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

[mr_jrt]

He did make a comment about not having a direct run from Milton Keynes to Cambridge, which makes it sound that they wouldn't have that chord.



He showed a slide with a schematic showing 6 different routes between Bedford and Cambridge. I'm not sure if he mentioned anything that was not in the engineering report here http://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/Engineering-Summary-Report.pdf

The engineering report makes no mention of any northern routes via St Neots (South), so I'm not sure it's comparable...

 

[B&I]

What gives you that idea? On the core Oxford-Cambridge route here will be one intermediate stop between Oxford and Bicester, one between Bicester and Bletchley, East West services will only serve two of the stops between Bletchley and Bedford (with the local stopping service continuing to cover the rest) and part from Sandy, there isn't anywhere of any size the rest of the way to Cambridge. Plus there will be Oxford and Marylebone/Aylesbury services to MK operating at the western end, as well as the Bedford/Cambridge services.

None of which looks much like a frequent-stop commuter railway.

I was going by the description of the route given in the summary of the lecture, which referred to the line as a way of linking new areas of housebuilding, rather than as a long-distance through route.

 

[edwin_m]

It won't have really frequent stops and intensive use like some commuter lines, so should be able to cope with a mix of semi-fast and stopping trains especially if the latter don't run the whole length of the route. As an example, unless plans have changed more recently the all-stations Bletchley-Bedford service is likely to continue even though other trains will use that section with few or no stops.

 

[bspahh]

It won't have really frequent stops and intensive use like some commuter lines, so should be able to cope with a mix of semi-fast and stopping trains especially if the latter don't run the whole length of the route. As an example, unless plans have changed more recently the all-stations Bletchley-Bedford service is likely to continue even though other trains will use that section with few or no stops.

In the talk he started by saying explicitly that it wasn't meant as a railway line for Professors to travel between Oxford and Cambridge, but primarily as a route for commuters. For the number of stops, they are willing to add a stop near a housing development, if someone is happy to come up with some funding. There will be some freight paths, and they can add in passing loops if there is more interest in extra freight traffic.

He said that some of the initial modeling had used predictions of travel times for 125mph IEPs, which were clearly inappropriate. At the beginning, he had a picture of a 4 coach Chiltern Line 168 at Oxford, and he said that he expected something similar for the Oxford-Cambridge line. He also mentioned a journey time of about 90 minutes, which would give enough time for a few stops and a turn around at Milton Keynes, but not to stop at all stations.

 

[DarloRich]

In the talk he started by saying explicitly that it wasn't meant as a railway line for Professors to travel between Oxford and Cambridge, but primarily as a route for commuters. For the number of stops, they are willing to add a stop near a housing development, if someone is happy to come up with some funding. There will be some freight paths, and they can add in passing loops if there is more interest in extra freight traffic.

Of course they can just add to the scope at the click of a finger.

 

[mr_jrt]

Personally, I'd want to ensure the loops would be where they would be most useful - in the stations. It's a lot easier to go back after the fact and add loops in open countryside than through station areas. Realistically, you have to put that kind of provision in during construction unless you want to shut half the station whilst you demolish and rebuild it, not to mention that's the land that's going to be the hardest to acquire once the line's been open a few years. Stations are obviously also the most likely places for services to stop, so having the platforms on loops means the fast services and the freight would be able to sail past.

 

[HowardGWR]

If a line was to be be built only for 'commuters', it would not be a very sensible use of resources. It would not be a 24 hour system but a 4 -6 hour one. I hope the line will see inter-city use extending from Bristol to Norwich*, as time goes by, as well as commuter and freight traffic. I also don't see the point of building a low speed line when a higher speed one could be nearly as, or as easily, constructed. If they are going to be building 'expressway' roads there, then rail will have to compete.

*not necessarily through services but certainly connecting ones.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I also don't see the point of building a low speed line when a higher speed one could be nearly as, or as easily, constructed. If they are going to be building 'expressway' roads there, then rail will have to compete.

It was established a few years ago that the most appropriate top speed for the line between Oxford and Bedford is 100mph. Faster would increase costs enormously.

 

[swt_passenger]

In the talk he started by saying explicitly that it wasn't meant as a railway line for Professors to travel between Oxford and Cambridge, but primarily as a route for commuters.

Which is probably why they should attempt to kill off the anachronistic and irritating term "Varsity Line"; which implies exactly that.

 

[edwin_m]

Personally, I'd want to ensure the loops would be where they would be most useful - in the stations. It's a lot easier to go back after the fact and add loops in open countryside than through station areas. Realistically, you have to put that kind of provision in during construction unless you want to shut half the station whilst you demolish and rebuild it, not to mention that's the land that's going to be the hardest to acquire once the line's been open a few years. Stations are obviously also the most likely places for services to stop, so having the platforms on loops means the fast services and the freight would be able to sail past.

Through lines and platform loops in stations aren't always sensible. Very few modern stations have them (excepting high speed lines where they are necessary as non-stop trains aren't allowed on platform tracks) and many have been taken out. The problem is that a train being overtaken during a station stop has a long wait, typically at least 5min. The stopping service doesn't carry any passengers between the main stations where the faster train stops, because they will wait for the overtaking fast train, so it doesn't contribute to the frequency of service between the main centres which have the most passengers.

Far better to have extra platforms at major stations where slower trains can wait and provide connections to and from the faster ones. Or just terminate the stopping train at the next major station. Most of the people from the minor stops probably don't travel further than the nearest major station anyway so the longer wait or change of train affects fewer people.

 

[jimm]

In the talk he started by saying explicitly that it wasn't meant as a railway line for Professors to travel between Oxford and Cambridge, but primarily as a route for commuters.

I'm sure there will be a lot of commuters but there is already plenty of travel between the Oxford(shire, e.g. Culham and Harrell research centres) and Cambridge areas by academics and people working in hi-tech research businesses, so likely to be a decent flow of people travelling from end to end as well, never mind the obvious potential for various cross-country (not necessarily XC) services from places off East-West to use parts of the route.

 

[mr_jrt]

Through lines and platform loops in stations aren't always sensible. Very few modern stations have them (excepting high speed lines where they are necessary as non-stop trains aren't allowed on platform tracks) and many have been taken out. The problem is that a train being overtaken during a station stop has a long wait, typically at least 5min. The stopping service doesn't carry any passengers between the main stations where the faster train stops, because they will wait for the overtaking fast train, so it doesn't contribute to the frequency of service between the main centres which have the most passengers.

Far better to have extra platforms at major stations where slower trains can wait and provide connections to and from the faster ones. Or just terminate the stopping train at the next major station. Most of the people from the minor stops probably don't travel further than the nearest major station anyway so the longer wait or change of train affects fewer people.

Fair points, but those loops have been put back in in many places recently - just look at the Chiltern line, for one example. Your argument about passenger behaviour seems to go against the design of the rest of the rail network though, or at least, the bits of it with 4 or more tracks. If the major stations are close enough then passengers often stay on the slower service as the interchange penalty and the hassle make it not worthwhile to change.If you want to encourage that behaviour, then price accordingly (a-la London Midland and Virgin West Coast)

Having slow-fast interchange stations is all fine and well, but they take up a lot more space than a pair of through lines, and in my mind the only places that would justify that kind of capacity would be interchanges of the scale of the Oxford, Bletchley, Bedford, St. Neots/Sandy, and Cambridge variety. Surely you'd be better off just making the platform loops at the new minor stations longer so the slow train didn't have to wait for the line to fully clear before accelerating off?

 

[HowardGWR]

It was established a few years ago that the most appropriate top speed for the line between Oxford and Bedford is 100mph. Faster would increase costs enormously.

That's not unreasonable, given the distances between the E-W towns, and that would make rail competitive, as long as brisk running into and out of stations will be achieved.

 

[edwin_m]

Fair points, but those loops have been put back in in many places recently - just look at the Chiltern line, for one example. Your argument about passenger behaviour seems to go against the design of the rest of the rail network though, or at least, the bits of it with 4 or more tracks. If the major stations are close enough then passengers often stay on the slower service as the interchange penalty and the hassle make it not worthwhile to change.If you want to encourage that behaviour, then price accordingly (a-la London Midland and Virgin West Coast)

Having slow-fast interchange stations is all fine and well, but they take up a lot more space than a pair of through lines, and in my mind the only places that would justify that kind of capacity would be interchanges of the scale of the Oxford, Bletchley, Bedford, St. Neots/Sandy, and Cambridge variety. Surely you'd be better off just making the platform loops at the new minor stations longer so the slow train didn't have to wait for the line to fully clear before accelerating off?

Have any of the many Chiltern stations that had through lines actually had them put back? I wasn't aware of any (excluding passing loops on single lines or stations where all tracks have platforms).

Four-track sections are a bit different. The train being overtaken doesn't have to stop.

 

[cle]

Have any of the many Chiltern stations that had through lines actually had them put back? I wasn't aware of any (excluding passing loops on single lines or stations where all tracks have platforms).

Four-track sections are a bit different. The train being overtaken doesn't have to stop.

I think Princes Risborough might have done. Beaconsfield was shelved I believe, and nobody tackled High Wycombe which is of course a major slow down. Could have been works at Denham too and in between the Ruislops. Still plenty of possibilities on that line for improvements to journey times and/or overtaking.

 

[The Planner]

Depends how long the loops were in the first place. You need them long enough so the turn outs are quick enough to get off the main line. Im not sure the old ones were that long.

 

[jimm]

I assume the reference is to the bi-directional line through the middle of Princes Risborough station, but this is the only loop available between the edge of London and Banbury.

I can't see provision for passenger services to overtake being a pressing priority for East West. It's not exactly going to be overwhelmed with services in its early years and Cambridge trains won't be added to the mix for quite some time after services start west of Bedford.

 

[mr_jrt]

My implied point was just that you would want to allocate the space through the station at the point of construction, even if you didn't actually build the loops to begin with. Either build wide platforms out over where the loops would be (a-la Bicester North), or align the two running lines through the loops, leaving a large gap through the middle for adding in the through lines later (a-la Beaconsfield). Or go the GCR-style and build an island platform with room for two running lines either side to provide the through lines...

I agree - it's certainly not going to be congested at the outset, but as a near-enough new build it seems short-sighted not to build in some passive provision for more capacity at the outset at the locations where any follow-on development will be focussed.

 

[jimm]

Even when it gets busier, I really don't see a pressing need for passenger services to overtake each other, if ever. Along the way a number of the standard East West services will be turning off the route to terminate/start from other stations, e.g. two services will head off from Bletchley to Milton Keynes Central. Bletchley-Bedford stoppers head up to Bedford Midland, assuming the new Cambridge route does not go there - or a new Bedford station at the point where the line crosses the Midland Main Line has loops/bays, whatever you fancy...

It's perfectly possible to timetable a service that works round these things, so that a faster end-to-end service reaches Bletchley or Bedford just after one that has diverged and there is no need for loops.

The Chiltern Line is a busy place these days yet the timetable there functions pretty well with just that one loop at Princes Risborough in the 50 miles between Ruislip and Banbury - which is much the same distance as Oxford to Bedford, with Cambridge 30-odd beyond that, depending on the future route chosen.

If East West freight traffic builds up, a more pressing issue would be keeping slower-moving freight trains out of the way of 100mph passenger trains, so it may be as well to protect enough land at places like Stewartby to allow for future loops for that purpose.

 

[The Ham]

I've wondered if it would make sense to design a two track railway with both lines as bi directional and switches back and forth for stations.

The logic being that each station only needs one platform (i.e. no bridges) but you allow trains to be looped out of the way of other trains (i.e. mix of freight, expresses and stopping services) engineering works to remove the need for most bus replacements (mostly only when works directly impact a station) and allows the option for a third line at a later date with platforms without the costly rebuild of moving platforms with all the capacity improvements that would bring over a standard two line railway.

Although it wouldn't be as good as a 4 track railway, there's some places (like Woking to Basingstoke) where a 3 track railway could work almost as well given that the number of services (ignoring the need to overtake slower services) could fit into a two track railway.

 

[doa46231]

Isn't this typical?
Here we are discussing loops and services on a line that will probably never get built.
Like many projects it grows like Topsy.
More and more authorities come on board making planning more and more complicated.
Costs leapfrog as the spec becomes ever more ambitious.
We should forget the East-West rail bit and just get on with doing a cheap and comparatively easy scheme.
Lay the rails from Bicester to Bletchley, perhaps fettle up the Marston Vale bit and get trains running, especially from MKC to Oxford which is needed NOW!
I know most on here will be horrified, we might have to redo it in years to come.
But as Maynard Keynes said, 'in the long run we're all dead.'
Let's for heavens sake get some trains running as soon as possible.
Grandiose schemes can wait till we have proper political will to move forward to the grand scheme.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Depends how long the loops were in the first place. You need them long enough so the turn outs are quick enough to get off the main line. Im not sure the old ones were that long.

On the Chiltern Mainline, at Wembley Stadium, High Wycombe and Beaconsfield, the loops have not been taken out. The through lines have been removed and the loops are now the running lines. Restoring loops would involve laying new through tracks and crossovers. The exception is West Ruislip where the down slow line was taken out and the down platform widened.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The *ideal* layout is a pair of island platforms. The inner tracks are straight and run through, the outer ones are loops. You can then have cross platform fast to slow train interchange.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Isn't this typical?
Here we are discussing loops and services on a line that will probably never get built.
Like many projects it grows like Topsy.
More and more authorities come on board making planning more and more complicated.
Costs leapfrog as the spec becomes ever more ambitious.
We should forget the East-West rail bit and just get on with doing a cheap and comparatively easy scheme.
Lay the rails from Bicester to Bletchley, perhaps fettle up the Marston Vale bit and get trains running, especially from MKC to Oxford which is needed NOW!
I know most on here will be horrified, we might have to redo it in years to come.
But as Maynard Keynes said, 'in the long run we're all dead.'
Let's for heavens sake get some trains running as soon as possible.
Grandiose schemes can wait till we have proper political will to move forward to the grand scheme.

You're worrying unnecessarily. The only part of the project which is firm and has public finance assured is the section between Bicester Village and Bletchley. That section, we are told, will definitely proceed. Bedford to Cambridge is still a pie-in-the-sky fantasy. We don't even have a route outlined at this stage.

 

[edwin_m]

I've wondered if it would make sense to design a two track railway with both lines as bi directional and switches back and forth for stations.

This is a common arrangement in the States for mile-long freight trains to overtake each other, but the big difference is that there is typically a few hours' gap between trains. If you work out how long (in distance and time) a 100mph train would take to overtake a 75mph train, including the latter crossing over soon enough and back late enough for both trains to see only green signals, you will understand why it's not much use at the sort of train frequencies we run on most routes in Britain.

 

[Andyjs247]

Just to add, the Chiltern main line, being bi-directionally signalled between Princes Risborough and Aynho Junction, effectively has an overtaking facility in both directions between Bicester South Junction and Bicester North station. In the down direction a train can be looped in the station. In the Up direction the facility exists to loop a train between Bicester North and Bicester South Junction. There is at least one down train booked to be overtaken at Bicester North. Similarly I have seen up trains overtaken on several occasions - usually if a late running Mainline service is stuck behind the stopper. I doubt if anything is booked to be overtaken in the up direction though.

On the bi-directionally signalled East West route there is a loop already at Bicester Depot and loops are due to be constructed at Newton Longville. Around Oxford Parkway you also have a set of 3 crossovers (facing/trailing/facing) in succession - Water Eaton Junction, Woodstock Road Junction and Oxford Canal Junction - which would also permit overtaking if necessary. Does EWR really need more loops?

 

[bspahh]

Does EWR really need more loops?

This came up from a talk, about the whole of the EWR line. In the meeting there were questions about how much support they would have for freight, and the reply was that some paths would be available and that given suitable funding, features like passing loops could be included in the plans, and built.

 

[The Ham]

I

This is a common arrangement in the States for mile-long freight trains to overtake each other, but the big difference is that there is typically a few hours' gap between trains. If you work out how long (in distance and time) a 100mph train would take to overtake a 75mph train, including the latter crossing over soon enough and back late enough for both trains to see only green signals, you will understand why it's not much use at the sort of train frequencies we run on most routes in Britain.

I can see that, my thought was more on the lines of a stopping service slowing and stopping at a station and then starting up again whilst a fast train went psst it at full speed. For instance Basingstoke to Woking is about 20 minutes (fast our with one stop) whilst the stopping services take 34 minutes. As such the fast services could probably overtake a stopping services between three stations (i.e Basingstoke to Winchfield) and so if you were building the line now you could build it with three tracks rather than 4 and not really see much difference in capacity, but with a smaller amount of land required and your incriminatal costs to go from one to two (still with platforms only on one line) to three would each be smaller than one to two (with platforms on both lines) to four (even if you retained the existing platforms from the two line layout and didn't build more platforms) but with little impact on the overall capacity.

 

[The Planner]

On the bi-directionally signalled East West route there is a loop already at Bicester Depot and loops are due to be constructed at Newton Longville. Around Oxford Parkway you also have a set of 3 crossovers (facing/trailing/facing) in succession - Water Eaton Junction, Woodstock Road Junction and Oxford Canal Junction - which would also permit overtaking if necessary. Does EWR really need more loops?

The arrangement at the Oxford end is just a cheap bodge for not putting a loop in and I will bet cold hard cash on the Newton Longville loops being descoped and binned. Claydon will be the only loop along there.

 

[The Planner]

The *ideal* layout is a pair of island platforms. The inner tracks are straight and run through, the outer ones are loops. You can then have cross platform fast to slow train interchange.

Better the other way around with crossovers as it allows turnbacks, expensive though.