• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,722
Location
Nottingham
If I recall correctly the HS2 website includes plans for EWR in the vicinity of where they cross, including connection towards Aylesbury and into the HS2 infrsatructure depot that will be built there. Probably this is already authorised by the HS2 Act rather than being part of the powers EWR will have to apply for.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Andyjs247

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2011
Messages
734
Location
North Oxfordshire
On current plans, this railway will not be built by Network Rail but by a design, build and operate company. However, I doubt that final planning will be complete before another general election!

The next general election may well happen before current plans come to fruition in the form of a TWAO - given the present government and its slender working majority courtesy of the DUP. We have been led to believe that there would be a new 'EWR Co' separate from Network Rail to design build and operate as you say. But the next and imminent phase of consultations is still being led by Network Rail. No mention of this new organisation. With all the announcements in November and December last year there doesn't seem to have been much action in setting up this new 'EWR Co' since then, or any quicker progress. In fact the opposite as the election just seems to have set things back by at least a couple of months; I doubt if anything meaningful will happen now until at least September.
 

Andyjs247

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2011
Messages
734
Location
North Oxfordshire
Already to be removed completely by HS2, as well as the road bridge that would have given access to the platform.

The entire layout is changed in the area, with HS2 to the west of the Chiltern route and the waste transfer sidings relocated east of the Chiltern route.

If I recall correctly the HS2 website includes plans for EWR in the vicinity of where they cross, including connection towards Aylesbury and into the HS2 infrsatructure depot that will be built there. Probably this is already authorised by the HS2 Act rather than being part of the powers EWR will have to apply for.

As I understand it HS2 is taking at least part of the current ex-GC alignment in the Calvert area. The EWR link from Aylesbury then requires a new alignment to the east. So it would be impossible to keep the existing platforms in any case as they would be on HS2. This part is I believe already authorised by the HS2 hybrid bill. Construction should begin soon though I am unsure if it will be within 2017.

I am guessing it will mean initially construction traffic must come via Bicester along with the freight to/from Calvert. Then when the rest of EWR2 hopefully gets authorised there will probably be access available from Aylesbury again. And Bicester-Claydon-Bletchley can then proceed.
 

Andyjs247

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2011
Messages
734
Location
North Oxfordshire
It has a boss, Phil Verster, formerly of Scotrail.

Yes there is a boss or two (it is headed by Rob Brighouse, previously of Chiltern and currently also at Network Rail) but isn't the new company supposed to be doing the design and build and therefore also the consultation? I can't say I have seen any acknowledgement of the new organisation existing apart from some key appointees.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,722
Location
Nottingham
As I understand it HS2 is taking at least part of the current ex-GC alignment in the Calvert area. The EWR link from Aylesbury then requires a new alignment to the east. So it would be impossible to keep the existing platforms in any case as they would be on HS2. This part is I believe already authorised by the HS2 hybrid bill. Construction should begin soon though I am unsure if it will be within 2017.

I am guessing it will mean initially construction traffic must come via Bicester along with the freight to/from Calvert. Then when the rest of EWR2 hopefully gets authorised there will probably be access available from Aylesbury again. And Bicester-Claydon-Bletchley can then proceed.

It's an interesting risk for HS2 if EWR isn't ready in time to get supplies into their future infrastructure depot, which I'd expect also to be used as a construction railhead. So if EWR hasn't arrived in the meantime HS2 might have to start by building the new formation from Aylesbury to Calvert before they can build their own line on top of the old one. It would have been easier if HS2 had been drawn a few metres off to one side!

Incidentally this issue also means EWR can't be a fully vertically integrated railway.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
Is it too much to hope that the GCR can go and reclaim any useful GCR materials from Calvert before the (very welcome) HS2 developments?
 

Chris125

Established Member
Joined
12 Nov 2009
Messages
3,272
Location
Isle of Wight
Immensely disappointing to see confirmation that electrification is now not on the table.

The more I think about it, the less disappointed I am - given how contentious the phase 1 TWAO they could probably do without another Goring Gap situation, and longer term wiring still seems inevitable.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
The more I think about it, the less disappointed I am - given how contentious the phase 1 TWAO they could probably do without another Goring Gap situation, and longer term wiring still seems inevitable.

I'm not sure what happened with the Goring Gap - but surely it is going to be cheaper to do the electrification when the line is being reconstructed rather than waiting to do it on an open line in possessions and overnight...?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,722
Location
Nottingham
I'm not sure what happened with the Goring Gap - but surely it is going to be cheaper to do the electrification when the line is being reconstructed rather than waiting to do it on an open line in possessions and overnight...?

Not necessarily. Doing it during construction there is the risk of the contractors tripping over each other. A useful amount of OLE work can be done in a short possession (at least if the problems encountered on GWML can be avoided) and presumably the structures will be electrification-ready and all the underground cables and services in known positions.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
Not necessarily. Doing it during construction there is the risk of the contractors tripping over each other. A useful amount of OLE work can be done in a short possession (at least if the problems encountered on GWML can be avoided) and presumably the structures will be electrification-ready and all the underground cables and services in known positions.

Thanks Edwin - but count me sceptical. If contractors are tripping over one another then someone needs to look at their project management, you'd think.
 

jimm

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2012
Messages
5,277
The more I think about it, the less disappointed I am - given how contentious the phase 1 TWAO they could probably do without another Goring Gap situation, and longer term wiring still seems inevitable.

What's Goring Gap got to do with it? There isn't an AONB anywhere near the East West route.

It was the installation of overhead wires through an AONB using standard galvanised steel portals that caused all the fuss.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,722
Location
Nottingham
Thanks Edwin - but count me sceptical. If contractors are tripping over one another then someone needs to look at their project management, you'd think.

Probably so, but project management of electrification schemes hasn't exactly been covering itself in glory recently.

If you're very lucky you could keep electrification off the critical path so there would be no extension to timescale - though there would be more risk of things going wrong (see above). It's more likely though that electrification would be on the critical path (for example when the last bit has to be electrified after everyone else has finished it) so there would be a delay to completion.
 

03_179

Established Member
Joined
13 Aug 2008
Messages
3,864
Location
At my desk
I was wondering about the line.

Where would a EWR depot be based?

Aylesbury looks to be too busy.
Bletchley have some space in the carriage sidings and the Bombardier depot is almost empty.
Bedford is closing down so that would be a possibly.
 
Last edited:

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
2,047
Where is it stated Bedford is closing down? Jowitt sidings have only been open a few years.
 

Domh245

Established Member
Joined
6 Apr 2013
Messages
8,426
Location
nowhere
Where is it stated Bedford is closing down? Jowitt sidings have only been open a few years.

I believe that it is Cauldwell that is closing, not the carriage sidings, or Jowett - as once all the 700s are operational, there won't need to be any maintenance done there. That said, if the next EMT franchises utilises Electrostars for the Corby Service (as seems to be popular thought on this forum) then they could be based there?
 

InTheEastMids

Established Member
Joined
31 Jan 2016
Messages
1,404
That said, if the next EMT franchises utilises Electrostars for the Corby Service (as seems to be popular thought on this forum) then they could be based there?

Quite possibly, although NR plans for Bedford-Corby electrification talk about something at Kettering, but unclear whether that will be a depot or just some stabling
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
34,307
I was wondering about the line.

Where would a EWR depot be based?

Aylesbury looks to be too busy.
Bletchley have some space in the carriage sidings and the Bombardier depot is almost empty.
Bedford is closing down so that would be a possibly.

Assuming the Marylebone - Milton Keynes stays with Chiltern, I don't think the one or two additional units needed would be a show stopper once Banbury is completed.

You might not even need an EWR depot at all depending who the other two initial services are allocated, particularly if they connect them end on to existing GWR services south of Oxford as has been proposed in the past.

Stabling to allow for early and late services is a separate question to the maintenance depot.

(The above assumes DfT don't push ahead with strange ideas for a 'micro-franchise' in which case anything might happen.)
 

Andyjs247

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2011
Messages
734
Location
North Oxfordshire
My money would be on Bletchley or possibly Newton Longville. My understanding is EWR is to get bi-modes which also fits with a new micro-franchise type of design, build and operate organisation. This is what seemed to be favoured by Grayling. I've not seen much evidence of progress with setting the organisation up though, barring some key appointments. By now I'd have expected to see a new website at least.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
19,723
Nothing is being built on top of the main infrastructure so anything that requires stabling will end up in existing sites.
 

doa46231

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2016
Messages
60
Location
Milton Keynes
As a Milton Keynes resident,I hope to goodness the Chiltern diesels dont come anywhere near MKC
I dont want these noisy polluting horrors grumbling away in our bay platform.
It's bad enough having the awful Voyagers stopping every hour or so.

Nice electric cars and buses outside and diesels inside: no thanks, turn the b-----s round at Bletchley!
 

MarkRedon

Member
Joined
16 Sep 2015
Messages
292
Not perhaps an immediate problem, but there has been a fair bit of local concern in Sandy about the possibility that a new interchange station where EWR crosses ECML might imply closure of the existing Sandy railway station, which is in town. The latest in a series of press stories can be found at: http://www.thecomet.net/news/sandy-...f-implied-possible-out-of-town-move-1-5134136. The story notes that:
Central Bedfordshire Council issued a brief to consultants appearing to imply that Sandy railway station might close – despite denying it wants that to happen.

The story as written suggests that one potential routing for EWR takes it south of the existing station. However, a perhaps more likely routing to the north of the town could be used as a pretext or justification for an interchange station at Tempsford – which might supplement the existing station, or replace it.

According to the story:
The council’s own brief to the consultants – issued in December, and seen by the Comet yesterday – also seems to propose a possible relocation of Sandy station in a scenario where the East West Rail link goes north of the town. Referring to whether the link will go to the north or south of Sandy, the document says: “The southern route is more straightforward in engineering terms but would provide little potential for growth while a northern route would be more expensive to build but would generate major development potential around new interchange stations at Sandy (resited) and (with the Midland Main Line) at Wixams to the south of Bedford.”

It adds: “The most direct route, taking into account topography, would see a route passing close to Sandy and Central Beds Council’s preferred option would be to see the route pass to the north of Sandy with a new station located close to the existing town.

“A new station should serve the EWR line and have passenger connections to the East Coast Main Line.”

Since a large part of the justification for any new railway would be to permit extensive new housing development along the Oxford – Milton Keynes – Cambridge arc, the northern route is far more likely to be pursued in what may nominally be a privately-financed new railway. At the same time, I would have thought it more likely that the new station would be additional to, rather than replace, the existing Sandy town station. In any event, Sandy hardly enjoys a sparkling intercity service at the present time. The notion that a station at Wixams might enjoy some or all of the existing fast services stopping at Bedford Midland would, I think, create a great deal more concern and even anger - not least on this forum?
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
18,153
As a Milton Keynes resident,I hope to goodness the Chiltern diesels dont come anywhere near MKC
I dont want these noisy polluting horrors grumbling away in our bay platform.
It's bad enough having the awful Voyagers stopping every hour or so.

Nice electric cars and buses outside and diesels inside: no thanks, turn the b-----s round at Bletchley!

Blimey. Many areas of the country would give an arm and a leg for improved train services, whether diesel or electric.

What makes Milton Keynes so special? A place that was built for the petrol and diesel motor vehicles.....
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
2,047
I think the EWR consortium are right on the money with their plans.

I understand that some folks might not see the bigger picture yet, but holding back progress over wibbles about moving stations is nonsensical. I think Bedford has the opposite vibe. Of people on my facebook pages, most would rather have a new parkway station rather than using the old alignment through the old St Johns station. Which is perfectly understandable considering line speed and the obstacles now in place on that alignment.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,578
Location
Brighton
What makes far more sense is to run through Bedford Midland and curve around the north of the town and interchange with the ECML at St. Neots. Sandy's fine as it is and the interchange at Bedford can remain in the most useful location - the town centre. St Neots station is already on the outskirts of the town, so plenty of room for a proper interchange and room for lots of development (and parking!) around it. Also sets up the line to run east to Cambridge via Cambourne, which is the best corridor as the southern corridor already has a good rail service.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,722
Location
Nottingham
I reckon a route via St Neots would be about 50% further than direct Bedford to Cambridge, and would have three turns each exceeding 90 degrees.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top