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

[ac6000cw]

Thanks for this.

The signalling at Cambridge dates from the early 80s, and presumably some of the above defects result from trying to avoid changing it too much. Do we know when re-signalling is due?

I haven't heard of any plans for re-signalling (just control of it moving to Romford ROC). I think there have been a few tweaks to it since the early 80s, but other than the new starting signals at each end of platform 7 & 8 it seems to be basically 'as was' in layout terms. Platform 7 & 8 were incorporated as simply as possible, so they use/share the single track connections of the old up & down loops to the main lines, which results in slow approaches/departures, particularly at the north end.

Operationally the north bays handle Ipswich and Norwich services, the south bays terminating/turnaround London services. Splitting/joining London-Kings Lynn services usually use platforms 1 & 4, along with most northbound 'through' services (AGA/GN/XC). Southbound 'through' services seem to use 7 & 8 mostly. So pretty much as you would expect, given the layout.

 

[jopsuk]

there's quite a lot of services terminate/start on 7/8. Always a deeply unwelcome sensation on approach from the south when the train heads off to the right.

 

[ac6000cw]

there's quite a lot of services terminate/start on 7/8. Always a deeply unwelcome sensation on approach from the south when the train heads off to the right.

Yes - it means you have to tramp over the footbridge to exit the station

I'd forgotten about the 7/8 starters/terminators - handy platforms for that at the beginning and end of the day, since they have access to the carriage sidings directly without impinging on the main lines.

 

[OxtedL]

The other key feature of 7 & 8 is that they can hold 12 car trains.

 

[jopsuk]

Indeed- which means the Brighton Thameslink services are likely to use them. I continue to be a little confused that despite apparent physical space Platform 4 has not been extended, as Platform 1 was, to 12-car length- it would however require signals to be moved

 

[philjo]

Whenever I have used them in the last couple of years, the xx:52 Kings Cross to Cambridge semi-fasts tend to terminate in platform 7 (sometimes 8) at cambridge). the xx:05 KGX-CBG stoppers generally use the bay platform 3. I have seen a few use platform 4, especially in the afternoons.

 

[Class 170101]

Trains arriving in Platform 4 from the south at Cambridge foul the overlap of platforms 5 and 6 so cannot be used for simultaneuous arrivals / departures.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed- which means the Brighton Thameslink services are likely to use them. I continue to be a little confused that despite apparent physical space Platform 4 has not been extended, as Platform 1 was, to 12-car length- it would however require signals to be moved

12-cars will fit between the signals on Platform 4 (in fact a couple of ECS moves stack together early in the morning) it's the platform itself that is not physically long enough.

As is said separately, the overlap of the Down P4 starter signal trains cannot arrive in Platform 4 from the south simultaneous to any movement in or out of Platforms 5 or 6.

However, ASDO Balises have been fitted so that 12-car Class 700s can use Platform 4.

 

[D869]

Preferred route beyond Bedford for East West Published today

http://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/preferred-corridor-for-east-west-rail-central-section-announced

Preferred corridor. We'll have to wait for any sort of route but if it involves any running on the ECML it will be daft. Perhaps Network Rail has concluded that new line is needed east of ECML.

They reckon more details will be published in May. That'll give them time to log on here a few times and see what the team thinks...

Is it May yet?

 

[The Ham]

Is it May yet?

No, 11 months to go....

 

[MarkRedon]

It would appear that final approval required for the operation of rail services between Oxford Parkway station and Oxford mainline station is still being sought by Network Rail:

http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/14..._London_Marylebone_could_be_given_this_month/

WORK to finish a direct rail link between central Oxford and London Marylebone could be given the go-ahead within weeks.

Network Rail hopes to win approval for the last stage of the project from Oxford City Council this month.

The report in the Oxford Mail suggests that there are still outstanding planning issues:

Network Rail must first prove it has put in place mitigation measures.

It is attempting to get the last of these signed off but needs approval from the city council's west area planning committee.

 

[jimm]

All that really means is that a planning officer will go out along the line with Network Rail to check that all the sound barriers, etc, that are supposed to be installed are actually in place. A report will got to the committee and, assuming that it confirms the right things have been done, the committee will nod it through.

 

[MarkRedon]

All that really means is that a planning officer will go out along the line with Network Rail to check that all the sound barriers, etc, that are supposed to be installed are actually in place. A report will got to the committee and, assuming that it confirms the right things have been done, the committee will nod it through.

That's reassuring, thank-you.

I realise that I should have posted in the Chiltern Oxford thread and not here in East-West Rail. Sorry.

 

[swt_passenger]

All that really means is that a planning officer will go out along the line with Network Rail to check that all the sound barriers, etc, that are supposed to be installed are actually in place. A report will got to the committee and, assuming that it confirms the right things have been done, the committee will nod it through.

It seems to me that the Oxford Mail is constantly trying to make mountains out of molehills along this stretch. They are reporting on day to day planning activities as though they are of significant importance...

It's all a bit like those modern TV documentaries that always have to have an artificial crisis just before the adverts...

 

[Class 170101]

Obviously not much else going on in Oxford at the moment.

 

[MarkRedon]

Good news: something new via the East West website.
Bad news: I spot very little new detail.

See: http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/east-west-rail-central-section.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Specifically, I had hoped for some proper justification for the choice of the Sandy corridor over Hitchin. That is not present in the document. Worse, it would appear that the next planning stage is going to take between 18 and 24 months. This, I would submit, risks taking it outside the HLOS process for 2024-9. Which may well be the intention? I do appreciate that building a completely new railway is never easy, but I had wished that this particular one might be opened within my lifetime!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Good news: something new via the East West website.
Bad news: I spot very little new detail.

See: http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/east-west-rail-central-section.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Specifically, I had hoped for some proper justification for the choice of the Sandy corridor over Hitchin. That is not present in the document. Worse, it would appear that the next planning stage is going to take between 18 and 24 months. This, I would submit, risks taking it outside the HLOS process for 2024-9. Which may well be the intention? I do appreciate that building a completely new railway is never easy, but I had wished that this particular one might be opened within my lifetime!

May be relevant from the doc you linked to:

When could the new rail link be opened?
We do not yet know the date when the Central Section rail link could open.
Currently, we have an illustrative programme, assuming funding and consents
approval, which shows a possible completion of the scheme in the early 2030’s.

Are you planning on dying before the 2030s?

This basically means you're looking at at least 15 years from now, or around 20 years since early planning for the project started. There must surely be a way to get investment works done faster than that!

 

[richieb1971]

I don't see the point in announcing anything unless boots are on the ground within 3 or 4 years. The Sandy corridor was not the easiest choice either.

The very first thing that is needed (since Bedford would be the starting point) is how Bedford is going to be included on the route. Its all very well talking about catchment areas and such but they are definitely avoiding the sore point of how Bedford will be included on the alignment.

I like the way they say "we are working with...". What work?

There seems to be a lot of people doing work that has nothing to show for it. In something like 6 years they identified a corridor which pre-existed before and happens to be the most direct route. Well done lads..

 

[MarkRedon]

May be relevant from the doc you linked to:
Are you planning on dying before the 2030s?

This basically means you're looking at at least 15 years from now, or around 20 years since early planning for the project started. There must surely be a way to get investment works done faster than that!

I was 14 when the line closed and 40 when the East West Rail Consortium was established. I will be 80 in 2034. I should just about make it...

The serious point is that before eventual full reopening decades of benefits suggested by high BCRs are being thrown away and lots of, fairly green, journey opportunities will never happen. I hope that Adonis and his National Infrastructure Commission – nowhere mentioned in the document – can begin to get things moving a little more quickly!

 

[Ianno87]

I don't see the point in announcing anything unless boots are on the ground within 3 or 4 years. The Sandy corridor was not the easiest choice either.

The very first thing that is needed (since Bedford would be the starting point) is how Bedford is going to be included on the route. Its all very well talking about catchment areas and such but they are definitely avoiding the sore point of how Bedford will be included on the alignment.

I like the way they say "we are working with...". What work?

There seems to be a lot of people doing work that has nothing to show for it. In something like 6 years they identified a corridor which pre-existed before and happens to be the most direct route. Well done lads..

Given that even a reinstated former alignment would almost certainly need new compulsory land purchase in a number of areas (and thus a consents process to give powers to aquire it) , this means that the motions have to be gone through to demonstrate that your preferred alignment is the best one, otherwise it won't stand up to the slightest scrutiny and will fail the consents procedure.

It`s called proper process....

Plus only a vague route via Sandy has been announced as preferred - nobody has said whether this will bear any relationship at all to the original route - there are a number of engineering reasons why it may not be.

 

[Tobbes]

Plus only a vague route via Sandy has been announced as preferred - nobody has said whether this will bear any relationship at all to the original route - there are a number of engineering reasons why it may not be.

Agreed - indeed, given the growth around Cambourne and A428 corridor, it would be worth studying a new alignment from Sandy to serve Cambourne and then replace the busway coming in via A14 P&R, the Science Park into Cambridge. (And by the time this comes off, run through Cambridge (Central/General) to Addenbrookes (Cambridge South).

I'd also explore a Bedford Interchange (P&R) where EWR passes under the MML to enhance connectivity without having to reverse EWR at Bedford Midland.

Just my 0.02...

 

[mr_jrt]

If you're going to try and serve Cambourne you may as well do the sensible thing and route via St. Neots rather than Sandy and serve the whole A428 corridor, which then also handily solves your issue of how to serve Bedford as you would be running through it!

 

[richieb1971]

If you're going to try and serve Cambourne you may as well do the sensible thing and route via St. Neots rather than Sandy and serve the whole A428 corridor, which then also handily solves your issue of how to serve Bedford as you would be running through it!

And that is easily the best option overall. From the perspective of everyone except those making the decisions.

Does it take 3-4 years to get the necessary planning permissions to get boots on the ground? Surely that would only be in situations where land owners were protesting the sale!!

If Sandy is the corridor chosen, there isn't anywhere currently available to put a new corridor out of Bedford. Even the old corridor would create significant obstacles out of Bedford via Cardington road. The only option would be to turn east around Kempston Hardwick towards Cardington.

A new corridor would require lots of bulldozing.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does it take 3-4 years to get the necessary planning permissions to get boots on the ground? Surely that would only be in situations where land owners were protesting the sale!!

It can take longer than that even if you already own the land yourself. See terminal 5.

If you spend 2-3 years working up a design, consulting with local communities, refining your design, doing full surveys, ground investigations, and preparing a Strategic Business Case to demonstrate why it is the right thing to do for the country, then it might only take another 2-3 years to get the necessary consents for a project of this size.

Be thankful we are not in France or Germany. The same process can take twice as long in France, and is measured in decades in Germany. As an example, the LGV-SEA from Tours to Bordeaux took 5 years to get the equivalent of planning consent after all the preliminary studies were done (EWR isn't even at that stage). It was another 3 years before construction started, and 6 years to build. And all of it is in open country.

 

[Trog]

I'd also explore a Bedford Interchange (P&R) where EWR passes under the MML to enhance connectivity without having to reverse EWR at Bedford Midland.

Just my 0.02...

There was once a halt/station just to the east of that intersection Kempston and Elstow Halt, the cottage used by the porter who staffed it still exists.

 

[Tobbes]

There was once a halt/station just to the east of that intersection Kempston and Elstow Halt, the cottage used by the porter who staffed it still exists.

Thanks Trog - very rarely any new ideas doing the rounds...

 

[richieb1971]

There was once a halt/station just to the east of that intersection Kempston and Elstow Halt, the cottage used by the porter who staffed it still exists.

When I was a kid it was derelict. There was a man working on the place for what seemed like an eternity. Its become quite a nice place despite having 2 railways within rock throwing distance.

 

[MML]

And why the developer(s) of the interchange retail park next door weren't required to build a small halt/station as part of the approval of their plans for the retail park I'll never know.
It's the way to get private investment in return for a lucrative land deal. :roll:

 

[The Planner]

Maybe they got lucky and didn't need a section 106, though Ive never known a case where a retail park would ever be required to provide a station and the developer would have probably walked well away if required to.

 

[jimm]

And why the developer(s) of the interchange retail park next door weren't required to build a small halt/station as part of the approval of their plans for the retail park I'll never know.
It's the way to get private investment in return for a lucrative land deal. :roll:

Probably because most of the shoppers were expected to come from Bedford, so would be assumed to be coming in their cars or on a bus. It's not exactly the MetroCentre at Gateshead, or anything remotely like it, just a pretty bog-standard collection of out-of-town retail sheds, so no obvious reason why anyone would be travelling a distance - and especially not from Bletchley/MK - to get there.