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

[richieb1971]

Going north of Bedford would be expensive to build because the land is hilly. The land exactly east of Bedford is very flat.

The other thing going against Bedford Midland is that parking is at bursting point and we need less traffic in Bedford, not more. If the future plans of BDM are concrete they are aligning platform 1a with the northern siding so that an extra platform is created going though the current ticket office. This means the station will be offset into the taxi loop pickup area. Its a shame Bedford doesn't have a freight only line as well. Perhaps if we do get 5 platforms there will always be enough through fare to allow freights to travel through at speed.

 

[mr_jrt]

Handily, it's pretty easy to figure these things out.

Bedford to Sandy would be ~9 miles, if you would want a parallel set of platforms at the existing station (with 2 turns exceeding 90 degrees if that's important to you!)
With a generous fairly straight routing it's ~23 miles between Bedford and Shepreth, and Bedford to Cambridge would thus be roughly 30 miles (with a nice sharp curve at Shepreth branch junction!).

Now, I made a mistake in my original post (it's been awhile, sorry!) - St Neots would have to be moved south ever so slightly. Not far from the existing station, and would still have good access from the town, but it would have to be moved if you wanted a good interchange.

That said, Bedford to St. Neots would be ~13 miles, with a sharp curve north of Bedford and another beyond St Neots. On to Cambourne would be about another 7 miles, and on to Cambridge north via the old St. Ives branch from south of Histon would be ~11 miles, so Bedford to Cambridge North would be roughly 31 miles.

Add on the 2.25 miles between the two stations for those wanting the other and BOOM. Not quite such a difference, is it? Except the northern routing, whilst more expensive as it's not using the existing line between Shepreth and Cambridge, will relieve road traffic more by virtue of providing new rail access. I would presume stations at Cambourne and Histon, maybe at Bar Hill too. Anyone wanting to get the train into Cambridge from the south already has the option to do so - not so the west and north west.

 

[mr_jrt]

...as for north of Bedford being hilly, I'd have thought that might work in its favour. I would imagine some tunnels might work out cheaper than a lot of property acquisition.

 

[TheDavibob]

Anyone wanting to get the train into Cambridge from the south already has the option to do so - not so the west and north west.

So you're happy to rip up the busway from Histon, thereby removing the aforementioned access for those coming in from St. Ives (and Northstowe), to give Cambourne a comparatively irregular rail service that doesn't quite go where people will want?

 

[richieb1971]

...as for north of Bedford being hilly, I'd have thought that might work in its favour. I would imagine some tunnels might work out cheaper than a lot of property acquisition.

Its my understanding a single tunnel equals quite a lot of land acquisition. I'm not against going north of Bedford. But since the alignment has already been chosen (Oxford, Bletchley, Bedford Parkway/MML, Sandy, Cambridge), its really all pie in the sky talk.

The alignment is almost dead straight on the proposed alignment. That improves line speed and possible timetables. Especially if trains get even faster. Having tight curves on the already existing network is bottlenecking the trains top speed right across the country, hence HS2. It would be silly to keep making the same mistakes over and over.

 

[The Planner]

How sharp are you expecting curves to be? the curve radii for normal track is nothing like for something like HS2. I would very much doubt anyone is going to spec a 125mph railway, especially considering phase 2 isn't going to be that.

 

[mr_jrt]

So you're happy to rip up the busway from Histon, thereby removing the aforementioned access for those coming in from St. Ives (and Northstowe), to give Cambourne a comparatively irregular rail service that doesn't quite go where people will want?

The supposed advantage of the busway is that the buses can continue on the road where required and parallel road routes are available. A station at Histon would enable passengers to change between the busway and the railway anyway. What makes you think the rail service would be irregular? That seems to just be plain conjecture on your part.

Its my understanding a single tunnel equals quite a lot of land acquisition. I'm not against going north of Bedford. But since the alignment has already been chosen (Oxford, Bletchley, Bedford Parkway/MML, Sandy, Cambridge), its really all pie in the sky talk.

The alignment is almost dead straight on the proposed alignment. That improves line speed and possible timetables. Especially if trains get even faster. Having tight curves on the already existing network is bottlenecking the trains top speed right across the country, hence HS2. It would be silly to keep making the same mistakes over and over.

If the curvature is at stations where all services would stop it's largely irrelevant as all units would be at a low speed at those points anyway. The curves wouldn't even be that sharp anyway given the space available. Unless you plan on having crossing platforms at right angles at whatever replaces Sandy station at a more inconvenient out of town location, then there will be sharp curvature at least on a par with the alignment at the Bletchley flyover - that's the only way to have a shorter interchange at either Sandy or anywhere else.

 

[richieb1971]

I'd imagine Bedford parkway and Sandy will utilise a Tamworth style format. The EWR will go over the pre existing lines like a +

Bletchley is different because they are using a pre-existing bridge.

 

[Chester1]

I will be very surprised if Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge is ever built. The attempts to reopen have amounted to reopening Aylesbury to Aylesbury Parkway and a major upgrade of Bicester to Oxford and construction of the Bicester chord. That is an achievement but it took the best part of 2 decades. The next phase has been delayed and that only involves upgrading a freight line, rebuilding a mothballed line and increasing capacity on a branch line. This seems much cheaper and less complicated than building a brand new line but it is still delayed.

 

[The Planner]

It isn't just "upgrading" it though, you are effectively ripping up a single jointed track line with little or no signalling riddled with level crossings and another section that hasn't been looked at for 25 years and starting again.

 

[ac6000cw]

I would presume stations at Cambourne and Histon, maybe at Bar Hill too.

The supposed advantage of the busway is that the buses can continue on the road where required and parallel road routes are available. A station at Histon would enable passengers to change between the busway and the railway anyway. What makes you think the rail service would be irregular? That seems to just be plain conjecture on your part.

In relation to the current (off-peak) 11 buses per hour each way, any economically justifiable rail service is likely to be rather less frequent.

Lets not loose sight of what E-W rail is intended to be - it's being promoted (correctly, IMHO) as a fast inter-urban corridor service, not a local transport service.

To me, in that context, the 'southern' route options make far more sense - there is less new construction needed (and it's mostly fairly 'open country' construction, so it's cheaper). The southern entry into Cambridge is less space constrained than the northern entry. Between Shepreth Branch Junction and Cambridge station there is either already space for four tracks or it would be easy to provide it, whereas from Chesterton Junction southwards it's two tracks, a river bridge, an embankment across a water meadow etc. - much more expensive to widen. Also any trains that continue to/from Norwich/Ipswich can run through without reversal, reducing the dwell times at Cambridge.

Cambourne (like Bar Hill) was developed to provide housing for the Cambridge area (not for London commuters via St. Neots). It's already well connected by modern roads (A428/A14/M11) to the major Science Park and Addenbrookes employment areas - you could run 'commuter' direct bus services to those places without touching inner Cambridge if there was a will to do it. (There is an issue of no west-to-south connection at the A428/A14/M11 junction, so it means using a congested section of the A1303 to do that, but I suspect that will have to be fixed eventually). It would make more sense to connect Bar Hill to the Busway (it's not that far) - which then provides connections at Cambridge North - from a local transport point-of-view.

 

[richieb1971]

Does anyone know if the EWR interchange stations will be the Tamworth format or Nuneaton format?

Meaning, will the EWR cross like + like Tamworth, or slide into the pre-existing station through an addition or pre-existing platform like Nuneaton.

The other question that begs to be asked is if spurs will come off these stations to join to the North/South railways at these stations. At Bedford you only have a northern facing passage, at Bletchley you only have a southern one from Bedford and a northern one from the Bicester end. At new stations they could either do it where needed, or do it ahead of time so that diversions could easily take place.

As for doubts about the railway being built, nothing would surprise me. It would be nice if there was something they could do to reassure us.

 

[The Planner]

Bletchley will be more Nuneaton.

 

[swt_passenger]

Meaning, will the EWR cross like + like Tamworth, or slide into the pre-existing station through an addition or pre-existing platform like Nuneaton.

If you follow the links in post #1091, you get to various drawings, e.g. this one for Bletchley:

http://ewrconsultation.co.uk/docs/plans/Bletchley_Station/133735_2C-EWR-BBM-XXXXXX-DR-T-016059.pdf

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I'm guessing the service will be operated by Chiltern Railways?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm guessing the service will be operated by Chiltern Railways?

No, you can't assume that at all. People have been regularly pointing out that DfT want a separate micro-franchise for EWR, and I've usually pointed out that Marylebone to Milton Keynes ought to say with Chiltern. Others then disagree.

IIRC someone from Chiltern was quoted a few years ago as saying they didn't want to get involved in EWR's other extended routes anyway.

We also know that one of the extensions proposed by the EWR consortium is to join with GW services across Oxford, and head off towards Reading. That is probably dead with electrification abandoned for now, but if it came back it wouldn't fit with Chiltern either.

 

[a good off]

In relation to the current (off-peak) 11 buses per hour each way, any economically justifiable rail service is likely to be rather less frequent.

Lets not loose sight of what E-W rail is intended to be - it's being promoted (correctly, IMHO) as a fast inter-urban corridor service, not a local transport service.

To me, in that context, the 'southern' route options make far more sense - there is less new construction needed (and it's mostly fairly 'open country' construction, so it's cheaper). The southern entry into Cambridge is less space constrained than the northern entry. Between Shepreth Branch Junction and Cambridge station there is either already space for four tracks or it would be easy to provide it, whereas from Chesterton Junction southwards it's two tracks, a river bridge, an embankment across a water meadow etc. - much more expensive to widen. Also any trains that continue to/from Norwich/Ipswich can run through without reversal, reducing the dwell times at Cambridge.

Cambourne (like Bar Hill) was developed to provide housing for the Cambridge area (not for London commuters via St. Neots). It's already well connected by modern roads (A428/A14/M11) to the major Science Park and Addenbrookes employment areas - you could run 'commuter' direct bus services to those places without touching inner Cambridge if there was a will to do it. (There is an issue of no west-to-south connection at the A428/A14/M11 junction, so it means using a congested section of the A1303 to do that, but I suspect that will have to be fixed eventually). It would make more sense to connect Bar Hill to the Busway (it's not that far) - which then provides connections at Cambridge North - from a local transport point-of-view.

The MOD land at Bassingbourn Barracks is ideal to be released for new homes. A parkway station at Bassingbourn would serve this new community and if enough parking was provided, it would provide the surrounding area with a fast route to the Bedford/MK area and an alternative to the Royston line to getting in and out Cambridge.

 

[route:oxford]

No, you can't assume that at all. People have been regularly pointing out that DfT want a separate micro-franchise for EWR, and I've usually pointed out that Marylebone to Milton Keynes ought to say with Chiltern. Others then disagree.

It's a difficult one. Of course, Chiltern and GWR are a very convenient fit as it would avoid the creation of a new franchise as well as new depots.

I'm wondering if it may end up going to Cross-Country.

Whether it goes to XC, Chiltern, GWR, an indepedent consortium of Cambridge & Oxford colleges and Value Retail or some other - it's going to be a cash cow.

 

[Andyjs247]

It's a difficult one. Of course, Chiltern and GWR are a very convenient fit as it would avoid the creation of a new franchise as well as new depots.

I'm wondering if it may end up going to Cross-Country.

Whether it goes to XC, Chiltern, GWR, an indepedent consortium of Cambridge & Oxford colleges and Value Retail or some other - it's going to be a cash cow.

But Grayling has said that he wants EWR to be set up as a new organisation to design build and operate. Which I think would also effectively rule out it from being an add-on to an existing franchise. It overlaps with GWR, Chiltern, LM and Cross-country to some degree but I don't really see it as a good fit in any of those franchises. EWR is going to get bi-modes apparently.

I don't know what they will get but I doubt it will be more IEPs like GWR are getting. Also none of the other operators will have bi-modes. So my guess is maybe EWR will end up with eg 319 flex or something from Stadler for the core service but that whatever they do get will be maintained as a separate fleet in an existing facility.

 

[edwin_m]

But Grayling has said that he wants EWR to be set up as a new organisation to design build and operate. Which I think would also effectively rule out it from being an add-on to an existing franchise. It overlaps with GWR, Chiltern, LM and Cross-country to some degree but I don't really see it as a good fit in any of those franchises. EWR is going to get bi-modes apparently.

This is of course fundamentally incompatible with the idea of the Aylesbury to MK service, which stacks up far better economically if it is an extension of the Marylebone-Wycombe-Aylesbury as this gives places on the existing route a through service to MK without needing extra paths or duplicating mileage. The alternative would be to hand one of Chiltern's core services to the new operator, which makes a mess of timetabling and revenue sharing on the existing route.

I don't really see the point of bi-modes for this route, as the only electrified section of the core service is the short one between Bletchley and MK and a few hundred yards in Bedford. Could be a case of bi-modes substituting for a lack of available DMUs? There is also the short platform issue on Marston Vale, which would appear to make any unit longer than 40m very difficult on the stopping service.

 

[Andyjs247]

Bi modes don't make much sense if it is just those parts electrified. But the core EWR service was always supposed to be going beyond Oxford to Reading. Hopefully it'll be wired all the way eventually. GWR will soon have EMUs into Paddington from Didcot.

But if Oxford-Didcot wiring slips further behind you then have a solution for the local OXF-DID-RDG traffic avoiding a change. And it gives options to extend a local service under the wires elsewhere beyond MK or Bedford. E.g. Northampton or Corby.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would go so far as to say that all new DMUs should be bi-modes or at least DEMU. It wouldn't cost much more, and is an element of futureproofing both in terms of possible future electrification in the event of a policy change, easier conversion to other methods of propulsion (basically any method of generating electricity will work), and redeployment to other routes where there might be more under-wires running.

Even if running a route with one station wired, it would, say, be nice if Birmingham New St didn't contain any filthy DMU fumes while they are standing in the platform.

 

[ac6000cw]

The MOD land at Bassingbourn Barracks is ideal to be released for new homes. A parkway station at Bassingbourn would serve this new community and if enough parking was provided, it would provide the surrounding area with a fast route to the Bedford/MK area and an alternative to the Royston line to getting in and out Cambridge.

Yes (which is a plus point for a southerly route), and Bassingbourn is not well served by decent roads either at present. That said, it's so close to Royston that I would expect most London travellers to go that way due to it having direct services.

 

[HowardGWR]

I would go so far as to say that all new DMUs should be bi-modes or at least DEMU. It wouldn't cost much more, and is an element of futureproofing both in terms of possible future electrification in the event of a policy change, easier conversion to other methods of propulsion (basically any method of generating electricity will work), and redeployment to other routes where there might be more under-wires running.

Even if running a route with one station wired, it would, say, be nice if Birmingham New St didn't contain any filthy DMU fumes while they are standing in the platform.

A very sensible approach. Is a through Brum to Cambridge service planned via MK? It would definitely be much faster than via Oakham, would it not?

 

[Tobbes]

FWIW, I'd like to build a parkway interchange where EWR passes under the MML, just by the A6, and the follow the old route roughly to Sandy. At Sandy, I'd cross the ECML north of the station and then build a pair of platforms east of the ECML, before swinging east to meet the Cambridge line near Shepreth. If there were sufficient house building potential, then there could be a case for an intermediate station somewhere near Tadlow or Wendy. (EDIT: or Bassingbourne).

The only rationale I can see for a northerly route via Central Bedford and St Neots, is to approach Cambridge from the NW, along the A428 axis, with a station at the rapidly expanding Cambourne, before swinging into Cambridge on the old Huntingdon Branch alignment (replacing the busway), with a pair of platforms at Cambridge North, and with trains running through to terminate at Cambridge South/Addenbrookes. This would add a reversal at Cambridge for Ipswich/Norwich trains, however.

Exciting times.

 

[TheDavibob]

A very sensible approach. Is a through Brum to Cambridge service planned via MK? It would definitely be much faster than via Oakham, would it not?

To be fair, Brum-Cam is quicker via London at the moment. The full Brum-Stansted route is mostly useful for the intermediate connections: Cambridge-Peterborough, Peterborough-Leicester (and intermediate stops) Leicester-Brum (faster) [and the WCML connections at Nuneaton]. EWR would provide much better connections Cambridge-[various destinations] without the necessary need for a direct service, through connections at Bedford and MK (given the frequency of WCML trains at MK), so I don't think there is a *need* for an explicit Brum-Cam service.

 

[HowardGWR]

To be fair, Brum-Cam is quicker via London at the moment. The full Brum-Stansted route is mostly useful for the intermediate connections: Cambridge-Peterborough, Peterborough-Leicester (and intermediate stops) Leicester-Brum (faster) [and the WCML connections at Nuneaton]. EWR would provide much better connections Cambridge-[various destinations] without the necessary need for a direct service, through connections at Bedford and MK (given the frequency of WCML trains at MK), so I don't think there is a *need* for an explicit Brum-Cam service.

I know a lot of this discussion is available in existing E-W documentation / consultation replies, and so on, but I think that for many pax, a through service without changing is preferable to a theoretically faster 'via London' service, and could lead to more modal shift, especially to airports such as Stansted that you mention. If the catchment of Stansted is widened, it could take far more flights, so that is a strategic consideration for government. I cite the present tendency of Newcastle upon Tyne and Glasgow pax to fly from Manchester. Also, for business travellers, city centre to city centre, to not have to change is attractive, if you want to get on with your work without having to traipse across London.

Perhaps splitting and joining should be more strategically considered than it seems to be. This could take place at MK and give MK a better service north, as mentioned on another thread.

 

[TheDavibob]

I know a lot of this discussion is available in existing E-W documentation / consultation replies, and so on, but I think that for many pax, a through service without changing is preferable to a theoretically faster 'via London' service, and could lead to more modal shift, especially to airports such as Stansted that you mention. If the catchment of Stansted is widened, it could take far more flights, so that is a strategic consideration for government. I cite the present tendency of Newcastle upon Tyne and Glasgow pax to fly from Manchester. Also, for business travellers, city centre to city centre, to not have to change is attractive, if you want to get on with your work without having to traipse across London.

Perhaps splitting and joining should be more strategically considered than it seems to be. This could take place at MK and give MK a better service north, as mentioned on another thread.

Oh, I'm definitely not against the idea of such a service (in fact, I would use it several times a year were it to currently exist), I'm just not convinced it alone justifies it (if it were to eat into a WCML path). Joining at MK would certainly make a lot of sense. That said, EWR removes the need to change in London anyway (a short connection at MK is, of course, infinitely preferable to Kings Cross/Liverpool Street to Euston).

Citing Stansted, of course, reinvokes the need to reverse at Cambridge (with a southern approach), as opposed to a northern approach requiring a reversal for Ispwich/Norwich. But I agree that northern/western access for Stansted would be good for a useful little airport with spare capacity.

 

[Tobbes]

Citing Stansted, of course, reinvokes the need to reverse at Cambridge (with a southern approach), as opposed to a northern approach requiring a reversal for Ispwich/Norwich. But I agree that northern/western access for Stansted would be good for a useful little airport with spare capacity.

Another sound reason for a northerly approach into Cambridge!

 

[CdBrux]

Citing Stansted, of course, reinvokes the need to reverse at Cambridge (with a southern approach), as opposed to a northern approach requiring a reversal for Ispwich/Norwich. But I agree that northern/western access for Stansted would be good for a useful little airport with spare capacity.

I would have thought the market for EWR to Stansted was lower vs onward travel towards Ipswich and Norwich? And if an easy change can be made at Cambridge it could be OK anyway.

I think the point made about Bassingbourn is important. Cambridge is becoming constrained by the ability of people to live there or nearby. Bassingbourn offers a good solution and being on government land may well help. Indeed could there be a case to open the line just as far as Bassingbourn as a first stage and then run a shuttle into Cambridge - I suspect this would only make sense if the rest of the line to Bedford was sure to be built but it could be a way to start earning revenue a bit earlier