East West Rail - seems optimistic?

[The Planner]

They might call at Northampton I suppose if they have to go that way because crossing over to the fasts at Roade will take too much fast line capacity, but cant imagine any other calls before Stoke.

If you were going to run it semi fast you might as well keep going via Banbury and Birmingham.

Not unless it is forced on them, Northampton adds too much. Hanslope isnt that drastic to cross over at.

 

[21C101]

Not unless it is forced on them, Northampton adds too much. Hanslope isnt that drastic to cross over at.

I have a feeling it might be forced on them. The problem with Hanslope is conflicting moves between down trains and the up fast, on the other hand the London Midland Northampton fasts have already crossed over by then so maybe.

What they really ought to do if they want to Oxon - Bletchley to be a full blown intercity route is put a direct connection from the East -West line to the Down Fast at Bletchley for which there is room within the existing railway curtilage. That would eliminate the conflicting move at Hanslope.

My guess is that this fast Manchester - Bas via East West train will also be used to give MK a second fast train to Manchester so timetabled approx half an hour from the existing Eurs-Man that stops at MK. I suspect it might actually replace, rather than run as well as, the proposed Milton Keynes to Oxford/Reading train in the East West Rail plans, as it seems a bit of a pointless duplication of it. Winslow would still get two an hour (one Marylebone MK, one Oxon - Bedford)

That will be good as the path it would have used can be used to extend the Bedford - Bletchley service to MK.

 

[swt_passenger]

...I suspect it might actually replace, rather than run as well as, the proposed Milton Keynes to Oxford/Reading train in the East West Rail plans, as it seems a bit of a pointless duplication of it. Winslow would still get two an hour (one Marylebone MK, one Oxon - Bedford)

The Western route study however does shows it as being additional to the EWR services (as well as my previous point about it being additional to the existing 2tph XC through Oxford).

Depending on the exact calling pattern it would provide a 2 tph Oxford to Milton Keynes service, but perhaps with less calls than the other train, potentially only Oxford Parkway and Bletchley:

2019 Indicative Train Service Specification (ITSS) are as follows
(tph = trains per hour, each direction):
[edited to show relevant services at Oxford only]
• 1tph Bournemouth – Manchester Piccadilly
• 1tph Southampton Central or Reading – Newcastle
• 1tph Basingstoke – Manchester Piccadilly
• 1tph Reading – Bedford via East West Rail
• 1tph Reading – Milton Keynes via East West Rail

 

[Class 170101]

Not unless it is forced on them, Northampton adds too much. Hanslope isnt that drastic to cross over at.

Are there any more paths on the (fast) lines via the Weedon? I thought that was why LM had to run at 110mph otherwise it was slow lines only.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It will allow the service to be run with a 110 mph AC EMU, pending any changes to the SWML there is no capacity for an additional XC train south of Basingstoke in the timescales they are looking at for EWR.

We already know from previous RUS discussions that there is no capacity south of Basingstoke to allow the second XC service to run every hour, so it must follow that the third service cannot run either. The GW route study will be proposing services based on practicalities

Is there any reason why the 3rd train must go to Basingstoke at all? Surely Heathrow or Gatwick Airports would be much better?

Additionally would caapcity not be created for extra fast trains to pass slower passenger or freight trains by this loop at Michelever thats proposed and also grade separation at Basingstoke?

 

[21C101]

The Western route study however does shows it as being additional to the EWR services (as well as my previous point about it being additional to the existing 2tph XC through Oxford).

Depending on the exact calling pattern it would provide a 2 tph Oxford to Milton Keynes service, but perhaps with less calls than the other train, potentially only Oxford Parkway and Bletchley:

[edited to show relevant services at Oxford only]
• 1tph Bournemouth – Manchester Piccadilly
• 1tph Southampton Central or Reading – Newcastle
• 1tph Basingstoke – Manchester Piccadilly
• 1tph Reading – Bedford via East West Rail
• 1tph Reading – Milton Keynes via East West Rail

Presumably the Newcastle train will be going via Bedford and Leicester?

 

[swt_passenger]

Presumably the Newcastle train will be going via Bedford and Leicester?

No, taken in context of the whole route study it would stay on its existing route via New St; but of course the more recent Wessex study introduces the possibility of the Newcastle train being diverted to Hull - its difficult to keep up sometimes.

I forgot to mention that it is actually the Reading to Basingstoke section of the study (page 131 and 133) that defines the Basingstoke - Man Picc to be 'via East West Rail'. I can find no mention of diversion of the existing services in the Western document.

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Is there any reason why the 3rd train must go to Basingstoke at all? Surely Heathrow or Gatwick Airports would be much better?

That is an alternative option given in the route study (page 133) if they cannot run it to Basingstoke, but Basingstoke seems to be the preferred option.

Additionally would caapcity not be created for extra fast trains to pass slower passenger or freight trains by this loop at Michelever thats proposed and also grade separation at Basingstoke?

The third service seems to be a realistic proposal for 2019 (end of CP5) but the infrastructure interventions at Basingstoke and the Basingstoke loops would come later, they are pencilled in for CP6, and probably later in CP6 rather than sooner, given how long these sort of things take to plan. So that's for later, running to Basingstoke may be a transitional solution over a period of 5 years or so.

But EWR and wiring to Basingstoke are pretty real projects, especially since the wiring work was moved from 'Electric Spine' to 'Thames Valley Branches' in the last CP5 update.

Because these new 'route studies' are looking at the period up to 2043, in general there are now proposals being discussed that could happen any time up to 25 years apart, so there's a risk that these forum discussions add things together that might not even happen.

 

[The Planner]

What they really ought to do if they want to Oxon - Bletchley to be a full blown intercity route is put a direct connection from the East -West line to the Down Fast at Bletchley for which there is room within the existing railway curtilage. That would eliminate the conflicting move at Hanslope.

You would need a connection at the same speed, if not better, than Hanslope so 75mph or more or the joining train isnt necessarily going to be any easier to path. It wouldnt be cheap either.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Are there any more paths on the (fast) lines via the Weedon? I thought that was why LM had to run at 110mph otherwise it was slow lines only.

You are assuming the timetable stays the same, thats not a given.

 

[21C101]

You would need a connection at the same speed, if not better, than Hanslope so 75mph or more or the joining train isnt necessarily going to be any easier to path. It wouldnt be cheap either.

But such a connection isn't anything to do with the speed of the turnouts at Hanslope, its because down trains crossing from the down slow to the down fast at Hanslope obstruct the up fast and therefore eliminate a disproportionate number of paths.

If you put in (reinstate?) a connection from the Oxford line direct to the down fast at Bletchley, you eliminate that conflict in a stroke, and even if the turnout is 40mph it is still therefore a big improvement on crossing E-W down trains to the fast at Hanslope.

Equally a new spur could be built through the quaries from the down fast to the Oxford line flyover, enabling Down Northampton services to cross from Down Fast to Down slow there without obstructing the up fast.

The key to increasing WCML fast line capacity is to eliminate all crossover movements between the down slow and down fast that obstruct the up fast.

 

[The Planner]

Yes but you are assuming that the conflict is there in the first place. There is no reason why you cant timetable so it isnt, if we work on nothing can conflict with anything then we either build flyovers everywhere or go home. In terms of a crossing move at Hanslope it would possibly eat 1 path at headway based on a 3 before 2 after margin. The speed of the connection is also important, if you have a train going on to the down fast at 40 you wont get a 125 train behind it on headway so therefore you are eating up the capacity just as much.

As for the flyover suggestion, you have imported a conflict on the EW line and also a capacity constraint on the down fast again as the turn out will be slow and you cant follow on headway. It also assumes journey time penalties arent important on the Northampton train as that move would add a not insignificant amount of time.

The key to capacity on the down fast is everything doing the same thing at the same speed as it is on any line.

 

[Class 170101]

Whilst accepting the fact that there will be a capacity constraint calling at Bletchley on the down fast, if the train is coming from East West Rail, from the Reading direction, on a (re-instated) chord thence the down fast, the turnout speed is unlikely to be a constraint in itself unless East West Trains omit Bletchley as a calling point.

 

[The Planner]

If its an EW train going to MK you wouldnt go via the fasts and I doubt Bletchley would be a calling point on a XC.

 

[Class 170101]

If its an EW train going to MK you wouldnt go via the fasts and I doubt Bletchley would be a calling point on a XC.

Presumably though the XC service to Manchester suggested above would in your view run on the fast lines.

 

[The Planner]

Yes, via Hanslope.

 

[al green]

My local paper has just done a piece about a visit from the Transport Secretary to Milton Keynes. Link below:-

What caught my eye was this:
(My emphasis.)

My impression was that getting the Oxford to Bedford route established was the first priority, and that getting through to Cambridge was perhaps a decade away. Am I wrong?

http://www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/...ight-for-transport-in-milton-keynes-1-6446346

I was at the dinner where McLoughlin spoke. He didn't make any new announcement re EWRL. I think that the journalist has failed to understand what is meant by western section and central section. He repeated the standard line of western section by 2019, central section later.