at Cambridge North / Chesterton for extra sidings? I thought NR had sold off the land for development?

There are the two sidings that lead to the aggregates deport to the north of the station. With the tracks as they are now, you could just fit a platform 4 in opposite platform 3, making the existing track on platform 3 also accessible from platform 4.

If the eastern-most siding was slewed next to the platform 3 track, you could potentially get both a platform 4 and a platform 5 in.

This is guesswork on my part, I have no idea if this is actually possible.

The fact they they chose to make platform 1 the furthest from the station building makes me hopeful that they considered this possibility when designing the station...

 

[DarloRich]

Consultation on the E-W proposals is now open: https://eastwestrail.co.uk/plans-for-powering-trains-and-details-of-our-upcoming-consultation

16 drop-in consultation events to be held across the route from November to January for people to comment on latest EWR plans

The consultation, originally planned for summer 2024, was rescheduled due to the General Election. This new timeframe covers the Christmas and New Year holiday period, but to ensure ensures that communities have ample opportunity to engage with the project and shape its development, the consultation period runs for an additional two weeks and concludes on 24th January.

I will be giving them my thoughts on thier MV merged stations plan. For the avoidance of doubt I think it is a stupid plan.

I have also contacted my newly elected labour MP and asked him if he wants to be the LABOUR politician who kills of a line that survived decades of Tory cuts and attempts to close it down.

It should be entirely possible to offer a local service AND a fast service. This is not rocket science. Our railway is mixed use and always has been.

 

[zwk500]

It should be entirely possible to offer a local service AND a fast service. This is not rocket science. Our railway is mixed use and always has been.

Are there any other mixed stopper/fast 2-track lines with stations spaced so closely together? 12 stations in 16 miles really slows the path down, it's 15mins differential between a stopping and non-stopping train on today's timing.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are there any other mixed stopper/fast 2-track lines with stations spaced so closely together?

Yes, plenty. Two examples would be the Chat Moss and CLC lines near Liverpool.

 

[DarloRich]

Are there any other mixed stopper/fast 2-track lines with stations spaced so closely together? 12 stations in 16 miles really slows the path down, it's 15mins differential between a stopping and non-stopping train on today's timing.

it isn't insurmountable surely - a loop somewhere would do the trick.

I am happy with a thinned out peak hours only service for most of the stations. I am happy with closing a couple ( not mine obviously! ) but even then we need to be careful. Closing somewhere like Kempston looks a no brainer now but there are plans for a massive new development there AND the proposed theme park.

I don't see why local users and residents should be punished to allow someone to save 5 minutes on a journey between Oxford and Cambridge. Us users were PROMISED a better service as part of this development. More than once. Instead we are being chuffed off and treated like mugs. That is what annoys me the most. I have had a over a decade of jam tomorrow and now no jam. Not even any bread!

Mind you LM have done a great job in driving trade away. Almost like they don't want to run a service. E-W are using that as an excuse to push thier plans for closure. One key point being the low journey numbers. It is hard to check numbers when you don't check tickets. It is hard to check numbers when you dont run a service for a year.................

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am happy with a thinned out peak hours only service for most of the stations. I am happy with closing a couple ( not mine obviously! ) but even then we need to be careful. Closing somewhere like Kempston looks a no brainer now but there are plans for a massive new development there AND the proposed theme park.

In practice Wixams will replace it for both the theme park and residential developments, though.

 

[Class 170101]

In practice Wixams will replace it for both the theme park and residential developments, though.

I thought the theme Park was looking for access from both the MML and East West Rail? So two stations.