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

[mr_jrt]

Even though I'm a massive proponent of running through Bedford Midland and heading north east around Bedford I can still support their scheme, abet less enthusiastically. It still gets you a routing via St. Neots, it still gets you a station at Cambourne, etc. What would you prefer, the above but reversal/not serving Bedford Midland, or running via Foxton and still having a reversal/not serving Bedford Midland?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Even though I'm a massive proponent of running through Bedford Midland and heading north east around Bedford I can still support their scheme, abet less enthusiastically. It still gets you a routing via St. Neots, it still gets you a station at Cambourne, etc. What would you prefer, the above but reversal/not serving Bedford Midland, or running via Foxton and still having a reversal/not serving Bedford Midland?

As I indicated earlier, I regard including the main Bedford Station in the scheme as essential, so reversing at Bedford makes more sense than any proposal which excludes Bedford altogether.

 

[bspahh]

Even though I'm a massive proponent of running through Bedford Midland and heading north east around Bedford I can still support their scheme, abet less enthusiastically. It still gets you a routing via St. Neots, it still gets you a station at Cambourne, etc. What would you prefer, the above but reversal/not serving Bedford Midland, or running via Foxton and still having a reversal/not serving Bedford Midland?

I'd like a route that gets built. Without much in the way of government funding, that is going to mean trying to get funding from building new houses en route. Taking a detour to use a hillier route near existing settlements costs extra money, and gets less funding from new houses.

 

[richieb1971]

If you go through BDM you are creating a bottleneck for any future developments since you would have to start knocking stuff down. If the station was very ambitious you could create a "Birmingham New street" underground cavern over the top of the current station and have more tracks going through underneath. But even if you do that you better put several layers of parking on top and even if you do that, you should improve the roads around the surrounding area. Which to be fair are too close to the town centre and residential buildings to make it any better than it is.

Going through Wixams or a Bedford Parkway eliminates the need for such a bullish stance on things and you won't get a bottleneck that easily because nothing will terminate there. I really do think any schemes need to take BDM into consideration first and foremost.

If none of the above is considered, maybe BDM needs to be moved northwards towards Oakley. You have lots of fields to put 12 car terminating trains into so you could have 3 terminating sidings with buffers and keep your 4 tracks for through trains. If EWR is going through BDM I think the Oakley option is the best for Bedford in general.

 

[mr_jrt]

Huh? What's the bottleneck and what would you need to knock down? The ticket office is apparently going anyway, giving a theoretical 12-car island for EWR/Marston Vale, Thameslink/the slow lines could use the 2 & 3 island, and then there's just the question of the fast lines, and there's plenty of room for coming up with a solution there. I think there's room for 6 running lines north out of Bedford without too much issue.

Now, you could argue that Thameslink needs more platforms to handle the terminating Thameslink services, but could you not just put in a turnback between the slow lines to get the unit out of the way?

 

[richieb1971]

You could but the car park is rammed all day long and another track would eat into it. You have no future expansion capability and ashburnham road is mental at rush hour.

There are simpler solutions like building sidings north of Bedford for terminators or send the trains further north.

I'm thinking long term here. Almost all homes built in Bedford are priced for the London commuters. Not many jobs in Bedford allow the purchase of 550k homes which any four or five bedroom houses are designed for. That's more cars, traffic going into midland station.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

You could but the car park is rammed all day long and another track would eat into it. You have no future expansion capability and ashburnham road is mental at rush hour.

Is a multi-storey car park feasible?

 

[richieb1971]

Of course you can but a massive temp car park using shuttle buses would be required. Not sure how difficult that is with residents nearby. Ashburnham road has huge trees that roots into the road making it hard for large equipment to get in possibly. Those are the only concerns besides traffic.

 

[CdBrux]

You could but the car park is rammed all day long and another track would eat into it. You have no future expansion capability and ashburnham road is mental at rush hour.

There are simpler solutions like building sidings north of Bedford for terminators or send the trains further north.

I'm thinking long term here. Almost all homes built in Bedford are priced for the London commuters. Not many jobs in Bedford allow the purchase of 550k homes which any four or five bedroom houses are designed for. That's more cars, traffic going into midland station.

I've often wondered if a station near the A6 to the north of Bedford would be a good idea, if nothing else to stop people so many people driving into Bedford station. When I was in Bedford 25 years ago it was already bad! Could the Corby trains not do that job though? But not really linked to EWR.

 

[richieb1971]

All of this is linked. No point celebrating new shoes when they don't fit.

What would the Corby trains be doing?

 

[cle]

All of this is linked. No point celebrating new shoes when they don't fit.

What would the Corby trains be doing?

I’m guessing he means that the Corby trains would have an additional northern railhead for Bedford, and accordingly cut the parking down at Midland.

EWR will bring many new users to Midland, however (hopefully many from roads) - and so the reality is that parking will need to be addressed properly, as well as track/platform expansion.

Would a short fast-lines tunnel under Bedford Midland be out of the question? Or even viable for 4tph? Perhaps bi-di... St Albans could also do with that too.

 

[richieb1971]

This is all pie in the sky talk. BDM needs addressing but probably from the view point that ewr will cease to run through it once the central section activates. I will assume network rail extend 1a to full length . 1 and 2 stay put. Switch p3 to the fast line and make the current p3 a freight or through line with no platform . If you want a p5 loop on west side that is doable. A northern rail head would solve some issues

 

[cle]

Quite. And another angle is of course that once HS2 opens at Toton, the southern MML will become more of a semi-fast operation overall and the 'fasts' may well involve more stops at Bedford. By which point, it is also a EWR interchange and deserving of more calls.

Nottingham would still need a fast, as would Derby/Chesterfield...but I'd expect those second trains to stop more. And perhaps with a more balanced stopping pattern (e.g. everything stops 1-2 times before Leicester), and more duplication/wires - an additional path per hour or two might be possible.

 

[mr_jrt]

I will assume network rail extend 1a to full length . 1 and 2 stay put. Switch p3 to the fast line and make the current p3 a freight or through line with no platform . If you want a p5 loop on west side that is doable.

I'm confused here. Platform 3 is the other side of the island platform from platform 2. How could platform 2 stay the same, but the current platform 3 is switched to a through line? ....unless you're renumbering the platforms so 1a becomes 1, platform 1 becomes 2, platform 3 (and presumably, what would be 4) gets relocated for the fast lines?

 

[richieb1971]

Was thinking of slightly thinning out the island platforms of 2 and 3 and making enough room for a platform on the up fast. The current p3 line could be shunted towards p2 and be served by the other side of the new up fast platform. On the southern end of the new platform there would be room for shelters and amenities.

If the recent ford end road upgrade took another platform into consideration in the up fast it could easily have been offset to the south slightly. But hey ho I believe it's just gauge clearance work.

 

[HowardGWR]

Does anyone remember MarkyT's loop idea to keep E/W trains facing the right way?

Edit: in almost to BDM and then loop around to St John's and vice versa.

 

[edwin_m]

Quite. And another angle is of course that once HS2 opens at Toton, the southern MML will become more of a semi-fast operation overall and the 'fasts' may well involve more stops at Bedford. By which point, it is also a EWR interchange and deserving of more calls.

Nottingham would still need a fast, as would Derby/Chesterfield...but I'd expect those second trains to stop more. And perhaps with a more balanced stopping pattern (e.g. everything stops 1-2 times before Leicester), and more duplication/wires - an additional path per hour or two might be possible.

You can't slow down the fastest MML trains because London-Leicester doesn't benefit from HS2 so still needs a fast service. Chesterfield and Sheffield will have HS2 service from London so sending one of the semi-fasts through to maintain intermediate links should be good enough. There's also a case for sending a semi-fast to Toton for northward connections. All that probably means the service on the southern half of the MML after 2033 is likely to be similar to the one introduced after Corby electrification, with a few changes like running the fast Nottingham non-stop to Leicester and stopping the slower Sheffield at Kettering (maybe) and Market Harborough.

As the main constraint on service frequency is south of Bedford, there may be room in there somewhere for an EWR service to continue as a semi-fast to Leicester or Nottingham, probably as well as rather than instead of a London path.

 

[richieb1971]

Does anyone remember MarkyT's loop idea to keep E/W trains facing the right way?

Edit: in almost to BDM and then loop around to St John's and vice versa.

If it loops where the branch meets the mml in kempston that will not work. The angles are too tight and the gradient is also too much. If your talking of looping in the BDM depot that might be doable but not with platforms

 

[hooverboy]

Is a multi-storey car park feasible?

probably, but the whole lot needs a re-think.

BDM also needs a proper bus/coach station area....and needs much better services from the buses too.The connections are quite frankly crap.

 

[hooverboy]

Would a short fast-lines tunnel under Bedford Midland be out of the question? Or even viable for 4tph? Perhaps bi-di... St Albans could also do with that too.

It's not feasible to the south of the station.It already runs close to the river ouse,which is rather prone to flooding.
Would have to be a deep level tunnel with lots of lining and pumping gear.Not cheap

 

[hooverboy]

If it loops where the branch meets the mml in kempston that will not work. The angles are too tight and the gradient is also too much. If your talking of looping in the BDM depot that might be doable but not with platforms

If it loops where the branch meets the mml in kempston that will not work. The angles are too tight and the gradient is also too much. If your talking of looping in the BDM depot that might be doable but not with platforms

might be possible to link mml south of kempston and join marston vale near stewartby.

 

[cle]

You can't slow down the fastest MML trains because London-Leicester doesn't benefit from HS2 so still needs a fast service. Chesterfield and Sheffield will have HS2 service from London so sending one of the semi-fasts through to maintain intermediate links should be good enough. There's also a case for sending a semi-fast to Toton for northward connections. All that probably means the service on the southern half of the MML after 2033 is likely to be similar to the one introduced after Corby electrification, with a few changes like running the fast Nottingham non-stop to Leicester and stopping the slower Sheffield at Kettering (maybe) and Market Harborough.

As the main constraint on service frequency is south of Bedford, there may be room in there somewhere for an EWR service to continue as a semi-fast to Leicester or Nottingham, probably as well as rather than instead of a London path.

An EWR service to Nottingham might be an interesting idea.

Surely average journey to Leicester is more useful than a headline fast per hour, when we’re talking 4tph to more by then.

Not everyone is on that single fast train. Hence my point about all services through there making an even 1-2 stops, the average journey time across a typical hour of services to Leicester might be better, not to mention more useful for other stations... rather than a non-stop and 3 much slower services.

Plus by then it will be wired, some curves straightened and so forth, and a single stop journey would be comparable to today’s non-stop...

 

[edwin_m]

An EWR service to Nottingham might be an interesting idea.

Surely average journey to Leicester is more useful than a headline fast per hour, when we’re talking 4tph to more by then.

Not everyone is on that single fast train. Hence my point about all services through there making an even 1-2 stops, the average journey time across a typical hour of services to Leicester might be better, not to mention more useful for other stations... rather than a non-stop and 3 much slower services.

Plus by then it will be wired, some curves straightened and so forth, and a single stop journey would be comparable to today’s non-stop...

The MML is so much slower than the ECML or the WCML, let alone HS2, that I think it's important to make the fastest trains as fast as possible. London to Leicester is a shade over an hour, may reduce with Market Harborough and electrification but not much, and London to Toton will be 53min.

There are 2 trains per hour (TPH) non-stop to Leicester at present plus 1TPH calling only at Market Harborough. I would think there would still be two fasts per hour after HS2, probably to Derby and Nottingham. The semi-fasts will most likely lose Bedford, Wellingborough and perhaps some Kettering stops so won't be that much slower. The possible future semi-fast terminating points are Derby, Toton or Nottingham with one of these continuing to Sheffield, so ideally you need three semi-fasts and bringing the third one in from EWR is probably easier and better than trying to find another path from St Pancras. In this situation I would think EWR would serve either Toton or Nottingham, as Derby already has services to Oxford. Whichever one gets the EWR service loses the possibility of a direct link to Luton Airport Parkway, which looks to have quite a few passengers to/from the East Midlands.

 

[Bletchleyite]

probably, but the whole lot needs a re-think.

BDM also needs a proper bus/coach station area....and needs much better services from the buses too.The connections are quite frankly crap.

The problem is that BDM isn't in the town centre (which seems to be a Midland Railway habit - are any of them?) whereas the bus station is. Moving the bus station to the railway station would not be a sensible move. A shuttle bus is probably the easiest way to serve that market, though I'd imagine people don't mind walking, it's only about 5 minutes.

I do support bus stations being at railway stations generally, but sometimes a railway station is just too awkwardly located for that to be sensible. And the road layout of Bedford is not like that of MK where you can viably have a central spine that buses operate along between station and shopping centre with a bus station in each key location.

 

[hooverboy]

The problem is that BDM isn't in the town centre (which seems to be a Midland Railway habit - are any of them?) whereas the bus station is. Moving the bus station to the railway station would not be a sensible move. A shuttle bus is probably the easiest way to serve that market, though I'd imagine people don't mind walking, it's only about 5 minutes.

.

If you are not familiar with the area, the bus station is quite hard to find,
also for users with limited mobility, that 5 minute walk could quite easily be 45 minutes.

it is not beyond the bounds of capability to re-route some long distance services(lets say X99 to MK/Oxford/cambridge,and a few other local ones) to serve both Bedford rail AND bus stations.

 

[si404]

Why are we fussing over serving Bedford on the through line, but ignoring that MK is a branch? And some people were cheering a plan that puts Cambridge's central station on a branch (any that comes in from the north of that city), while bemoaning that Bedford's is on a branch!

Surely E-W trains should go Bletchley-MKC...Bedford North-Bedford-Bedford South...Cambridge South-Cambridge (then off to East Anglia)?

Personally, I'm not sure it matters that much that E-W Rail will go through Bletchley and Bedford South - both main town centres will have frequent trains on their mainline to change to/from, as well as direct E-W services branching to them.

And Bedford South is about building a new town the size of Bedford - the interchange station there pays for a lot of the line to Cambridge and it's not as if it's not going to be a major hub if done - we're talking about a station pair of Bedford and Bedford South much more even in terms of demand than Bletchley and MKC.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Why are we fussing over serving Bedford on the through line, but ignoring that MK is a branch? And some people were cheering a plan that puts Cambridge's central station on a branch (any that comes in from the north of that city), while bemoaning that Bedford's is on a branch!

Because one of the declared main objectives of East/West Rail is improved connectivity. Because Bedford is on the already existing line and Milton Keynes isn't. No sensible person has suggested that Cambridge's main station should not be part of East/West Rail.

 

[si404]

Because one of the declared main objectives of East/West Rail is improved connectivity. Because Bedford is on the already existing line and Milton Keynes isn't.

Surely MKC not being on the through route is something that improved connectivity should address?

And how about improving connectivity to the massive new town they are planning to build south of Bedford (without ruining existing connectivity of 1tph stopper along the Marston Vale into Bedford Town) with an interchange station?

You have a very narrow definition of 'improved connectivity' as being more services specifically from one station (that current discussion is about how it isn't that easy to get to and isn't really in the right place) and ignore new places served or new links (other than Bedford-Cambridge North) because they aren't connected by the existing network.

No sensible person has suggested that Cambridge's main station should not be part of East/West Rail.

These guys do (at least by your definitions wrt Bedford), and you were all for their proposals until you read that the improved connectivity they were going for didn't mean serving the existing Bedford station directly on the E-W through route - with no complaints with what they were doing exactly the same thing at Cambridge, albeit with through E-W trains serving North station, rather than a South station like they would at Bedford.

You are calling yourself 'no sensible person'. I'm not sure that's right.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If you are not familiar with the area, the bus station is quite hard to find

It's really not. You follow the signs for the town centre and when they run out it's staring you in the face.

The signs should probably say "town centre and bus station", though, if they don't already, I half think they might.

They could further consider something I've seen elsewhere like painting a red line on the pavement to emphasize which way it is.

 

[HowardGWR]

If it loops where the branch meets the mml in kempston that will not work. The angles are too tight and the gradient is also too much. If your talking of looping in the BDM depot that might be doable but not with platforms

This was MarkyT's suggestion.
http://www.townend.me/files/EWR-bedford.pdf
We've all had this conversation before apparently!
IIRC, no one wrote it was infeasible, other than they rejected the southern route now favoured by EWR.