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

[Snow1964]

I do also wonder why they left that section out, and why they chose Oxford Parkway-Bicester Village instead of going from Oxford itself. Though the fact it goes from Bicester suggests the supply could be shared with a (partial or full) electrification project for Chiltern.

As HS2 was specified for at least 18 trains each way, so going to be lot of spare capacity, could probably connect it to HS2 supply short term too.

 

[Trainbike46]

As HS2 was specified for at least 18 trains each way, so going to be lot of spare capacity, could probably connect it to HS2 supply short term too.

I forgot that's where HS2 crosses EWR.

That would make sense, both from a cost perspective and from a timeline perspective as it avoids waiting for a grid connection

 

[zwk500]

As HS2 was specified for at least 18 trains each way, so going to be lot of spare capacity, could probably connect it to HS2 supply short term too.

I forgot that's where HS2 crosses EWR.

That would make sense, both from a cost perspective and from a timeline perspective as it avoids waiting for a grid connection

EWR crosses HS2 at Calvert, some 10km east of Bicester Village. It would not necessarily save costs to combine with HS2 if the HS2 side has progressed design far enough that it would require changes to accomodate.

I don't know how advanced the HS2 design is though. It may still be early enough that incorporating the end-state EWR requirements into the end-state HS2 design can be accomodated. But it may not.

 

[DavidGrain]

View attachment 202332

I like that this image (figure 23, page 12) implies that "discontinuous electrification" will be implemented by only electrifying one track.

That's observant of you.

 

[Snow1964]

View attachment 202332

I like that this image (figure 23, page 12) implies that "discontinuous electrification" will be implemented by only electrifying one track.

Although maybe the person doing the mockup is technically minded, because with a BEMU its not ideal to put the power changeover where train is accelerating, so the end points of wires on up and down tracks might be at different locations.

Ideally want to be able to accelerate away from a junction or station on the mains, then use battery to maintain speed. Approaching any junction ideally need the approach track wired few hundred metres so can change system whilst waiting at signal, not having to change system whilst trying to accelerate clear of junction. Raising and lowering pantographs close to mid junction is high risk, and running excessive distance under the wires with pantograph down is not efficient either.

Although BEMUs can operate where wire terminations were based on shunt limits of electric locos, those historic limits (designed for different reason) are often not optimised for BEMU efficiency. I suspect a few dozen locations need a few hundred metres, (maybe even mile on one track of double track) of extra wiring if BEMU operation is to be optimised

 

[camflyer]

New official video from EWR promising "end to end services by the mid to late 2030"

So, that will be 2050 then.

 

[fishwomp]

New official video from EWR promising "end to end services by the mid to late 2030"

So, that will be 2050 then.

The original announcement in December 2017 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ks-own-silicon-valley-rail-link-on-fast-track - is headlined as "Launch of new East West Railway Company puts UK’s own ‘Silicon Valley’ rail link on fast track" and says..

East West Rail will be one of the country’s most strategically important rail projects, with its direct link through the corridor dubbed the UK’s own ‘Silicon Valley’ when it is completed in the mid-2020s.

So, in 8 years, the line has slipped by over 10 years... That's fast track.

 

[zwk500]

Although maybe the person doing the mockup is technically minded, because with a BEMU its not ideal to put the power changeover where train is accelerating, so the end points of wires on up and down tracks might be at different locations.

Or maybe the person doing the mockup has no technical knowledge of OLE, and just chose the first option in their file library on the rendering software. After all, the CGI image isn't going to be used for detailed design.

Ideally want to be able to accelerate away from a junction or station on the mains, then use battery to maintain speed. Approaching any junction ideally need the approach track wired few hundred metres so can change system whilst waiting at signal, not having to change system whilst trying to accelerate clear of junction. Raising and lowering pantographs close to mid junction is high risk, and running excessive distance under the wires with pantograph down is not efficient either.

While this would be ideal, on a substantial number of Bi-mode routes where traction changeover takes place the junctions have not been wired to allow trains to pan up before entering the main line. Instead the risk of raising the pan mid-junction is dealt with by lowering on approach or raising after having cleared the junction.
A discontinuous electrification scheme would be better placed to provide overrruns as part of the wider project (where the overheads for the additional scope would be covered within the overall project) than the Bi-Mode implementation, but I'd suggest that if the battery range was so marginal that it couldn't deal with being held at the last junction, it's probably not going to be suitable for long-term operation. Freight would give a better case for providing the facility to pan up while holding, as they will require more energy to start off, but again if freight is expected to be able to operate on independent traction power, it will likely be difficult to justify the additional complexity of wiring the junction over just waiting for the freight to get past the pointwork before panning up.

Although BEMUs can operate where wire terminations were based on shunt limits of electric locos, those historic limits (designed for different reason) are often not optimised for BEMU efficiency. I suspect a few dozen locations need a few hundred metres, (maybe even mile on one track of double track) of extra wiring if BEMU operation is to be optimised

The number of locations this may affect is fairly small, and unless there was other electrification going on that could easily capture the additional wiring, the less-efficient option of just putting the pantograph up or down in the Platform is likely to be favoured.
The only location where historic shunting Limits of OLE are likely to be an issue that jumps out to me is Crewe. Wolverhampton to Oxley depot, Peterborough, and Norwich potentially. But everywhere else I can think of where historic OLE may have included shunting moves has either been electrified further recently so the OLE has been extended anyway, or was electrified more recently for fixed formations and didn't include lots of extra OLE for shunt moves.

 

[Magdalia]

The original announcement in December 2017 - https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...ks-own-silicon-valley-rail-link-on-fast-track - is headlined as "Launch of new East West Railway Company puts UK’s own ‘Silicon Valley’ rail link on fast track" and says..

So, in 8 years, the line has slipped by over 10 years... That's fast track.

For about half of those 8 years East West Rail has not been fast tracked. In particular it made almost zero progress under the Johnson government 2019-22 when Sunak was Chancellor and Shapps was Transport Secretary. Whatever else you may think of them, it was Hunt and Gove that got EWR onto a faster track out of the ashes of the Truss/Kwarteng "financial event". EWR then lost another 6 months-1 year in 2024 when a round of consultation was ready to go but pulled when the General Election was called.

 

[Snow1964]

Some visualisations of new stations for East West Rail are on this link

(not quoting as needed to scroll through images)

East West Rail reveals designs for three new WW+P-designed stations

Transport hubs in Cambridge, Bedford and Bletchley unveiled in final consultation for £7bn railway

www.bdonline.co.uk

 

[bspahh]

Some visualisations of new stations for East West Rail are on this link

(not quoting as needed to scroll through images)

East West Rail reveals designs for three new WW+P-designed stations

Transport hubs in Cambridge, Bedford and Bletchley unveiled in final consultation for £7bn railway

www.bdonline.co.uk

 

[lachlan]

Disappointing to see that, in order to give motorists what they want, we lose a pavement on one side of the crossing.

If traffic lights are green in your direction it would likely be quicker to cycle in the road than on that cycle lane too

 

[cle]

Disappointing to see that, in order to give motorists what they want, we lose a pavement on one side of the crossing.

If traffic lights are green in your direction it would likely be quicker to cycle in the road than on that cycle lane too

Agree it’s not great or very progressive.

Cambridge eastern looks mammoth. That side is mainly residential although I am sure any spare plots will be developed. Won’t the additional platform (on that side) be a single side platform - vis the rather dramatic staircase?

 

[DarloRich]

Funding will surely remain a question. The MoD have been asked for £3.xbn in year savings and surely that demand will come to other departments in due course.

 

[Trainbike46]

Funding will surely remain a question. The MoD have been asked for £3.xbn in year savings and surely that demand will come to other departments in due course.

Projects like this one are expected to drive economic growth (and I think there is pretty good evidence that it will), so those are the ones a sensible treasury and minister would progress while being asked to deliver savings

Clearly funding is a question that needs to be answered, but it shouldn't be an issue for this project.

 

[DarloRich]

Clearly funding is a question that needs to be answered, but it shouldn't be an issue for this project.

I am not so confident! I think there could easily be descoping.

 

[zwk500]

Clearly funding is a question that needs to be answered, but it shouldn't be an issue for this project.

In the current climate, I don't think any project can be at all confident that funding won't be an issue.

However, once services between Oxford and MK begin, there will be some data against which to evaluate the original planning assumptions for the western half of the line, which should help give a clearer picture of the amount of growth (and other socio-economic benefits to the economy) further spending on the project would support.

 

[jfowkes]

I am not so confident! I think there could easily be descoping.

Have to agree.

This government is not quite so short-termist and austerity minded as previous, but it would only take one economic shock to go down that path again.

Luckily, nothing is happening out there that might cause a economic shock so I think we're good.

 

[Mikey C]

Disappointing to see that, in order to give motorists what they want, we lose a pavement on one side of the crossing.

If traffic lights are green in your direction it would likely be quicker to cycle in the road than on that cycle lane too

It's the correct decision to have some sort of road crossing, when there are NO other crossings of the railway within the centre of Bicester. It's ridiculous that it wasn't thought about beforehand.

Get rid of the pointless cycle lane, considering there are no cycle paths on either side, and you could have pavements on both sides.

 

[zwk500]

I do also wonder why they left that section out, and why they chose Oxford Parkway-Bicester Village instead of going from Oxford itself. Though the fact it goes from Bicester suggests the supply could be shared with a (partial or full) electrification project for Chiltern.

Having gone through the plans, the specific limits of OLE are not marked, but the proposed traction power sites are, from west to East between Oxford and Bletchley are: (terminology from the plans):

'Proposed traction power feeder station' at Oxford Parkway
'Proposes traction power compound' immediately east of the M40 motorway overbridge
'Proposed traction power compound' immediately east of the Bicester Road overbridge (a short way east of the A4421 overbridge and east of the junction for the curve to the Chiltern Main Line).
'Proposed traction power compound' on the south side of the line where Claydon East Junction is (opposite the HS2 IMD)
'Proposed extension to Bletchley Sectioning Auto-Transformer Site (SATS)' at the south end of the existing site (on the WCML south of the flyover)
'Proposed traction power compound' at the west end of Bletchely TMD/CE Sidings site.

Interestingly the proposed compounds at Bicester Road and Claydon East Junction does not line up with their initial graphic, but could well be a proposed site for if future infill electrification comes along. However the new feeder station at Oxford Parkway and extension to Bletchley SATS would indicate the power is planned to be fed from either end, rather than in the middle from tapping the HS2 IMD.

 

[lachlan]

It's the correct decision to have some sort of road crossing, when there are NO other crossings of the railway within the centre of Bicester. It's ridiculous that it wasn't thought about beforehand.

Get rid of the pointless cycle lane, considering there are no cycle paths on either side, and you could have pavements on both sides.

Given the poor state of cycling infrastructure across the country that's not a good reason to ditch the cycle lane. Have to start somewhere. If the cycle lane is removed people will cycle on the pavement if their light is red.

 

[InTheEastMids]

So, that will be 2050 then.

I was going to say December 2039 timetable change.

Having gone through the plans, the specific limits of OLE are not marked, but the proposed traction power sites are, from west to East between Oxford and Bletchley are: (terminology from the plans):

'Proposed traction power feeder station' at Oxford Parkway
'Proposes traction power compound' immediately east of the M40 motorway overbridge
'Proposed traction power compound' immediately east of the Bicester Road overbridge (a short way east of the A4421 overbridge and east of the junction for the curve to the Chiltern Main Line).
'Proposed traction power compound' on the south side of the line where Claydon East Junction is (opposite the HS2 IMD)
'Proposed extension to Bletchley Sectioning Auto-Transformer Site (SATS)' at the south end of the existing site (on the WCML south of the flyover)
'Proposed traction power compound' at the west end of Bletchely TMD/CE Sidings site.

Interestingly the proposed compounds at Bicester Road and Claydon East Junction does not line up with their initial graphic, but could well be a proposed site for if future infill electrification comes along. However the new feeder station at Oxford Parkway and extension to Bletchley SATS would indicate the power is planned to be fed from either end, rather than in the middle from tapping the HS2 IMD.

For Oxford-Bletchley, I wondered if each of these compounds would have their own supply, or whether there will be a feed from elsewhere. Looking at the plans, there seems to be utility works from Bicester North 132 kV substation to the Bicester Road Overbridge site so perhaps that will be the main supply for the Oxford-Bicester section.

The utility diversions seem to provide for full electrification, as diversions of the 132 and 400 kV OHL that cross EWR around Verney Junction and Winslow are within the scope of the DCO, those would be quite a big cost to EWR.

For West Bletchley/Newton Longville depot, there are utility works proposed that link it to Tattenhoe substation, so that may be a standalone supply so they can recharge and move trains around the depot.

 

[Zomboid]

There's an existing 132kV substation in Yarnton, about a mile in a straight line from OXP, and the power lines go over the car park. If that's described as a feeder station it would probably provide the supply for the western end, with a connection to the WCML supply at Bletchley.

 

[absolutelymilk]

Cambridge eastern looks mammoth. That side is mainly residential although I am sure any spare plots will be developed. Won’t the additional platform (on that side) be a single side platform - vis the rather dramatic staircase?

It is indeed a rather dramatic staircase, I wonder why they aren't planning escalators like at Brent Cross West?

 

[8128]

Get rid of the pointless cycle lane, considering there are no cycle paths on either side, and you could have pavements on both sides.

Given the poor state of cycling infrastructure across the country that's not a good reason to ditch the cycle lane. Have to start somewhere. If the cycle lane is removed people will cycle on the pavement if their light is red.

Oxfordshire County Council has plans for adding a cycleway to both sides (see Phase 1 Image 1 and Phase 2 Image 1). Unfortunately the cycleway is on the opposite side of the carriageway to the underpass plans! But I remain hope (naively?) that sense will prevail and one of the plans will be sensibly amended to make a good route.

 

[Magdalia]

Cambridge eastern looks mammoth. That side is mainly residential although I am sure any spare plots will be developed. Won’t the additional platform (on that side) be a single side platform - vis the rather dramatic staircase?

It is indeed a rather dramatic staircase, I wonder why they aren't planning escalators like at Brent Cross West?

Yes platform 9 is to be single sided.

Cambridge Leisure Park and Hills Road College will both have much easier access from an east side entrance/exit.

Escalators I think would not work on the west side, where the existing station building is listed.

 

[Mikey C]

It is indeed a rather dramatic staircase, I wonder why they aren't planning escalators like at Brent Cross West?

Looks cheapskate to not have escalators there, when it's such a tall and wide staircase.

 

[Bodiam]

Agree it’s not great or very progressive.

Cambridge eastern looks mammoth. That side is mainly residential although I am sure any spare plots will be developed. Won’t the additional platform (on that side) be a single side platform - vis the rather dramatic staircase?

The eastern entrance at Cambridge would have been useful when I lived off Mill Road 1996-2000 and commuted to London!

 

[cle]

Looks cheapskate to not have escalators there, when it's such a tall and wide staircase.

It might not have the throughput to justify them... it will definitely be far quieter. And there will be lifts.

In the current climate, I don't think any project can be at all confident that funding won't be an issue.

However, once services between Oxford and MK begin, there will be some data against which to evaluate the original planning assumptions for the western half of the line, which should help give a clearer picture of the amount of growth (and other socio-economic benefits to the economy) further spending on the project would support.

I'm curious how one side will impact the other. I almost see it as two railways, split at Bedford.

Oxford-MKC/Bedford is largely about connectivity - hooking up large, adjacent settlements on different mainlines, bringing new regional and national journeys into play... and connecting some growing places like Bicester and Winslow. It links otherwise unlinked regions. Oxford is a big market. MK is also, but very different in nature. Curious to see how both evolve in time (Oxford's job future emulating Cambridge's but with worse NIMBYs and worse flooding in its viable hinterland), MKC becoming more of a WCML must-call hub) - with booming Bicester in between them. Everything calls at Oxford, and once HS2 opens, MKC will likely be the same. Bletchley will be much more on the map too.

Bedford-Cambridge is much more centred around Cambridge itself. Connectivity east of Cambridge is pretty poor. It's the bright light in this, and the railway will be about inbound demand and stimulating development and commuting potential for Cambridge. Regional connections way less important, ECML is cursory at best (P'boro local services? nothing not served from Cambridge today) - I can't see tons of Cambridge - Bedford westbound travel... if MML services increase then Bedford will have a bigger role to play. Right now, it'll be access to Luton Airport and Universal (vs Notts/Sheffield hourly services, for instance) - it is an actual interchange in the way MKC/Bletchley are split. Cambridge-MKC will never be a thing.

And Oxford-Cambridge travel itself, I think will be a nice story, and really sold this in - but immaterial in practice.

 

[zwk500]

Looks cheapskate to not have escalators there, when it's such a tall and wide staircase.

The render may not be the absolute final design, of course.