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

[HowardGWR]

From where I live in the SW, it looks pancake flat to me.

 

[richieb1971]

Not much going on.

The last important update on the EWR website was September 2015.

 

[DarloRich]

Not much going on.

The last important update on the EWR website was September 2015.

have you contacted them to ask why the web site hasn't been updated?

 

[richieb1971]

I have now.

I said "Whats the point of (project progress) sections if you don't update it for 6 months".

Most likely will get a response relating to "We will update when something is happening".

Does anyone know if the project is currently active? Or has it fallen asleep for x amount of months awaiting resources?

 

[swt_passenger]

Does anyone know if the project is currently active? Or has it fallen asleep for x amount of months awaiting resources?

It is still in the 'preparing for a TWA Order' phase isn't it? Consultations about level crossing closures, and general design work and stuff. There's much more still to do before sending in blokes with spades.

GRIP 3 (single option selection) is not due until Dec 2016 according to the post Hendy CP5 plans.

 

[The Planner]

Lots of work going on in the background to integrate the works with HS2.

 

[richieb1971]

I met a Network rail guy today on the Lower Farm Road bridge in Bromham stating that these things will happen :

Emphasis is now shifting towards freight traffic on the EWR, Ford end road bridge in Bedford (South of current station) will be demolished to clear the way for Intermodal traffic. A new bridge with the relevant gauging will replace it.

Bedford Midland station will have 2 new platforms. One for the EWR which will sit where the ticket office is currently.

A piece of track will go round the back of platform 4 (where the Factory used to be) creating a new platform for fast trains going north. Not sure what the use of that would be.

NR were onsite at Lower Farm Road because a suicide that happened there on Tuesday approx 13:00. A class 222 Meridian hit a middle aged lady and killed her. As a result high fencing in being put in place.

 

[A0]

I
A piece of track will go round the back of platform 4 (where the Factory used to be) creating a new platform for fast trains going north. Not sure what the use of that would be.

I'll hazard a guess on that - it means you have two 'fast' lines each direction through the station. And by 'fast' in this post I mean for use by EMT services.

Currently pretty much all Northbound stoppers use P4 (which is newer in anycase). Northbound fasts either pass on the P4 line or the line between P4 and P3 - which from what I've seen is bi-directional? (Happy to be corrected if wrong.)

Southbound fasts use various platforms - 1,2 or 3 depending on where's free and southbound fasts which don't stop usually go through on the line between 3&4.

What this would allow, I guess, is P4 + the new line to be the two 'fasts' for 'north' and P3 + the current through line the two 'fasts' for south. This means EMT trains could pass at Bedford on both directions at essentially the same time - which I suspect is a constraint at the moment?

It has to be said the whole lines and layout around Bedford Midland is a bit of a mess - a legacy from the fact the line south of Bedford was originally to Hitchin and as a result the 'orientation' of the tracks was towards there. The rebuild of the station back in the 70s / 80s tidied some of it, but its still a messy layout.

 

[richieb1971]

None of the fasts at Bedford are bi-directional. Your right about everything else though. Platform 3 is bi-directional, if thats your meaning.

 

[Blamethrower]

All northbound emt services stop at platform 4 and they are never overtaken. Non stop fly through the same road and with the cant is quite dangerous if you're standing there.

If what you say is true richie, that's the key enabler for improving Bedford. Ford end Road bridge constrains everything south of the station. I'd be interested to see what happens to the ticket office.

Aren't they also replacing Bromham Road bridge for electrification?

 

[A0]

None of the fasts at Bedford are bi-directional. Your right about everything else though. Platform 3 is bi-directional, if thats your meaning.

No - I was thinking of the line which is between P3 & P4 - I'm sure I'd seen both Northbound and Southbounds pass through on there ?

P3 being bi-di is a legacy from the days before P4 I think?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Aren't they also replacing Bromham Road bridge for electrification?

That'll be a fun one if they do - it already has something of a 'hump' to get over the railway - so unless they're going to lower the railway the associated roadworks will be a nightmare.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

NR were onsite at Lower Farm Road because a suicide that happened there on Tuesday approx 13:00. A class 222 Meridian hit a middle aged lady and killed her. As a result high fencing in being put in place.

I was in London on Tuesday and noticed they were having probs from about 1pm.

Was surprised to see the closure was from Kettering - Bedford, not sure why it couldn't have been Wellingborough?

And it took a while for even the slow lines to be re-opened - surprising in the sense that the slows and fasts along there are well separated with a fair distance between them, so unlike other areas, notably further south, where such incidents can easily affect all lines, I'd have thought it was less of a problem there.

 

[richieb1971]

Bromham road bridge is next. There is a bypass opening imminently just north of that Bridge -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMNXOiUTco0 - 2/3rds way through.

The bridge is now complete but the road is not open for the public yet.

Bromham road bridge will end up being a ski ramp if it goes any higher than it is now. I can't see them lowering the track because the speed is so high through there.

As for Lower Farm road, all 4 tracks are beside each other at that point so the suicide clean up would require all 4 tracks closed.

As for the extra fast platform, it will be a loop by the sounds of it. And even if fast trains stopped there it would have to join the down fast before Bromham Road north of the station which means there would be just enough room for a train in there. Unless the idea is to move everything over and put a platform on the up fast as it does not have one now. Would have to go under the Ford end road bridge though as there is no room where the station is currently aligned. Slightly more south there is loads of room.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Bromham road bridge is next. There is a bypass opening imminently just north of that Bridge -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMNXOiUTco0 - 2/3rds way through.

The bridge is now complete but the road is not open for the public yet.

Bromham road bridge will end up being a ski ramp if it goes any higher than it is now. I can't see them lowering the track because the speed is so high through there.

Who are the biggest complainers for road disruption that occurs when a bridge is completely rebuilt - which sounds like is exactly what is needed? Is it mothers taking their little dahhrrlings to school?

 

[richieb1971]

Who are the biggest complainers for road disruption that occurs when a bridge is completely rebuilt - which sounds like is exactly what is needed? Is it mothers taking their little dahhrrlings to school?

Some people live 50 feet from the bridge. Its going to be madness

 

[HowardGWR]

Some people live 50 feet from the bridge. Its going to be madness

What's wrong with a Hurst Road diversion?

 

[Blamethrower]

There's a video of them building the bridge over the mml too

https://youtu.be/Ls6K54tZp3w

 

[richieb1971]

What's wrong with a Hurst Road diversion?

Hurst Grove has parked cars and terraced housing. Could be done for a day or two, but not for long term. It also spouts out where construction would be taking place. One road up from there would be better. The main bulk of the traffic will use the Western Bypass.

When Ford End Road is being done, thats a different matter. The whole of Queens park is cornered behind that bridge with no exits apart from Ford end road and Hurst Grove and a few back streets. Fun times ahead for those guys.


So back on topic. Since Ford End Road bridge is pencilled in for a new bridge. My conversation with the NR guy stated that freight is the reason for it. Therefore all Felixstowe freight would head directly West towards Peterborough to Leicester, head south to Bedford and then head West again on the EWR totally bypassing London.

 

[A0]

My conversation with the NR guy stated that freight is the reason for it. Therefore all Felixstowe freight would head directly West towards Peterborough to Leicester, head south to Bedford and then head West again on the EWR totally bypassing London.

Put in a west > south curve at Manton Jnc and freight wouldn't even need to go via Leicester - it would run down to Corby and then be on the slow lines all the way to Bedford - no looking for paths between Leicester and Kettering.

 

[richieb1971]

Put in a west > south curve at Manton Jnc and freight wouldn't even need to go via Leicester - it would run down to Corby and then be on the slow lines all the way to Bedford - no looking for paths between Leicester and Kettering.

Sounds good, but there would be more than that required. Corby is single line for a start. The NR guy said Sharnbrook to Manton Junction is definitely getting the 4th track so perhaps that will extend to East of Corby station.

Will be exciting to see all these new trains hock:

 

[jimm]

So back on topic. Since Ford End Road bridge is pencilled in for a new bridge. My conversation with the NR guy stated that freight is the reason for it. Therefore all Felixstowe freight would head directly West towards Peterborough to Leicester, head south to Bedford and then head West again on the EWR totally bypassing London.

But where would this freight be going? There is one container train a day between Felixstowe and Bristol. Every other Felixstowe service is to/from the West Midlands, the North and Scotland and none has any conceivable reason to go south from Leicester, with all the West Midlands/North West traffic using the Nuneaton route.

I can see East West benefiting aggregates traffic to/from the MML via Bedford but most container traffic will surely be confined to the Bletchley-Oxford section, allowing WCML services to and from Southampton to avoid Birmingham and the West Midlands.

 

[richieb1971]

But where would this freight be going? There is one container train a day between Felixstowe and Bristol. Every other Felixstowe service is to/from the West Midlands, the North and Scotland and none has any conceivable reason to go south from Leicester, with all the West Midlands/North West traffic using the Nuneaton route.

I can see East West benefiting aggregates traffic to/from the MML via Bedford but most container traffic will surely be confined to the Bletchley-Oxford section, allowing WCML services to and from Southampton to avoid Birmingham and the West Midlands.

He mentioned it was container traffic that the bridge is being replaced for. I added 2+2 and got 5 perhaps. I never thought of Southampton but it would make sense that all cars, some oil and containers would come from the south and head north on the MML to avoid the WCML. I am guessing quite a bit of the GWR freight going through Banbury would be diverted through this route. He also mentioned one container train a day from Sundon if it gets built.

 

[edwin_m]

Kettering to Corby is being doubled. I assume the idea is for freight trains from Southampton to run via Oxford, Bedford, Corby and Syston north curve to Trent South. Then either northwestwards via Stoke and Crewe or northeastwards via the Erewash Valley and the Old Road to pick up the Swinton and Knottingley to Church Fenton and beyond. This route has relatively little conflict with fast intercity services.

 

[swt_passenger]

One of the RUSs a few years back proposed that EWR would be operated as a sort of one way system, it was more useful for southbound freight trains from the north to Southampton, and that northbound stuff would stay on the existing route through Coventry and Nuneaton. Presumably due to the different crossing conflicts at various junctions.

 

[richieb1971]

One of the RUSs a few years back proposed that EWR would be operated as a sort of one way system, it was more useful for southbound freight trains from the north to Southampton, and that northbound stuff would stay on the existing route through Coventry and Nuneaton. Presumably due to the different crossing conflicts at various junctions.

Was that before Nuneaton got the new flyover?

 

[The Planner]

Nuneaton flyover was for Felixstowe traffic as part of the overblown F2N project, which gets 4 paths a day over it, 1 being a Q so won't always run anyway.

 

[swt_passenger]

Was that before Nuneaton got the new flyover?

Freight use of EWR was discussed in some detail in the London and SE RUS of 2011, and it was written around the time the Nuneaton flyover was being built, (opened Nov 2014) but doesn't it require significant shunt moves for use by southbound WCML traffic towards Coventry?

This is the relevant extracts from the recommendation table, in chapter 9 of the L&SE RUS:

2. The preferred route for normal operations to the WCML will be via Winchester and Oxford thence as follows:
– traffic for the WCML North via the Leamington Spa – Coventry – Nuneaton route, on which additional double track sections would be beneficial
– traffic for West Midlands terminals via Solihull.

3. Further consideration is supported of use of the potential East-West Rail corridor, to provide a faster route between Southampton and Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (avoiding London) and to avoid southbound flat crossing moves for traffic from the WCML at Nuneaton.

There's far more in that RUS of course, and although there are distinct benefits from having a more direct route between Southampton and DIRFT, there are also time penalties incurred running Southampton traffic to the North via either Bletchley, or via the MML. It gives reasons why EWR won't automatically take all the freight off the existing routes.

 

[edwin_m]

Nuneaton flyover was for Felixstowe traffic as part of the overblown F2N project, which gets 4 paths a day over it, 1 being a Q so won't always run anyway.

Are you referring to the newer connection from the flyover to the WCML northwards? The flyover itself was surely justified on the grounds of increasing WCML capacity by removing (mainly passenger) flat crossing moves.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

One of the RUSs a few years back proposed that EWR would be operated as a sort of one way system, it was more useful for southbound freight trains from the north to Southampton, and that northbound stuff would stay on the existing route through Coventry and Nuneaton. Presumably due to the different crossing conflicts at various junctions.

Assuming the train is to/from the WCML at Nuneaton, northbound via EWR would conflict with Up traffic north of Oxford and with the Up Slow north of Bletchley, whereas there are no equivalent conflicts for a southbound train via EWR. Southbound via Coventry has to cross the whole layout on the flat at Nuneaton, unlike northbound via Coventry, and although the opposite applies at Leamington that is a less severe conflict with fewer tracks and fewer trains.

 

[The Planner]

The North chord has a flyover over the station to Abbey Jn lines, that is the one Im on about.

 

[mr_jrt]

Assuming the train is to/from the WCML at Nuneaton, northbound via EWR would conflict with Up traffic north of Oxford and with the Up Slow north of Bletchley

IIRC aren't NR planning a down flyover north of Oxford to the EWR line to solve precisely that issue?

...and at Bletchley, there's a lot of land available for something creative. Could the northbound line from the flyover get a flyover of its own over the sidings and the up slow (suitably slewed) to remove the conflict there?

 

[jimm]

There's far more in that RUS of course, and although there are distinct benefits from having a more direct route between Southampton and DIRFT, there are also time penalties incurred running Southampton traffic to the North via either Bletchley, or via the MML. It gives reasons why EWR won't automatically take all the freight off the existing routes.

What time penalties might these be? The proposal to route route some XC services along the WCML to Bletchley and on to/from the South Coast via East West, rather than via Birmingham, is precisely because it will reduce journey times, so it's unlikely to be any different for container trains. There was a reason British Railways built the Bletchley flyover all those years ago, even if subsequent decisions made it a white elephant for many decades.

Plenty of freights spend time sat in loops on their way between Birmingham and Didcot, never mind picking their way through Birmingham and the West Midlands generally to get to other destinations.

Of course East West won't take all freight off existing routes but the possibility of rerouting trains which wouldn't need to go near the West Midlands when East West is available, such as Southampton-Leeds, clearly makes sense.

IIRC aren't NR planning a down flyover north of Oxford to the EWR line to solve precisely that issue?

It's a proposal, but no more than that at the moment. Just one of the various ideas to increase capacity through the Oxford and Didcot areas.