East-West Rail link

[plastictaffy]

It's all been very quiet on this subject for a while. I noticed today, however that the (NR presumably) engineers have been looking at Bletchley flyover, as there are engineery looking scribbles on it, with two cracks in the bottom of the pillar circled. What's the latest??

 

[swt_passenger]

Do you mean lack of physical activity on the project? If on the other hand you mean discussions in the forum there have been a few related to EWR and Bletchley just in the last month...

 

[ironstone11]

Do you mean lack of physical activity on the project? If on the other hand you mean discussions in the forum there have been a few related to EWR and Bletchley just in the last month...

See for example:- http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=1640513&postcount=21

 

[gordonthemoron]

I saw an engineering train on the flyover last year or early this

 

[MK Tom]

It's not terribly unusual to see trains on the flyover. NR inspection trains go over there from time to time and it's used for reversing trains too. You might even catch a 150+153 3-car set on there en route to/from Birmingham if you're very lucky.

The original timetable said true groundwork would start in 2014 for a December 2017 opening. Don't know if that's still the case.

 

[8H]

Further progress on the "East End" it seems


https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tech-connected

 

[joeykins82]

Interesting, with confirmation of Oxford-Bletchley electrification complete by the end of 2017 as well!

 

[HowardGWR]

Interesting, with confirmation of Oxford-Bletchley electrification complete by the end of 2017 as well!

It says:
"As part of this support the DfT is developing proposals for the construction of a new railway line from Bedford to Cambridge. This would build on the ongoing work on the East-West Rail project and complete the London-Cambridge-Oxford tech triangle."

So that's 'a new railway' and thus one assumes not a cobbling together of bits of the ECML, for instance? I wonder.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interesting, with confirmation of Oxford-Bletchley electrification complete by the end of 2017 as well!

Where does it say that?
Network Rail has not committed to any date for East-West Rail or electrification.
They will be lucky to open it by 2019.

 

[joeykins82]

Where does it say that?
Network Rail has not committed to any date for East-West Rail or electrification.
They will be lucky to open it by 2019.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/263864/tech-connected.pdf
Last page

The western section of East-West Rail will re-instate direct services between Oxford and Milton Keynes/ Bedford via Bletchley. Fast electrified services will serve brand new and redeveloped stations from 2017.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Interesting document. I have my doubts about the date.
Wiring Paddington to Oxford by 2016 will be hard enough.
NR are due to update their milestones in January.

 

[The Ham]

Interesting document. I have my doubts about the date.
Wiring Paddington to Oxford by 2016 will be hard enough.
NR are due to update their milestones in January.

However building a new line with electrification is a lot easier than wiring up an existing line (i.e. no trains to deal with so it is day time working rather than night time working and no need to tidy away everything for the first train of the morning). It also means that some of the "electrification" work can be done by none electrification contractors (i.e. foundations can be done by any contractor). All of which meaning that the wiring crews can get a lot more done in a shorter timeframe.

With regards the the rest of the line it has been built before, so a lot of the work (which isn't just putting the track in place) is ensuring that the engineering which is still there (bridges, embankments, cuttings, etc.) is still good to use. It also means that there is a lot less fiddly work which relies on other organisations (i.e. little need for new road bridges) which reduces the risk of delays.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

How will this line work with stopping at Bletchley, will they have to build high level platforms, will services also call at MKC and reverse or split to serve that station, are the plans to run trains from Oxford the Cambridge as before via Bedford. I think I saw that Aylesbury may also be included?

 

[MarkyT]

How will this line work with stopping at Bletchley, will they have to build high level platforms, will services also call at MKC and reverse or split to serve that station, are the plans to run trains from Oxford the Cambridge as before via Bedford. I think I saw that Aylesbury may also be included?

I think new high level side platforms will be provided at Bletchley on the retained embankment immediately to the north of the flyover bridge, where the Bedford/MK junction is now. The junction itself will be replaced at the north end of the new platforms, with levels and gradients adjusted to suit.

 

[Trog]

I think new high level side platforms will be provided at Bletchley on the retained embankment immediately to the north of the flyover bridge, where the Bedford/MK junction is now. The junction itself will be replaced at the north end of the new platforms, with levels and gradients adjusted to suit.

Is that possible as the two lines diverge quite sharply in line and level? Keeping them together for the length of a platform then returning them to the existing level in time for them to go over the nearby under bridges would result in a roller coaster.

 

[ironstone11]

Is that possible as the two lines diverge quite sharply in line and level? Keeping them together for the length of a platform then returning them to the existing level in time for them to go over the nearby under bridges would result in a roller coaster.

Looking at Google maps and street view I would say it was possible to get at least a 200 metre elevated platform without changing the radius of the curve towards Bedford very much.
The levels should be OK. There is only one bridge, rail over road on the curve towards Bedford - this looks OK, although I am not sure if it is double track width.
The other bridge on the curve towards MK is rail over rail and will be at the correct height anyway.

 

[HowardGWR]

Looking at Google maps and street view I would say it was possible to get at least a 200 metre elevated platform without changing the radius of the curve towards Bedford very much.
The levels should be OK. There is only one bridge, rail over road on the curve towards Bedford - this looks OK, although I am not sure if it is double track width.
The other bridge on the curve towards MK is rail over rail and will be at the correct height anyway.

If some of you look back through the thread, all this has been explained previously, including photographs!!

There may have been two threads, one was to do with an ex-platform at Betchley, so perhaps it's all there - mods help please?

 

[MarkyT]

Looking at Google maps and street view I would say it was possible to get at least a 200 metre elevated platform without changing the radius of the curve towards Bedford very much.
The levels should be OK. There is only one bridge, rail over road on the curve towards Bedford - this looks OK, although I am not sure if it is double track width.
The other bridge on the curve towards MK is rail over rail and will be at the correct height anyway.

I agree with that. Here's a photo illustrating the area in question

http://www.rail.co.uk/images/2112/original/3-bletchley-flyover-by-phil-marsh.jpg

The photographer is standing near the northern extremity of the flyover bridge looking north. The existing junction switch tips are situated exactly at the bridge transition to a retained embankment with the same design of side parapet. The image suggests the junction is on a plane already descending towards Bedford and the MK line actually rises again a little after the junction to pass over further tracks en route.

 

[ironstone11]

If some of you look back through the thread, all this has been explained previously, including photographs!!
There may have been two threads, one was to do with an ex-platform at Betchley, so perhaps it's all there - mods help please?

Yes, you are right. This thread should be merged with Bletchley & E-W Rail.
The plan of the proposed high level station is on Page 1 #6.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

There is a very interesting article about this subject in Rail Technology Magazine this week.

 

[Trog]

I agree with that. Here's a photo illustrating the area in question

http://www.rail.co.uk/images/2112/original/3-bletchley-flyover-by-phil-marsh.jpg

The photographer is standing near the northern extremity of the flyover bridge looking north. The existing junction switch tips are situated exactly at the bridge transition to a retained embankment with the same design of side parapet. The image suggests the junction is on a plane already descending towards Bedford and the MK line actually rises again a little after the junction to pass over further tracks en route.

The photo is not the product of a telephoto lens the lines really do separate in line and level as shown So if you put a platform in you are going to be well down the straight before you can install a replacement double junction for the Milton Keynes line. You then have to get up to and over the intersection bridge with the BBM branch (current gradient 1 in 130). The parapet of which can be seen where the line to Denbigh Hall South crosses the edge of the photo.

The line to Fenny Stratford is falling all the time at 1 in 123, so to get over that bridge at the same angle and level as now you are talking about an S bend on a sharp gradient. If you lift the lines to Fenny to reduce this you then will probably need to rebuild the retaining wall on the right, and the Fenny lines will need the gradient steepening to bring them down to the level of the first under bridge which is not far out of sight. The ruling gradient on the south end of the WCML is about 1 in 330, with a 1 in 142 on the Oxford line through Swanbourne. One of the uses of the E-W route is supposed to be freight, restricting loadings with a steep gradient on the tight curve is not a good plan.

Apart from the need to provide shelter from the wind as it would be a bit exposed. I think the other side of the double junction is a better place for a station, with the platforms either side of the existing flyover. Either cantilevered out from the existing structure or self standing. You could then run a ramp from the north end of the new Down platform to the end of the existing Bletchley foot bridge, gaining access to the Up platform by going under the flyover, so saving the cost of building a subway. If this was done with ramps you could then avoid the costs of fitting and running lifts.

 

[swt_passenger]

Apart from the need to provide shelter from the wind as it would be a bit exposed. I think the other side of the double junction is a better place for a station, with the platforms either side of the existing flyover. Either cantilevered out from the existing structure or self standing. You could then run a ramp from the north end of the new Down platform to the end of the existing Bletchley foot bridge, gaining access to the Up platform by going under the flyover, so saving the cost of building a subway. If this was done with ramps you could then avoid the costs of fitting and running lifts.

Nevertheless the earlier Grip 4 study linked to in the earlier thread has the platforms starting at the present junction and heading to the north, with all the necessary lifts, stairs and footbridges that entails. It must be assumed (from other diagrams in that report) that they will re-site the junction.

 

[MarkyT]

Nevertheless the earlier Grip 4 study linked to in the earlier thread has the platforms starting at the present junction and heading to the north, with all the necessary lifts, stairs and footbridges that entails. It must be assumed (from other diagrams in that report) that they will re-site the junction.

A four platform station tucked tightly into the V of a double junction might at first sight seem to provide more capacity than a two platform design on the 'common' side, but signal overlaps for trains approaching in the merging direction usually lock up the junction in the four platfrom design meaning there is actually more conflict and delay potential in most typical operational scenarios. The signals protecting the junction can be moved back from the junction to provide a restricted overlap for warning approach, but that means the platforms move back from the junction as well, and in the Bletchley high level example a greater length of the embankment could be affected by changes to levels and longer more expensive walkways and ramps may be required. Whlst I take Trog's point that a key purpose of the reopened route is to carry freight, improved performance of modern traction compared to that existing at the time of the flyover's construction could allow short lengths of more adverse gradient than the general ruling figure, especially where those lengths are shorter than the trains themselves, so only a proportion of the trains length and thus weight can ever be on the steeper part.

 

[MK Tom]

I'm getting serious deja vu reading this thread. We virtually had this conversation word-for-word in another thread last week.

 

[ironstone11]

Nevertheless the earlier Grip 4 study linked to in the earlier thread has the platforms starting at the present junction and heading to the north, with all the necessary lifts, stairs and footbridges that entails. It must be assumed (from other diagrams in that report) that they will re-site the junction.

There is a YouTube video taken from the cab of a train going over the flyover in both directions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTs_MNELWdw
It looks to me as though moving the junction and raising the trackbed for a short distance towards Bedford would not be too much of a problem.

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm getting serious deja vu reading this thread. We virtually had this conversation word-for-word in another thread last week.

Well it seems to be almost impossible to get people to transfer back to existing threads, other than by using what I always think is the heavy handed approach of 'reporting' the original post.

Don't know what the easy answer is to be honest.

 

[ironstone11]

Well it seems to be almost impossible to get people to transfer back to existing threads, other than by using what I always think is the heavy handed approach of 'reporting' the original post.

Don't know what the easy answer is to be honest.

Is it not possible to merge threads?
Or is it possible to stop this thread and provide a link to the original thread?

 

[al green]

The line to Fenny Stratford is falling all the time at 1 in 123, so to get over that bridge at the same angle and level as now you are talking about an S bend on a sharp gradient. If you lift the lines to Fenny to reduce this you then will probably need to rebuild the retaining wall on the right, and the Fenny lines will need the gradient steepening to bring them down to the level of the first under bridge which is not far out of sight.

Why? Its an under bridge. Simply raise the level of the track on the bridge by maybe 0.5m and the parapets accordingly. The first over bridge, which might constrain the gradient, is over 1000 metres from Flyover jn.

 

[STEVIEBOY1]

There is a YouTube video taken from the cab of a train going over the flyover in both directions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTs_MNELWdw
It looks to me as though moving the junction and raising the trackbed for a short distance towards Bedford would not be too much of a problem.

That Video is very interesting. The track looks in very good condition.

Rebuilding that whole line from Oxford/Aylesbury to Bletchley should be quite easy as much of the track is already there and partly used either by passenger trains to Bicester and freight/rubbish trains to Calvert either via Oxford or Aylesbury and the odd special charter.

I went on a Hastings Diesel trip there about 3 years ago to Quainton & Beyond. I think there is just a short section with no track beyond the junction near the tip and towards Bletchley.

I understand that there was a lot of waste traffic going there in recent years when they were clearing out the cutting on the Bluebell Line.

 

[The Planner]

It isnt a case of an easy rebuild, the track will need complete replacement with removal of level crossings, new signalling etc... it has basically been left to rot in the last 20-30 years and is no way fit for a fast passenger service.