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

[fishwomp]

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.

There is a footbridge 200 yards east. Bicester is hardly an easy place to drive inside its ring road.. snarling up is the norm, so adding a bridge may encourage more traffic than currently!!

One of the concerns about the level crossing was that the road would be shut for up to half an hour every hour.

It looks like the design is for a one-way road, with traffic light control I expect.

As an exercise for the reader.. how many minutes per hour will the road be closed in each direction if that is the case?

Also, how many minutes per hour is a road closed from any direction (orientation) in any crossroads with traffic lights...?

That said, the railway was going to have to go through hoops and restrictions in order to have made allowances for a level crossing so close to a station - so in terms of a faster/better/more frequent railway, it's a good thing.

I wonder if they'll pedestrianize the rest of the town before the bridge is complete (in however many decades..) rendering the bridge somewhat moot..!

 

[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?

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

I'm a bit annoyed with myself that it has taken a day for me to work this out.

The answer is cycles. At peak times about 10% of passengers at Cambridge have cycles. Most of them don't wait for lifts, they carry their cycles on the stairs. On the existing footbridge this creates a lot of congestion. I've sometimes watched when the 0845 from Kings Lynn and the 0709 from Brighton arrive simultaneously on opposite sides of the island platform. Its messy.

Escalators would be a health and safety nightmare: put escalators in and there will be people with cycles tempted to try to take their cycles on the escalators.

The big wide staircase will be ideal for coping with lots of passengers about 10% of them carrying cycles.

 

[67018]

There is a footbridge 200 yards east. Bicester is hardly an easy place to drive inside its ring road.. snarling up is the norm, so adding a bridge may encourage more traffic than currently!!

I don't quite follow this argument - Bicester is not an easy place to drive, so it's a good idea to close one of the major access roads? The EWR consultation report suggests that the extended closing time of the level crossing would cause traffic to back up both to the Market Square and the ring road, which will snarl up wider areas of the local road network.

It's hardly going to encourage more traffic - most people with a choice avoid London Road like the plague due to the existing risk of delay. But it's difficult to ignore the large number of residents that rely on the road as their only direct access into the town.

One of the concerns about the level crossing was that the road would be shut for up to half an hour every hour.

It looks like the design is for a one-way road, with traffic light control I expect.

As an exercise for the reader.. how many minutes per hour will the road be closed in each direction if that is the case?

The level crossing would be closed for 'a minimum of 32 minutes per hour' in both directions. The close times probably won't be evenly spaced leading to long delays (that's certainly the case now).
A one way road will be closed for 30 minutes per hour per direction, with red phases evenly spaced and potential to allow for tidal flow.

Also, how many minutes per hour is a road closed from any direction (orientation) in any crossroads with traffic lights...?

That said, the railway was going to have to go through hoops and restrictions in order to have made allowances for a level crossing so close to a station - so in terms of a faster/better/more frequent railway, it's a good thing.

I wonder if they'll pedestrianize the rest of the town before the bridge is complete (in however many decades..) rendering the bridge somewhat moot..!

The chance of that end of town being pedestrianised is zero. It's well outside the central area and would involve cutting the town centre off from Launton Road with all its employment and retail space. It's taken long enough just to get a partial pedestrianisation of the Market Square (maybe) moving.

 

[edwin_m]

A one way road will be closed for 30 minutes per hour per direction, with red phases evenly spaced and potential to allow for tidal flow.

For a particular direction it will be closed for longer than that, to give time for the last vehicle that entered the route to pass through at the end of each phase. I'm not sure what the vehicle transit time would be, but if there was say a phase every minute it could add up quite quickly.

I think this only works if the vehicle count is so low that the lights can nearly always let a single vehicle through as soon as it approaches.

 

[William3000]

I'm a bit annoyed with myself that it has taken a day for me to work this out.

The answer is cycles. At peak times about 10% of passengers at Cambridge have cycles. Most of them don't wait for lifts, they carry their cycles on the stairs. On the existing footbridge this creates a lot of congestion. I've sometimes watched when the 0845 from Kings Lynn and the 0709 from Brighton arrive simultaneously on opposite sides of the island platform. Its messy.

Escalators would be a health and safety nightmare: put escalators in and there will be people with cycles tempted to try to take their cycles on the escalators.

The big wide staircase will be ideal for coping with lots of passengers about 10% of them carrying cycles.

I think Cambridge (Central) is getting to the stage where escalators will be necessary to help flow. In my experience using Cambridge every day, those with cycles on trains (fold up cycles excepted) are nowhere near 10% - closer to 1%.

 

[Magdalia]

those with cycles on trains (fold up cycles excepted) are nowhere near 10% - closer to 1%.

I have watched, and I have counted. Whenever I am going out for the day by train from Cambridge, I fill the waiting time by watching and counting passengers. My counts include fold up cycles, as most people who have fold up cycles unfold them before they get off the train.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

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.

Not convinced that's anything other than the Treasury taking their bit of flesh in the fight over defence spending having probably lost the battle. That said, I suspect to pay for the higher defence spending, it will come from other budgets and DFT is a prime candidate as Welfare and Health appear untouchable/ to difficult politically

 

[DarloRich]

I suspect to pay for the higher defence spending, it will come from other budgets and DFT is a prime candidate as Welfare and Health appear untouchable/ to difficult politically

Agreed: The money for higher defence spending has to come from somewhere and as you say I doubt that will be the NHS..............

My point is that regardless of what E>W are suggesting government money is incredibly constrained at the present time. That constriction is only going to get worse and further departmental cuts are inevitable. Railways wont be exempt and could, easily, be a large target.

 

[William3000]

I have watched, and I have counted. Whenever I am going out for the day by train from Cambridge, I fill the waiting time by watching and counting passengers. My counts include fold up cycles, as most people who have fold up cycles unfold them before they get off

I have watched, and I have counted. Whenever I am going out for the day by train from Cambridge, I fill the waiting time by watching and counting passengers. My counts include fold up cycles, as most people who have fold up cycles unfold them before they get off the train.

That doesn’t tally with my own assessments. Nevertheless I don’t think it’s a compelling argument against escalators. Fold up cycles can be taken on escalators and the number of conventional cycles is small. I always use the lifts when I cycle though I appreciate others wheel them up.

A compromise might be retaining the existing staircase between platforms 4 and 7/8, and in the future 9, but providing escalators at the southern end closer to the new eastern entrance. Passenger numbers are currently around 11 million at Cambridge but with the continuous growth of the city together with East West Rail, Cambridge is likely to be handling close to 20 million passengers I would expect by the late 2030s following the opening of EWR. That’s considerably more than Reading today - albeit I expect its numbers to also increase - and it has escalators and several more platforms in a less constrained layout.

Worth also bearing in mind London now has high cycling rates - not at Cambridge levels - but significant and is used to escalators and lifts. Escalators can move people more quickly - albeit the ‘stand on the right’ policy negatively impacts on the speeds and capacity.

 

[zwk500]

Agreed: The money for higher defence spending has to come from somewhere and as you say I doubt that will be the NHS..............

My point is that regardless of what E>W are suggesting government money is incredibly constrained at the present time. That constriction is only going to get worse and further departmental cuts are inevitable. Railways wont be exempt and could, easily, be a large target.

Worth pointing out that the issue for EWR is less departmental budget cuts for OPEX, but restrictions on borrowing for further CAPEX. Not that OPEX restrictions wouldn't cause EWR issues if the service requires subsidy to operate.

 

[Magdalia]

Worth also bearing in mind London now has high cycling rates - not at Cambridge levels - but significant and is used to escalators and lifts.

I used to work in London and the contrast with Cambridge for escalator use is huge. Cambridge isn't used to escalators, try using them in John Lewis to find that out. I'm struggling to think of many other places in Cambridge with escalators apart from the big shops.

Fold up cycles can be taken on escalators and the number of conventional cycles is small. I always use the lifts when I cycle though I appreciate others wheel them up.

For lots of arrivals at Cambridge island platform people with cycles wanting to use the lift would have a long wait, because there is only one.

Most people I've watched carry their cycles over the bridge, I've tried to use the wheel ramps on the stairs and they are dire, especially when the stairs are crowded.

Passenger numbers are currently around 11 million at Cambridge but with the continuous growth of the city together with East West Rail, Cambridge is likely to be handling close to 20 million passengers I would expect by the late 2030s following the opening of EWR.

The main station won't grow that much because a lot of the traffic will use Cambridge South instead. Just having the second bridge and the east side entrance/exit will make a huge difference.

 

[jfowkes]

Most people I've watched carry their cycles over the bridge, I've tried to use the wheel ramps on the stairs and they are dire, especially when the stairs are crowded.

Yep, in my experience the ramps make things worse, they just hold things up as people try to use them and then get pedals/panniers stuck on something.

 

[cle]

A compromise might be retaining the existing staircase between platforms 4 and 7/8, and in the future 9, but providing escalators at the southern end closer to the new eastern entrance. Passenger numbers are currently around 11 million at Cambridge but with the continuous growth of the city together with East West Rail, Cambridge is likely to be handling close to 20 million passengers I would expect by the late 2030s following the opening of EWR. That’s considerably more than Reading today - albeit I expect its numbers to also increase - and it has escalators and several more platforms in a less constrained layout.

Worth also bearing in mind London now has high cycling rates - not at Cambridge levels - but significant and is used to escalators and lifts. Escalators can move people more quickly - albeit the ‘stand on the right’ policy negatively impacts on the speeds and capacity.

I agree about the 20mn, and possibly sooner than late 30s. Reading is still growing, but yes from a higher base and less rapidly.

I massively disagree about the escalators - stand on the right is very efficient. Travel to the US, or to most airports, to see escalators done badly. Luggage is the killer (lots of bikes, even folded, would be too) - London is world-class in this etiquette. I can't see Cambridge being as frantic as the tube ever, other than 2 mins before a train for those running late.

 

[lachlan]

I agree about the 20mn, and possibly sooner than late 30s. Reading is still growing, but yes from a higher base and less rapidly.

I massively disagree about the escalators - stand on the right is very efficient. Travel to the US, or to most airports, to see escalators done badly. Luggage is the killer (lots of bikes, even folded, would be too) - London is world-class in this etiquette. I can't see Cambridge being as frantic as the tube ever, other than 2 mins before a train for those running late.

The amount of times I've been stuck in a crowd of people waiting for a spot on right suggests "stand on the right" is not optimal.

 

[zwk500]

I massively disagree about the escalators - stand on the right is very efficient. Travel to the US, or to most airports, to see escalators done badly. Luggage is the killer (lots of bikes, even folded, would be too) - London is world-class in this etiquette. I can't see Cambridge being as frantic as the tube ever, other than 2 mins before a train for those running late.

The amount of times I've been stuck in a crowd of people waiting for a spot on right suggests "stand on the right" is not optimal.

Didn't Tfl recently do an experiment and found that the most efficient was to get everybody to stand on both sides, so that the escalator picked up 2 people for each step?

 

[185143]

Didn't Tfl recently do an experiment and found that the most efficient was to get everybody to stand on both sides, so that the escalator picked up 2 people for each step?

Pretty sure they did. Think it was just before Covid.

But I guess we're all too ingrained in our ways to stick to it. That, and plenty of Londoners are too damn impatient to wait!

 

[Magdalia]

I massively disagree about the escalators - stand on the right is very efficient.

The amount of times I've been stuck in a crowd of people waiting for a spot on right suggests "stand on the right" is not optimal.

It depends on the length of the escalator, and where it is.

On short escalators in London, lots of people are prepared to walk, so stand on the right and walk on the left works well.

As the length of escalator increases, fewer people are walking, and, above a certain length, standing on both sides becomes optimal. I think there was an academic paper that worked out the tipping point where standing on both sides becomes optimal.

Didn't Tfl recently do an experiment and found that the most efficient was to get everybody to stand on both sides, so that the escalator picked up 2 people for each step?

TfL tried to do this at Holborn, which is one of their longest escalators, but the few people who still wanted to walk caused a lot of trouble for people standing on the left, and most of the people who wanted to stand still queued up to stand on the right.

But in Cambridge, it is rare to see anyone walk on escalators.

 

[cle]

The amount of times I've been stuck in a crowd of people waiting for a spot on right suggests "stand on the right" is not optimal.

Not Londoners, I suspect... yes out-of-towners and tourists do tend to ruin civic etiquette, especially on transit. Cambridge will have its own examples.

 

[800002]

As an exercise for the reader.. how many minutes per hour will the road be closed in each direction if that is the case?

I suspect, as with much of the consultants creativity in this project, they may not have considered the other 4 trains (2 each way) which belong to Chiltern.
8 tph, total, if split into pairs with opposite direction trains passing at the same time (and excluding the close proximity of the station) would be an outside guess of 20 minutes down time / hour allowing for 4 periods of 5 minites each.

Given that the reality is somewhat different in terms of timetabling each operators trains, that could quite easily double to 40 minutes down time / hour if the gap between trains is shorter than the barrier cycle time. And in the mean time, barrier / crossing misuse will likely increase.

 

[67018]

I suspect, as with much of the consultants creativity in this project, they may not have considered the other 4 trains (2 each way) which belong to Chiltern.
8 tph, total, if split into pairs with opposite direction trains passing at the same time (and excluding the close proximity of the station) would be an outside guess of 20 minutes down time / hour allowing for 4 periods of 5 minites each.

Given that the reality is somewhat different in terms of timetabling each operators trains, that could quite easily double to 40 minutes down time / hour if the gap between trains is shorter than the barrier cycle time. And in the mean time, barrier / crossing misuse will likely increase.

The information in the various consultation documents suggests they have thought a lot about this. In the 2024 consultation it says:

Our further analysis has confirmed that, with four East West Rail trains per hour in each direction in addition to existing services, the minimum barrier down time at the level crossing would likely exceed 32 minutes per hour [...] As a result of the increased waiting times, the potential for misuse of the crossing would also increase, raising safety concerns if the crossing is left open. The risk of people dying or being injured at the crossing would increase by more than 300%. This is based on an assessment using a model known as the Fatalities and Weighted Injuries score.

The 2026 consultation updates with:

The updated train service specification we’re considering introduces more frequent and longer trains than presented at our previous consultation. This would further increase the barrier down time, exacerbating safety issues, were the crossing to remain open. The closure of the level crossing therefore remains necessary.

So it's been a no-brainer for some time that the crossing has to close. The real argument is what should replace it and, more to the point, who's going to pay for it. EWR's view in the consultation document can be summarised as 'not us'!

 

[Mag_seven]

OK I think there is no point in this thread about the Consultation Process remaining open as it is becoming speculative. I would suggest that there is nothing really to discuss about it other than previously noting that there is a consultation process under way now.

If there is any material change in the consultation process itself then please notify us and we will look to reopen the thread.

In the meantime, the speculative thread can be found here:

East-West Rail (EWR) speculative thread

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-ewr-consultation-updates-not-speculation.99892/ Lots of negative comments in the Cambridge News https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/news-opinion/cambridge-oxford-rail-link-slammed-33731252 Cambridge to Oxford...

www.railforums.co.uk

thanks all