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

[21C101]

I thought option (b) was using the original Midland route to KX via Cardington and Shefford through Warden Tunnel? Going all the way to Sandy and then down the ECML is (i) further (two sides of a triangle) and (ii) requires one of bi-directional working on the Dn Slow(?), crossing all lines to the Up Slow, or another flyover to Dn Slow on the scale of the Hitchin flyover.

It seems to me that if you're going to Sandy, you may as well just head east across farmland to a junction with the Cambridge line between Shepreth and Foxton - allowing for a new town on the A603, potentially.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
<<Crayons Out>>

And on the MML interchange point, grabbing some crayons, is a new interchange + Park and Ride station feasible where the MML crosses the Varsity Line (South Bedford Parkway HL & LL)?

This would reduce pressure on Bedford itself, and also allow Bedford St Johns to be moved back to at/near its original site on the Varsity Line. In the process, it would allow the use of near the original alignment to Sandy, and thence Potton / Shepreth etc.

<<Crayons Away>>

I don't think it has been finally defined but those were the two options in the 2009 report (complete with proposed timetables at the back)

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/site...west-rail-central-section-report-feb-2009.pdf

I've heard it talked about reopening Bedford - Hitchin as another alternative, but much of the route is obstructed or built on, with the first mile or two out of Bedford largely obliterated. It would also need reversals at both Bedford and Hitchin, so I don't think is practicable.

Of course a fourth option is to build a Chord at Manton and go to Peterborough instead.

 

[mr_jrt]

The way I look at it is that the route(s) east of Bedford is so far gone you may as well start with a clean slate. Heading to Hitchin and reversing indeed an option, but not a nice one. If you rebuilt the west side of Hitchin station you could fit in a new single line (creating an island platform), and then get to the Hitchin flyover by crossing onto the northbound slow line. Very ugly though.

Sandy's not worth serving, IMHO. The route east of there was very winding and slow, if you're going to be building anew line from scratch you may as well not be bound by the constraints of the original 19th century Sandy and Potton railway designed when 30mph was considered high speed

...which leaves Stevenage and St Neots as viable options.

 

[21C101]

The way I look at it is that the route(s) east of Bedford is so far gone you may as well start with a clean slate. Heading to Hitchin and reversing indeed an option, but not a nice one. If you rebuilt the west side of Hitchin station you could fit in a new single line (creating an island platform), and then get to the Hitchin flyover by crossing onto the northbound slow line. Very ugly though.

Sandy's not worth serving, IMHO. The route east of there was very winding and slow, if you're going to be building anew line from scratch you may as well not be bound by the constraints of the original 19th century Sandy and Potton railway designed when 30mph was considered high speed

...which leaves Stevenage and St Neots as viable options.

I think you make an interesting point. However if you go via St Neots and Camborne you need 30 miles of new railway and for the 50 miles from Bletchley to Cambridge serve only Bedford (80,000), St Neots (30,000) and Cambourne (8,000), total 118,000.

The south option needs only a chord at Millbrook plus 8 miles of railway beteen Luton and Stevenage. It serves one of Londons Airports plus

Flitwick/Ampthill 25,000
Luton 203,000
Stevenage 84,000
Hitchin 33,000
Letchworth 33,000
Baldock 10,000
Royston 15,000

Additionally it provides a direct rail link between Luton/Stevenage and Milton Keynes

So 403,000 plus an international airport for via Luton/Stevenage versus 118,000 via Bedford and St Neots.

I can only see this going one way. Apart from anything else the potential of linking Stevenage 84,000, Luton 203,000 and MK 229,000 with a direct railway is a big pull (Cambridge becomes almost secondary)

 

[Tobbes]

I've heard it talked about reopening Bedford - Hitchin as another alternative, but much of the route is obstructed or built on, with the first mile or two out of Bedford largely obliterated. It would also need reversals at both Bedford and Hitchin, so I don't think is practicable.

Of course a fourth option is to build a Chord at Manton and go to Peterborough instead.

Thanks for the report, 21C101. Does anyone know whether the Bedford rowing lake is happening, and if so, what the plan is to bridge it?

My view on the central vs. southern options is that the central option has much greater medium term impact if it is able to be tied into a new town programme - it would be revolutionary in its own right, rather than providing regional connectivity. This is not to say that the southern link doesn't have merit - it may make sense to do it anyway - but it doesn't offer the same transformational opportunities. I also wonder whether there really is enough spare capacity on the MML and ECML to make the scheduling robust, but I've not seen the data.

 

[philjo]

THe Luton/Stevenage option also gives interchanges with ECML and MML services and hopefully an hourly service from Stevenage to MK as well for WCML connections allowing quicker/cheaper journeys from Hertfordshire to the East and West Midlands and north without having to go via London.

I don't think there is an issue for the ECML if it is using the slow lines for Stevenage-Hitchin now that the flyover is in operation (& the EW link probably coming in via the Hertford loop at Langley Junction so the fast lines are not affected at all).
Thameslink plans are for an extra 2 services per hour to Cambridge so one of these may need to terminate at Letchworth (or divert to Huntingdon) for EW to use the other slot? Letchworth was designed as a 4 platform (2 islands) station so a 3rd one could be added in for the terminating services to avoind blocking the line while it is checked & run into the siding though the new lifts could be a complication as they are built near where the additional platforms should run but there should be room on the down side to go round this.

 

[21C101]

Thanks for the report, 21C101. Does anyone know whether the Bedford rowing lake is happening, and if so, what the plan is to bridge it?

I think it is now in the early stages of construction. Approx 108m of trackbed is going to be gouged out so it is pretty well unbridgeable except at vast cost. (The adjacent A421 dual carriageway crosses on an embankment making the engineering horrible). Either a very high unsightly bridge over the A421 is also needed or a dive under the A421 and a gradient of about 1 in 20 to cross the lake on a single span viaduct.

The last mile into Sandy is also unusable as someone helpfully built a housing estate on it and turned the bridge under the dual carriageway A1 into an access road.

Plus it was only ever single track. I think its a dead duck as a route

BTW philjo correct that the new line will cross the ECML on a bridge/underpass and then join the north end of the Hertford loop avoiding any interface with the ECML fasts.

The proposed Millbrook chord is similarly to cross the MML and vjoin the MML slows, avoiding any interface with the MML fasts.

 

[Tobbes]

I didn't realise that the Bedford - Sandy section was historically single track. The ski jump over the boating lake is ridiculous, and would presumably preclude routing freightliners from Felixstowe/Harwich over EWR to Bletchley/MK/Didcot & Bristol. As a result, it makes you wonder whether it would just be easier to TBM a tunnel under the A421 and under the boating lake on the optimal alignment and with sensible grades.

Looking on Google Earth I'd always envisaged a double track link passing closer to the southern side of Blunham than the old station on a new alignment, diving under the A1 on a NE/SW axis before going onto a viaduct turning though 135 degrees to put down on the eastern side of the ECML about a 2.4km north of Sandy station. These two tracks would then run parallel to the ECML to Sandy (with N/S ECML connections) before swinging SE towards a new station at Bassingbourn and a junction with the Cambridge line just SW of Meldreth station.

Some clicking on google maps suggests this would be about 37.3km of new line from Bedford St John's to Meldreth; interchange with MML would be at South Bedford Parkway HL/LL where the lines cross (with rail connectivity via Bedford St. John's (new)) and ECML at Sandy.

Technically feasible?

 

[Buttsy]

I think for the eastern link, you are looking to get to Luton and then cut over to Stevenage. The cheap version would be reversal at Bedford, the best option would be the chord from Milbrook to MML slow lines.

From Luton Airport Parkway, my route would be north of Kimpton, south of Whitwell, north of Codicote and under the ECML between Knebworth and Welwyn North before curving round to make a flying junction on the Herford loop near Bragbury End.

Apart from the chord exit off at Milbrook, I also think that all the junctions should be flying if possible.

 

[Blamethrower]

For me, any route that has to reverse, or largely go back on itself is counter-productive.

Living in Bedford, I've had my crayons out for a while and my solution is thus:

Rebuild Bedford Midland with platform 1 (bay) to be 2x through platforms and station concourse raised to level 1. Then Re-construct Bromham Road and Ford End Road bridges so that they have roundabouts on them and bring the traffic in at a raised level above the new tracks.

Then take EWR through BDM onto the slows as it passes underneath Bromham road. Then, branch off just before Clapham and take the new railway around the top of Bedford until it reaches the A421.

Follow the A421 (there is plenty of land to spare and the bridges can be easily modified I'm sure), then raise the track to fly over the A1 and Great Ouse, join the ECML slows to St Neots (for the ECML interchange) and then after St Neots, branch off to the east and head towards Cambridge shadowing the A428 (enabling a stop at Cambourne and the building of new towns.

Another option is to take it up to Huntingdon on the ECML and then share the guided bus route. Bus = slow traffic and trains = fast. They could even share the same wires.

 

[zn1]

Now there is a Job just wanting traffic....Luton Parkway - MKC..is it still operated by the Virgin coach ? if Not...a couple of sprinters could operate that quite happily at the moment
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A chord at millbrook ? will be expensive to build....will it pay for itself ? long term a reversal at Bedford will be the easier option...Bedford does need more space it can get conjested..1a for the branch cant be lengthened due to the bridge and depot entrance/exit

 

[21C101]

Now there is a Job just wanting traffic....Luton Parkway - MKC..is it still operated by the Virgin coach ? if Not...a couple of sprinters could operate that quite happily at the moment
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
A chord at millbrook ? will be expensive to build....will it pay for itself ? long term a reversal at Bedford will be the easier option...Bedford does need more space it can get conjested..1a for the branch cant be lengthened due to the bridge and depot entrance/exit

Yes it is still operated by virgin coach. The Thameslink service passengers between Luton and Bedford would probably be able to be accomodated in a coupl of sprinters if it was operated by coach.

Not building a millbrook chord would add about 20 minutes to the journey including the reversal. The line through st johns is about 20mph because the bends are too sharp.

Also platform 1a is soon planned to be rebuilt as a through platform so that the Thameslink and EMT services can cope. Reversing 4 EW trains an hour (2 in each direction) there would cause chaos.

If the Millbrook Chord is built, I suspect is highly likely that another chord will be built at Bletchley enabling 2 out of 4 of the existing offpeak services to Bedford per hour to run to Milton Keynes instead and the Luton terminators extended to Bedford to replace them.

The recent report on traffic potential (August 2014) for the central section is looking at traffic flows such as this as well as the Oxon-Cambs flow

Milton Keynes is projected to have a population of over 300,000 by 2026 and Luton with 27,000 extra houses by 2026 will have a population of 250,000. I can't think of any other such large cities so close together in the UK with no rail link between them.

The recent report on traffic potential (August 2014) for the central section is looking at traffic flows such as this as well as the Oxon-Cambs flow


http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/site...final_report_08-08-2014_executive_summary.pdf

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/site...ed/ewr-cs_-_cos_-_final_report_08-08-2014.pdf

 

[aylesbury]

Anybody know what sort of loadings on the X5 Oxford Cambridge coach this could give ideas on rail loadings east of Bedford?

 

[Philip Elliott]

I can't think of any other such large cities so close together in the UK with no rail link between them

Well neither is a city....

 

[Abpj17]

Yes it is still operated by virgin coach. The Thameslink service passengers between Luton and Bedford would probably be able to be accomodated in a coupl of sprinters if it was operated by coach.

You sure? I did the route the other day and couldn't see a sign of it. The 99 service (it was VT99) was a stagecoach bus (unless it's under contract to VT) and was delayed by around half an hour -_- you do get the feeling it's not a route that's paid attention to

Milton Keynes acts like and calls itself a city tho lol; Luton has tried and never got city status (although the area of Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis is pretty big)

 

[21C101]

You sure? I did the route the other day and couldn't see a sign of it. The 99 service (it was VT99) was a stagecoach bus (unless it's under contract to VT) and was delayed by around half an hour -_- you do get the feeling it's not a route that's paid attention to

Milton Keynes acts like and calls itself a city tho lol; Luton has tried and never got city status (although the area of Luton/Dunstable/Houghton Regis is pretty big)

It is still in the mainline timetable as far as I know. Stagecoach & Virgin are essentially the same thing as Stagecoach half owns Virgin trains.

 

[67018]

Just heard of an update on Network Rail plans, based on a consultation session that took place this week in Launton on level crossings in the Bicester/Launton area. Gives an update of current thinking on some of the points discussed earlier on this thread about the impact of EWR.

Most significant is an offset road bridge proposed for the Bicester Eastern ring road crossing. Also a footbridge at Jarvis lane crossing and a new road bridge at Launton crossing.

London Road crossing confirmed as not suitable for a bridge. Expectation that the crossing will be closed up to 45 minutes each hour, with the only solution being a larger road scheme for Bicester.

 

[aylesbury2]

Today I noticed some initial work starting on the line going over the A41 bridge just north of Aylesbury Vale Parkway. There was scaffolding up on the side of the bridge and some heavy machinery up on the line.

 

[aylesbury]

This work has been ongoing for several weeks with regrouting and stabilisation work also being carried out.Nothing much has been done to this bridge for years.

 

[The Planner]

That isnt anything to do with EW as that would be under phase 2 not phase 1.

 

[aylesbury2]

That isnt anything to do with EW as that would be under phase 2 not phase 1.

Ok, it might just be repairs carried out for the Shanks rubbish trains then.

 

[HSTEd]

Clearly the only way to practically obtain a 60 minute Cambridge-Oxford journey time is.....

The East West Shinkansen!

 

[midlandred]

Ok, it might just be repairs carried out for the Shanks rubbish trains then.

New bridge in place (to be photographed) - replacement carried out the weekend before last
Here's the old one seen today
Photo 1
Photo 2
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
. . . . and here is the new bridge in place, photographed today

 

[67018]

Digging through the Oxfordshire Local Transport plan related to another thread, I came across this, which may be of interest. There's a large area of MOD land just south of Bicester Town station that's scheduled for redevelopment, and it looks like an aspiration is to make the most of EWR's freight potential.

Supporting the proposals to secure a potential freight interchange at Graven Hill and working with the district and developers to achieve this. This would reinforce Bicester as a distribution hub within the region’s economy and make a significant contribution to the future employment provision in Bicester, especially in the Graven Hill site, which in itself could provide 26 ha of employment land. The south east quadrant of Bicester is viewed to be the most appropriate area for B8 employment uses given the strategic road and rail access. The facility would also assist in removing freight traffic on the M40, A34 and A43, further reducing strain on the strategic road network and benefiting the environment.

There's also the following item, which is fascinatingly vague:

Working collaboratively on longer term aspirations to rationalise rail station locations within the wider Bicester area.

 

[The Planner]

They are still trying the Intermodal terminal thing? Thats been knocking about for years and nothing comes of it.

 

[aylesbury]

A work compound has been set up at Virney Junction to enable exploratory work along the trackbed to be carried out by contractors.When the work has finished the compound will close and move to another location.

 

[Andyjs247]

Just been looking through the CP5 Enhancements Delivery Plan which is dated December 2014 but which I understand was published last week…

I was interested with the sections relating to East West Rail and Electric Spine. The main section related to East West Rail is on pp40-41. For Phase 2, i.e. work between Bicester and Bletchley, GRIP 3 completion and option selection is scheduled for November 2015. GRIP 6 start of work is indicated for August 2017 with infrastructure completed and ready for use by March 2019.

Phase 2
• Upgrading the existing Bicester Town to Bletchley freight line as a double-track 100mph multi-functional railway capable of accommodating three passenger services each way per hour and two additional paths per hour for freight and inter-regional services.
• Upgrading the existing Aylesbury to Claydon Junction freight line as a single-track 100mph passenger railway capable of accommodating one passenger service and one freight service each way per hour.
• Minor upgrading of the existing Bletchley – Bedford passenger railway to accommodate one additional fast passenger service each way per hour.
• New station at Winslow.
• New high-level platforms and track remodelling at Bletchley.
• New and enhanced overline structures to be constructed to W10 or W12 + electrification loading gauge.

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by W10 or W12 + electrification loading gauge - is the work not yet defined? W12 is slightly wider from what I can gather but presumably this means some existing structures could only be cleared for W10. For once we have the foresight to do the additional works for East West Phase 2 whilst the Phase 1 works for the Chiltern Oxford-Marylebone project are going on but does it not make sense to do everything to W12 while there is the chance?

Also of interest is the following note conceding the project milestones for Phase 2...

It is noted that the East West Rail Consortium and DfT have a target date for the core East West Rail train service to operate from December 2017. However, the project is at an early stage of development, and the outputs and scope are therefore unconfirmed.

I can't see December 2017 being possible though I guess the 15 month delay to March 2019 has to be officially agreed. It would also mean finding some DMUs from somewhere to operate the service.

Electrification in relation to East West Rail is covered under Electric Spine - pp53-55 - and the good news is that is still happening at the same time as EWR Phase 2.

So can we be reasonably confident that Oxford - Bletchley at least is still planned to be completed and electrified by March 2019 i.e. within CP5. A major benefit of being able to do the EWR work without having to work within the constraints of a live railway!

Other parts of Electric Spine which are being prioritised are Southcote Jn (Reading) - Basingstoke; Sheffield - ECML at Doncaster & South Kirby; and Leamington - Coventry.

MML electrification from Bedford to Kettering / Corby is due for completion by December 2017; and Kettering - Nottingham / Derby by December 2019. Electrification between Derby and Sheffield is due to be completed December 2020. North of Sheffield to ECML electrification follows on and is pencilled in for completion for June 2021.

The Leamington - Coventry electrification schedule is not yet defined but it probably makes the cut on the grounds of needing juice for an extended EMU stopping service beyond Coventry to serve Kenilworth & Leamington rather than freight. Southcote Jn - Basingstoke electrification schedule is also undefined (but is being progressed with Thames Valley branches electrification project).

DC / AC conversion south of Basingstoke to Southampton; electrification from Oxford - Leamington; Bletchley - Bedford and Coventry - Nuneaton are a lower priority. The cynic in me might think some of these possibly get binned if the new government needs to save money come May.

 

[The Planner]

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by W10 or W12 + electrification loading gauge - is the work not yet defined? W12 is slightly wider from what I can gather but presumably this means some existing structures could only be cleared for W10. For once we have the foresight to do the additional works for East West Phase 2 whilst the Phase 1 works for the Chiltern Oxford-Marylebone project are going on but does it not make sense to do everything to W12 while there is the chance?

Anything new will be built to W12, anything that can be cleared with no work will be W12, if it needs loads of work such as a rebuild you will probably find it gets W10 only. £££ will win here.

So can we be reasonably confident that Oxford - Bletchley at least is still planned to be completed and electrified by March 2019 i.e. within CP5. A major benefit of being able to do the EWR work without having to work within the constraints of a live railway!

Still some work to do in conjunction with HS2 though as they come ploughing through a short time later.

DC / AC conversion south of Basingstoke to Southampton; electrification from Oxford - Leamington; Bletchley - Bedford and Coventry - Nuneaton are a lower priority. The cynic in me might think some of these possibly get binned if the new government needs to save money come May.

Many of us have said previously that sections of the Spine will get quietly dropped. It has never been funded.

 

[edwin_m]

Still some work to do in conjunction with HS2 though as they come ploughing through a short time later.

And where HS2 crosses EWR will be the HS2 infrastructure depot at Calvert, which I would expect to be used initially to receive construction materials and send out works trains. This will be much easier if this part of EWR is complete.

 

[MK Tom]

New bridge in place (to be photographed) - replacement carried out the weekend before last
Here's the old one seen today
Photo 1
Photo 2
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
. . . . and here is the new bridge in place, photographed today

Is that new bridge only capable of taking single track? I realise the initial plan is only for a single track reopening but that's a bit short sighted if future traffic increases require redoubling between Aylesbury and Claydon.

 

[Class 170101]

DC / AC conversion south of Basingstoke to Southampton; electrification from Oxford - Leamington; Bletchley - Bedford and Coventry - Nuneaton are a lower priority. The cynic in me might think some of these possibly get binned if the new government needs to save money come May.

Conversion of DC to AC should be a lower priority but I cannot believe that Coventry to Nuneaton would not be just matter of stringing up the wires without the need for feeder stations given the line feeds into electrified lines at both ends.