East-West Rail (EWR): Alternative options

[takno]

7.Worcester Parkway is prime example of what can be achieved..

It's Worcestershire Parkway. If they wanted to call it Worcester Parkway they'd have built it in Worcester

 

[Cantab26]

The proposed route through Bedford towards Camborne is politically dead in the water..
A Bedford South Parkway kills all the birds…
1. Keeps existing connection for freight and local service.
2.Avoids knocking half of Bedford down
3.Gives adequate parking.
4.Connects to North South and East West lines.
5.Staying south of Bedford would allow line to shadow the A 428 all the way to Camborne..
6.Might stand a chance of being accepted by the locals..
7.Worcester Parkway is prime example of what can be achieved..

Please draw this on a map, avoiding all designated environmental features and constraints.

In any event, a ‘parkway’ station south of the Bedford urban area does not in itself require an alignment passing to the south of the town so your premise doesn’t actually support your stated conclusions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2023 ==

Is that really true though ?

Most of the Thameslink stoppers terminate at Bedford, therefore there must surely be ample corresponding paths available North of Bedford.

It creates a bottleneck which doesn’t allow for a suitable even interval service pattern towards Cambridge.

In terms of additional platforms, yes this may be a fair point, however there seems to be a large area of car park North of the station that might accommodate this.

There isn’t enough room south of Bromham Road bridge.

The curvature and modern standards are unlikely to fit in before the bridge, so you'd be demolishing less but still some by going into 4-track.

Correct.

Ordinarily I wouldn't mind gold plating such schemes but demolishing sixty plus homes seems grossly unnecessary.

The six-tracking north of Bedford Midland would require (as a worst case scenario) up to 37 residential properties to be demolished, not “sixty plus”.

I just think that demolishing lots of homes should be avoided, if at all possible.

What alternative would you propose then? Which accommodates the current and future trains, the timetable specification, the additional platform capacity at Bedford Midland and the associated re-working of the north station throat.

 

[yorksrob]

Please draw this on a map, avoiding all designated environmental features and constraints.

In any event, a ‘parkway’ station south of the Bedford urban area does not in itself require an alignment passing to the south of the town so your premise doesn’t actually support your stated conclusions.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2023 ==


It creates a bottleneck which doesn’t allow for a suitable even interval service pattern towards Cambridge.

There isn’t enough room south of Bromham Road bridge.

Correct.

The six-tracking north of Bedford Midland would require (as a worst case scenario) up to 37 residential properties to be demolished, not “sixty plus”.

What alternative would you propose then? Which accommodates the current and future trains, the timetable specification, the additional platform capacity at Bedford Midland and the associated re-working of the north station throat.

"Sixty plus" is what has been quoted in the railway press, although I'm aware this might not be wholly accurate.

We currently have four tracks between London Bridge and metropolitan junction which must carry many more trains than North of Bedford will have.

 

[jfowkes]

We currently have four tracks between London Bridge and metropolitan junction which must carry many more trains than North of Bedford will have.

Not with such a mix of traffic types though.

 

[Magdalia]

"Sixty plus" is what has been quoted in the railway press, although I'm aware this might not be wholly accurate.

The correct number is 66 properties. It is in an EWR factsheet "Connecting with Bedford" which is here:

https://eastwestrail-production.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/public/ListsBlockMedia/f94ae26f59/13-v3.-RUA-Bedford.pdf

The relevant passage is on page 4:

We recognise the impacts that two additional tracks has on local residents and businesses and, by challenging the design, we’ve found ways to reduce the number of properties affected in this area from 98 to 66, and we’re looking at ways to reduce this even further.

 

[RT4038]

The correct number is 66 properties. It is in an EWR factsheet "Connecting with Bedford" which is here:

https://eastwestrail-production.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/public/ListsBlockMedia/f94ae26f59/13-v3.-RUA-Bedford.pdf

The relevant passage is on page 4:

Is this 66 'affected' (i.e. some demolished and some loss of garden) or 66 all demolished? I don't think it is all demolished.

 

[Cantab26]

Is this 66 'affected' (i.e. some demolished and some loss of garden) or 66 all demolished? I don't think it is all demolished.

66 affected, not 66 demolished.

The latter figure is (as a worst case scenario) 37.

At least one of the ‘affected’ properties comprises a car parking space!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2023 ==

We currently have four tracks between London Bridge and metropolitan junction which must carry many more trains than North of Bedford will have.

Indeed they do, but this in turn places significant constraints on pathing north of Bedford Midland even if there are fewer trains in total.