East West Mainline interchanges

[Nottingham59]

look at the H6 bridge. There isn't room between the Up slow and the Bridge column.

This is the H6 bridge, if I've got my geography right. There is an entire unused span that could take at least two extra tracks. Some other bridges may need widening, but surely not this one?

 

[edwin_m]

and if it nibbles the IKEA collection point there will be hell to pay from a swathe of Herts Beds and Bucks furniture customers!

Can't they just unscrew the cams and re-assemble it somewhere else? Or have they lost the Allen key?

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is the H6 bridge, if I've got my geography right. There is an entire unused span that could take at least two extra tracks. Some other bridges may need widening, but surely not this one?

View attachment 109636

The extra tracks would need to go on the other side unless you moved everything over.

It isn't insurmountable, though, and even extended road closures in MK are not a great issue because there are so many diversionary routes.

 

[zwk500]

The extra tracks would need to go on the other side unless you moved everything over.

It isn't insurmountable, though, and even extended road closures in MK are not a great issue because there are so many diversionary routes.

Nothing's insurmountable, but everything has a price, and that price will need to be paid by the rail project. the curve will already need 2 junctions, some major earthworks, and additional capacity at MK. All for a handful of freights and the MK-Bedford-Cambridge travel corridor, which won't ever be the world's busiest.

I do agree with you that the disruption in MK would barely be noticed because of the grid system.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nothing's insurmountable, but everything has a price, and that price will need to be paid by the rail project. the curve will already need 2 junctions, some major earthworks, and additional capacity at MK. All for a handful of freights and the MK-Bedford-Cambridge travel corridor, which won't ever be the world's busiest.

To be fair the whole of EWR fits that description. It won't be empty, but it will only ever be a secondary regional line with relatively short trains.

 

[Bald Rick]

Can't they just unscrew the cams and re-assemble it somewhere else? Or have they lost the Allen key?

I believe the instructions were thrown away some time ago, and the warehouse was built using an ancestor of the BILLY system, so no one knows how to do it.

 

[zwk500]

To be fair the whole of EWR fits that description. It won't be empty, but it will only ever be a secondary regional line with relatively short trains.

Exactly, which is why it's made compromises to get the line built.

 

[The Planner]

I believe the instructions were thrown away some time ago, and the warehouse was built using an ancestor of the BILLY system, so no one knows how to do it.

Deadpool : How's the Kullen coming along? Ikea doesn't assemble itself, you know.

Blind Al : You're telling me. I don't mind the Kullen. It's an improvement on the Hurdal.

Deadpool : Please. Anything's an improvement over the Hurdal. I'd have taken a Hemnes or a Trysil over a Hurdal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Exactly, which is why it's made compromises to get the line built.

It has, but given the importance of MK in the whole thing, I think no direct service to MKC from the Cambridge side will just be throwing away revenue, possibly to the point of rendering building that side not worth it at all.

I will personally benefit from it being as it is currently planned, but the line and region will not benefit as much without direct service to MKC.

 

[richieb1971]

My family have used the Marston Vale line mostly to reach MkC. Direct trains from Bedford would be ideal but a changeover that gets you there in 30 mins is a good option as well.

 

[hooverboy]

Bear in mind EWR are initially planned to stable where the curve leaves the Bletchley Bedford line....

I told you stewartby brickworks would be handy as a stabling facility and TMD.
Not just for EWR but for MML as well.

Bedford Cauldwell maintenance ,via the MML is about where you want to be entering the new Bedford Midland station once built.Diversionary split from MML to EWR happening somwhere just a fraction south of elstow roundabout and joining the present marston vale in between kempston and stewartby.A lot of land seems to be ex quarry, so a diveunder should be doable as long as drainage permits.
St Johns linkage should not be used, at least not for passenger diagrams.It might be worth retaining as a freight passing loop.

 

[hooverboy]

I would suggest you would want a track distance of at least 1000m (and probably more) if you are planning to run freight as I very much doubt the freight slots for EWR and the WCML slows will match up such that you just cross from one to the other and so they will have to wait on the east to north curve.

Do you really need 1000m radius for a reduced speed curve, lets say 40mph max for simplicity.
The curve wouldn't be meant for an intermodal going full pelt.

The whole point of the link would be to provide the connection,which is much much needed.
I suppose the closest comparison to come up with would be an allington curve style structure.

 

[hooverboy]

To be fair the whole of EWR fits that description. It won't be empty, but it will only ever be a secondary regional line with relatively short trains.

I think with the right connections ,the line does have the potential for significantly greater patronage.It is of critical importance to get the point to point connections to the main commercial and transport hubs on the route, of which Bletchley is not.
I think it could be, if not a primary commuter route, certainly a secondary one, and of much grater importance than a lot of regional lines.

 

[A0]

It has, but given the importance of MK in the whole thing, I think no direct service to MKC from the Cambridge side will just be throwing away revenue, possibly to the point of rendering building that side not worth it at all.

I will personally benefit from it being as it is currently planned, but the line and region will not benefit as much without direct service to MKC.

Love it. The "importance" of MK to the whole scheme. What utter BS.

Let's deal with some basic facts - and maybe even travel patterns. There is, reasonably, a desire to link Cambridge and Oxford the argument being the research industry and the exchange of ideas.

So now let's take a look at the centre of MK, who the major employers are there and how that fits - you've got CMK shopping centre, so you can discount that, MK Council - again can be discounted. Network Rail - nope, their other sites are London, Derby etc. BP, Santander, Sainsburys Argos - not sure any of those are ticking the box.

MK does have the OU - but ironically the OU is closer to both Bletchley than CMK - in fact its *closest* station is actually Bow Brickhill.

You've also got the university at Cranfield - closest station Ridgmont or Millbrook.

No doubt EWR improves connectivity between MK and the Thames Valley - for which there has long been a demand and is quite weak. But is there and has there ever been a similar demand for eastward connectivity to Bedford or Cambridge ? Nope. Not at all.

So lets stop playing the emotional card and start dealing in facts.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2022 ==

Not sure what you mean. Isn't there already six platforms at MKC to accommodate a six track railway? And there is a strip of land between the railway and the A5 which looks to my eye to be designed to allow future expansion.
View attachment 109629

OK - lets deal with this step by step.

MK station - the only possible expansion would be on the west side i.e. between the station and the A5, however, the railway and the A5 are not on the same level - this image from Google Maps gives an idea of the difference and that spare 'gap' is the embankment down to the A5, so you'd need *alot* of earthworks.



The bridge at H7 Chaffron Way is similar to the one above, however once you get south of Chaffron Way the green space between the railway and A5 is designated as Elfield Nature Park:



No idea what the bridge over the railway on H8 Standing Way is like or whether that has a spare span.

But after that you've got the railway crossing the A5 and assuming the "new" lines would be on the west side of the current lines you'd have some retail units which would need to be taken out a new bridge over the old A5 - Watling Street - and no doubt some demolition of housing.



And if any new lines weren't on the west side you'd basically end up having to realign pretty much the whole of the line between Bletchley and MKC at which point the costs would probably go from the "huge" to the "stratospheric" and all to try to allow a few trains to run from Cambridge to Central MK without the need to reverse at Bletchley....... discuss.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2022 ==

I do agree with you that the disruption in MK would barely be noticed because of the grid system.

Until a year or so back I drove across MK almost daily for the best part of 18 years and if you think a road closure (particularly of a main grid road) would be "barely noticed" then I think you have a curious definition of "barely noticed" and not one which would be shared by the majority of people.

 

[edwin_m]

Do you really need 1000m radius for a reduced speed curve, lets say 40mph max for simplicity.
The curve wouldn't be meant for an intermodal going full pelt.

The whole point of the link would be to provide the connection,which is much much needed.
I suppose the closest comparison to come up with would be an allington curve style structure.

I think the 1000m was the length between the junctions either end of the curve, not the radius of the curve itself. Similar to the Bacon Factory Curve in Ipswich, this would allow a train to wait for a path onwards, without blocking other trains behind it that are going into Bletchley station.

However, and entirely theoretically as none of this is likely to happen, I imagine a long loop somewhere in open county on the eastern approaches to Bletchley would do the job nearly as well for westbound trains off EWR, so they could be recessed until a path was available round the curve and onto the WCML. A loop in the same place for eastbound would be somewhat less satisfactory as trains from WCML onto EWR would have to have a path as far as that loop, but might still be good enough.

 

[DarloRich]

I told you stewartby brickworks would be handy as a stabling facility and TMD.
Not just for EWR but for MML as well

That area is going for houses irc. We may get a couple of loops down that way if we are lucky.

 

[A0]

I think the 1000m was the length between the junctions either end of the curve, not the radius of the curve itself. Similar to the Bacon Factory Curve in Ipswich, this would allow a train to wait for a path onwards, without blocking other trains behind it that are going into Bletchley station.

However, and entirely theoretically as none of this is likely to happen, I imagine a long loop somewhere in open county on the eastern approaches to Bletchley would do the job nearly as well for westbound trains off EWR, so they could be recessed until a path was available round the curve and onto the WCML. A loop in the same place for eastbound would be somewhat less satisfactory as trains from WCML onto EWR would have to have a path as far as that loop, but might still be good enough.

BIB - there's not alot of options - I believe much of the land between Bow Brickhill and Woburn Sands has already been earmarked for development.

Details here: https://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news...t-plan-bow-brickhill-part-milton-keynes-77399

 

[DarloRich]

I believe much of the land between Bow Brickhill and Woburn Sands has already been earmarked for development.

holds true for much of the land along the vale full stop. How much of it comes off is an unknown!

 

[Bletchleyite]

My family have used the Marston Vale line mostly to reach MkC. Direct trains from Bedford would be ideal but a changeover that gets you there in 30 mins is a good option as well.

The problem there is that Bletchley does not have a frequent service to MKC, it's only a few an hour, and you can't really change the timings of things to connect well in both directions or they would have done.

Post HS2 frequencies are supposed to increase which might help. But in reality most people on that sort of journey will say change => drive instead.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 2 Feb 2022 ==

Love it. The "importance" of MK to the whole scheme. What utter BS.

Let's deal with some basic facts - and maybe even travel patterns. There is, reasonably, a desire to link Cambridge and Oxford the argument being the research industry and the exchange of ideas.

That's the emotional one, there. It's a hazy eyed, rose-tinted-glasses view of academics in their robes and mortarboards going back and forth.

They aren't going back and forth on the X5, or in the car, or on the train via London. It's a non-market, really.

EWR is a regional line - to open up employment and leisure travel in something which in time might become a conurbation.

So now let's take a look at the centre of MK, who the major employers are there and how that fits - you've got CMK shopping centre, so you can discount that, MK Council - again can be discounted. Network Rail - nope, their other sites are London, Derby etc. BP, Santander, Sainsburys Argos - not sure any of those are ticking the box.

These are all major offices.

No doubt EWR improves connectivity between MK and the Thames Valley - for which there has long been a demand and is quite weak. But is there and has there ever been a similar demand for eastward connectivity to Bedford or Cambridge ? Nope. Not at all.

The A421 begs to differ. Why was it dualled if there was no such demand?

So lets stop playing the emotional card and start dealing in facts.

I think that's what you're doing!

OK - lets deal with this step by step.

MK station - the only possible expansion would be on the west side i.e. between the station and the A5, however, the railway and the A5 are not on the same level - this image from Google Maps gives an idea of the difference and that spare 'gap' is the embankment down to the A5, so you'd need *alot* of earthworks.

False. The place to add extra tracks is the east of the line as it would not require crossing the formation. At MKC, there is street level parking under the station footbridge on that side which is wide enough to add at least one more platform. It would require moving a few things round with regard to the multi storey, but there is plenty of space.

It is clearly visible here: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0341351,-0.7738059,337m/data=!3m1!1e3

To give you an idea, when P1 was the terminal line, it was used for rail replacement buses with a temporary bridge from P1 across the buffer stops.

The bridge at H7 Chaffron Way is similar to the one above, however once you get south of Chaffron Way the green space between the railway and A5 is designated as Elfield Nature Park:

Again, wrong side.

No idea what the bridge over the railway on H8 Standing Way is like or whether that has a spare span.

But after that you've got the railway crossing the A5 and assuming the "new" lines would be on the west side of the current lines

No, the east side is where they would go. West would be pointless, as you'd need to cross the whole formation including the fast lines, so that would be a non-starter.

And if any new lines weren't on the west side you'd basically end up having to realign pretty much the whole of the line between Bletchley and MKC at which point the costs would probably go from the "huge" to the "stratospheric" and all to try to allow a few trains to run from Cambridge to Central MK without the need to reverse at Bletchley....... discuss.

The issue isn't reversal, it's paths on the slows for them to go to MKC at all. A reversal could be done fairly smoothly if it was also used as a crew changeover with driver and guard waiting ready to take over when one arrived.

Until a year or so back I drove across MK almost daily for the best part of 18 years and if you think a road closure (particularly of a main grid road) would be "barely noticed" then I think you have a curious definition of "barely noticed" and not one which would be shared by the majority of people.

I live in MK and drive round it daily. Enough said. There have been some recent closures (V4 and H4) for various works and the overall effect was negligible.

 

[A0]

The problem there is that Bletchley does not have a frequent service to MKC, it's only a few an hour, and you can't really change the timings of things to connect well in both directions or they would have done.

Post HS2 frequencies are supposed to increase which might help. But in reality most people on that sort of journey will say change => drive instead.

Even on the current timetables it's 3tph - the Southern service is currently missing. Put that back and it's 4tph, reinstate the LNW terminator and it's 5tph which is in the 'turn up and go' territory and is on a par with the frequencies of many 'inner suburban' services around London.

That's the emotional one, there. It's a hazy eyed, rose-tinted-glasses view of academics in their robes and mortarboards going back and forth.

They aren't going back and forth on the X5, or in the car, or on the train via London. It's a non-market, really.

EWR is a regional line - to open up employment and leisure travel in something which in time might become a conurbation.

These are all major offices.

So the fact it's linking two of the major research centres in the UK is a coincidence or irrelevant ?

And most of those offices I cited, people who travel in by train are usually doing so from London or further afield North. The people I worked with who travelled in from the Bedford area wouldn't have used the train *even if it ran to MKC* because most of them lived outside Bedford itself so would have taken them longer just to get to the centre of Bedford.

The A421 begs to differ. Why was it dualled if there was no such demand?

Most of the A421 dualling was for the benefit of traffic heading to / from the M1 and Bedford and to ensure Bedford was properly bypassed. The benefit for MK was to provide better access to the south for Magna Park and to deter lorries from crossing MK to get to either Jnc 14 or the A5. But I think you knew that - and EWR won't make a jot of a difference to those reasons.

False. The place to add extra tracks is the east of the line as it would not require crossing the formation. At MKC, there is street level parking under the station footbridge on that side which is wide enough to add at least one more platform. It would require moving a few things round with regard to the multi storey, but there is plenty of space.

It is clearly visible here: https://www.google.com/maps/@52.0341351,-0.7738059,337m/data=!3m1!1e3

To give you an idea, when P1 was the terminal line, it was used for rail replacement buses with a temporary bridge from P1 across the buffer stops.

Try harder - to add lines just from H6 Childs Way, you'd end up obliterating all of Elder Gate - and whilst you may think losing parking won't cause a problem you're wrong. It would also screw up the service access to the office buildings above the station. And Elder Gate also has the access to the Morrisons supermarket as well.

Again, wrong side.

No - because the post I responded to was pointing out the gap between the railway and A5 and suggesting that for development. I was pointing out why that may not be possible.

There *is no space* for new lines on the east side. South of H6 to H7 you've got Homebase, then the rest of that retail park and Honda's R&D place. And immediately south of H7 there appears to be a very big shaft for something.

The issue isn't reversal, it's paths on the slows for them to go to MKC at all. A reversal could be done fairly smoothly if it was also used as a crew changeover with driver and guard waiting ready to take over when one arrived.

And even if there were more paths I am fairly sure there are some vastly better uses for them than trying to shoehorn a Bedford or Cambridge service into MK - the new freight depot up by Northampton will have demands, Northampton ought to be 4 tph to London (it's currently 3) etc.

I live in MK and drive round it daily. Enough said. There have been some recent closures (V4 and H4) for various works and the overall effect was negligible.

Given that commuting is still well below Covid levels and the people I know who still work in MK are still officially working from home, means I suspect you've not got a representative view.

Pre-Covid if any of the major grid roads were closed or blocked it quickly caused problems elsewhere.

 

[Cantab26]

Diversionary split from MML to EWR happening somwhere just a fraction south of elstow roundabout and joining the present marston vale in between kempston and stewartby.A lot of land seems to be ex quarry, so a diveunder should be doable as long as drainage permits.

This was already looked at. Answer: difficult and expensive.

St Johns linkage should not be used, at least not for passenger diagrams.It might be worth retaining as a freight passing loop.

Why not?

That area is going for houses irc. We may get a couple of loops down that way if we are lucky.

Indeed. Quite an extensive housing development potentially in the offing plus commercial and industrial to the north (nearer the current Kempston Hardwick station).

 

[The Planner]

Love it. The "importance" of MK to the whole scheme. What utter BS.

It is though, Phase 2 is dead in the water without Oxford to MK trains, they make up a significant amount of the business case which is why people are panicking about getting the trains there and what else needs to be done to facilitate that.

 

[A0]

It is though, Phase 2 is dead in the water without Oxford to MK trains, they make up a significant amount of the business case which is why people are panicking about getting the trains there and what else needs to be done to facilitate that.

But the relevant point there is the importance of Oxford to MK, which I get because there's long been a complaint the connections to the Thames Valley from MK are poor - it's also why the various authorities wanted MK - Aylesbury and Wycombe links as well.

If connectivity from the east was so important then to an extent Bedford to MK could have been done now, with the existing infrastructure (i.e. reversal at Bletchley) - the fact that hasn't been done, partly no doubt due to capacity constraints between Bletchley and MKC (hence those paths have greater value doing something else), shows that really isn't where the potential demand is - and pretending it is really is a bit of a red herring.

That said, I'm a bit bemused as to why MK Central is the key - for a good chunk of the industry in MK, Bletchley station is actually better sited. I mentioned the OU upthread, but the same goes for Kingston, Caldecotte, Bleak Hall. Event the hospital is 50/50. And if there were 5 tph between MK and Bletchley (as I think there normally would be) any connection time would be minimal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That said, I'm a bit bemused as to why MK Central is the key - for a good chunk of the industry in MK, Bletchley station is actually better sited. I mentioned the OU upthread, but the same goes for Kingston, Caldecotte, Bleak Hall. Event the hospital is 50/50. And if there were 5 tph between MK and Bletchley (as I think there normally would be) any connection time would be minimal.

It's only ever 4, but the pre COVID distribution of times was worse - it's pretty much a nice even 20 minute frequency southbound at the moment.

Northbound they are quite clustered, xx17 but then xx40 and xx49, which is in effect only half hourly as the latter two are close together. The northbound Southern is normally xx55, which would help a bit.

But if you're talking people commuting to CMK from the Marston Vale and Bedford, a change means they just use the car or bus. That only wouldn't be the case if it was cross platform, which it can't be, it'll be down, up and back down, quite a faff.

 

[A0]

But if you're talking people commuting to CMK from the Marston Vale and Bedford, a change means they just use the car or bus. That only wouldn't be the case if it was cross platform, which it can't be, it'll be down, up and back down, quite a faff.

Sorry - I don't accept that a change is the deciding factor (regardless of whether it's cross platform or not).

If you live outside Bedford then driving into Bedford is a pain in the neck. If your destination is Kingston or Tongwell where a good proportion of the employment is in MK then frankly going into CMK to get to those is a massive extension of your journey.

And whilst it's 20 years old, this document https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/11658/MKC-25_REVISED_COMMUTING_PAPER-PE.pdf actually broke down where people travel into MK from.

More people travelled into MK from Northampton, Aylesbury Vale, and South Beds than Bedford. In fact Bedford was only fractionally above Mid Beds - bearing in mind Mid Beds covered a load of villages between Luton and Bedford and the only towns in Mid Beds were Biggleswade, Sandy and Shefford - the largest of those is Biggleswade at ~ 20,000 shows Bedford connectivity to MK really isn't that important.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sorry - I don't accept that a change is the deciding factor (regardless of whether it's cross platform or not).

It absolutely is.

And whilst it's 20 years old, this document https://www.milton-keynes.gov.uk/assets/attach/11658/MKC-25_REVISED_COMMUTING_PAPER-PE.pdf actually broke down where people travel into MK from.

More people travelled into MK from Northampton, Aylesbury Vale, and South Beds than Bedford. In fact Bedford was only fractionally above Mid Beds - bearing in mind Mid Beds covered a load of villages between Luton and Bedford and the only towns in Mid Beds were Biggleswade, Sandy and Shefford - the largest of those is Biggleswade at ~ 20,000 shows Bedford connectivity to MK really isn't that important.

As there will be (and has already been) massive housing development along the route, 20 years ago isn't really helpful. 20 years ago the Southern service only half-filled a 4-car unit at busy times, and then they built Imperial Wharf and then Westfield.

No, CMK isn't much help if you work in Kingston. But CMK is a huge regional employment centre.

 

[A0]

As there will be (and has already been) massive housing development along the route, 20 years ago isn't really helpful. 20 years ago the Southern service only half-filled a 4-car unit at busy times, and then they built Imperial Wharf and then Westfield.

No, CMK isn't much help if you work in Kingston. But CMK is a huge regional employment centre.

Feel free to find some more up to date figures - but since development has happened in Northampton, in Leighton Buzzard, in Aylesbury, in Bicester and pretty much every other place in the region over that time, it's probably reasonable to assume the profile of where people are commuting from into MK hasn't changed very much.

 

[HS2isgood]

Platforms yes, but look at the H6 bridge. There isn't room between the Up slow and the Bridge column.

No, there's 6 platforms to accommodate a layover line on each pair of lines on the 4-track section. Platform 5 may be manageable without, but Platform 2 is certainly required.

You're missing that the alignment of the fast lines can't be moved without penalising 125mph running. I'm guessing that even post-HS2 it will want to be kept at 110mph minimum.

Everything will call at Milton Keynes after HS2.

 

[The Planner]

Everything will call at Milton Keynes after HS2.

I wouldnt say that is a given.

 

[Nottingham59]

OK - lets deal with this step by step.

MK station - the only possible expansion would be on the west side i.e. between the station and the A5, however, the railway and the A5 are not on the same level - this image from Google Maps gives an idea of the difference and that spare 'gap' is the embankment down to the A5, so you'd need *alot* of earthworks.

The bridge at H7 Chaffron Way is similar to the one above,

You might want to revise your view. That is bridge H6, Child's Way, viewed from the North. To the left you can see a portal carrying OHLE for four tracks. Next to it is a single mast serving a fifth track which already goes through the centre span of bridge H6. This clip from Open Railway Map shows the track layout here. Tracks 3 and 5 are the WCML fasts. Track 4 serves the turnback platform P5 at MKC.



So what you claim would be impossibly expensive has already been done. Which makes me think that your other assertions might be less than robust too.