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

[Chris125]

Yes, and probably used as a construction depot first. I did read something about a possible station on EWR but it was probably just wibble.

That's the Steeple Claydon station already mentioned, for which passive provision will be made.

 

[MK Tom]

According to Iain Stewart MP's Facebook there's going to be a discussion on the state of East West Rail in Parliament today.

 

[MarkRedon]

An interesting development, with contracts signed for an alliance approach to the design and build of phase 2 before GRIP stage 3 (now scheduled for August 2016). This should mean that the whole process is better informed by detailed engineering design. See: http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/2015/12/04/alliance-contracts-awarded-for-east-west-rail-phase-2/

An alliance of four equal parts between Network Rail, Atkins, Laing O’Rourke and VolkerRail will build East West Rail Phase 2 (EWR2) – linking Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford, and Milton Keynes with London Marylebone via Aylesbury.

The EWR2 alliance is currently working on the outline design and construction programme for the scheme.

 

[DarloRich]

An interesting development, with contracts signed for an alliance approach to the design and build of phase 2 before GRIP stage 3 (now scheduled for August 2016). This should mean that the whole process is better informed by detailed engineering design. See: http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/2015/12/04/alliance-contracts-awarded-for-east-west-rail-phase-2/

yes: that is becoming the standard approach for big projects ( see Norton Bridge) and is said to work well

 

[THC]

http://www.networkrail.co.uk/news/2015/dec/contracts-alliance-second-phase-EWR/

An alliance of four equal parts between Network Rail, Atkins, Laing O’Rourke and VolkerRail will build East-West Rail Phase 2 (EWR2) – linking Oxford, Milton Keynes and Bedford, and Milton Keynes with London Marylebone via Aylesbury.

The EWR2 alliance is currently working on the outline design and construction programme for the scheme, and currently include a new station at Winslow, two new platforms at Bletchley, 18 new overbridges, 22 new footbridges or subways and changes to 97 railway crossings.

Once the initial segment of work is complete, the EWR2 alliance will consult with the Department for Transport to agree a final design, construction timetable and costs. It aims to submit an application for a Transport & Works Act order in autumn 2016.

Obviously duplicating much of what is reported upthread in the EWR presser but the interesting extra point is the timetable for the TWAO application.

THC

 

[MarkRedon]

yes: that is becoming the standard approach for big projects ( see Norton Bridge) and is said to work well

The story as reported in Rail Technology Magazine points out that the alliance partners are indeed the same companies that are delivering the Staffordshire scheme. Their story, to be found at
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...eliver-east-west-rail-phase-2?dorewrite=false, reviews the recent history of phase 2. The writer suggests:

In his review of the CP5 enhancements portfolio, Network Rail chair Sir Peter Hendy confirmed that phase 2 of the project would only be completed in CP6. But the report said that there would be “significant delivery” in the current control period: subject to design work, he said, delivery would start as soon as possible.

Sir Peter also found that a number of assumptions – made to allow projects to proceed even in face of significant uncertainties – would impact the project’s delivery of rolling stock, planning consents and electrification.

He also cited EWR2 as a notable example of a project whose requirements and scope was still emerging and in early development stages, meaning it could still face significant challenges.

I wonder what the contract looks like when there is so much uncertainty surrounding the deliverables.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
As Jimm has pointed out on the Chiltern Oxford thread, the MP Iain Stewart secured an adjournment debate on East-West Rail last Friday. The link in the quote will take you to a Hansard Parliamentary record of that debate:

No word from Chiltern yet, but services into Oxford station are apparently not going to start now until September next year, presumably due to year another delay in commissioning new signals at Oxford.

Transport minister Robert Goodwill let the cat out of the bag in the House of Commons on Friday:

http://www.publications.parliament....151204/debtext/151204-0002.htm#15120444000903

Notable in the Minister's reply to the debate were:
1. A firm commitment to Phase 2;
2. A further delay to Oxford Parkway to Oxford itself, to September 2016;
3. Total silence concerning Bedford to Cambridge.

 

[alastair]

It's just been reported on BBC South news that Oxford-Bletchley not happening until "mid 2020's".

I do hope this is not correct?

 

[JamesT]

It's just been reported on BBC South news that Oxford-Bletchley not happening until "mid 2020's".

I do hope this is not correct?

The update published today (link in the Hendy report thread) has both Oxford to MK and the electrification pushed back to CP6 (2019-24). They are separate projects, so hopefully they'll get diesels running that route earlier rather than later.

 

[alastair]

The update published today (link in the Hendy report thread) has both Oxford to MK and the electrification pushed back to CP6 (2019-24). They are separate projects, so hopefully they'll get diesels running that route earlier rather than later.

Thanks for clarification.

 

[MarkRedon]

There's an ominous silence on the East West Rail website - no comment since the Hendry supplementary report. Some fragments of news are visible on the OBRAG Oxford to Bicester Rail Action Group website, in the minutes of their recent AGM: http://www.obrag.org.uk/648/obrag-agm-oxford-opening-delayed-again/#comments

Quoting from those minutes, recently corrected; emphases mine:

Update from Patrick O'Sullivan of the EWR Consortium:
– line will not reopen into Oxford until at least Dec 2016

Bicester - Bletchley + Aylesbury - Milton Keynes :
– TWA expected to complete in 2017, granting powers
– work will commence 2017-19
– completion now expected by 2021

– Oxford - Bletchley will still be electrified (ABW)

– service pattern awaits franchise process (remains open) BUT :
– primary new route Reading - Milton Keynes
– wide open to freight use (expected)
– wide open to routes connecting stations farther afield

EWR east of Bletchley :
– one possible corridor is fast and straight via Sandy into Cambridge
– options remain open within each potential corridor
– interconnection with other main lines depends entirely upon "business case" :
– may not include connection with ECML
– no plans to introduce connections to Luton or Stansted airport
– Network Rail (NR) now has primary responsibility for management + construction
– finance now entirely dependent upon Treasury, granting NR license to borrow

The retiring chair of the group comments that:

Patrick O’Sullivan of EWRC [has indicated that] the corridor for the EWR Central Section has not yet been decided, and the route via Sandy into Cambridge remains just one possibility being considered. Also, there has been no date set for electrification. Patrick was only able to report that it remains part of the plan.

 

[jimm]

There's an ominous silence on the East West Rail website - no comment since the Hendry supplementary report.

Why is it ominous? They presumably have to absorb what Hendy said and re-set the entire project timetable based on that, which isn't going to be a five-minute job, is it?

 

[Philip Phlopp]

Re the electrification - the route will be ready to wire immediately on completion, with just minor snagging to fix. Everything will be in the right places and all structures cleared. When it's done will, as I've said previously, depend on plant and manpower availability (or assets, as are often referred to).

 

[MarkRedon]

Why is it ominous? They presumably have to absorb what Hendy said and re-set the entire project timetable based on that, which isn't going to be a five-minute job, is it?

I find it worrying that there is even less detail in the recent Hendy supplementary report than there was in the full report. Phase 2 timescales have been "reset" for several years hence and with no detail. I fear that no spades will enter the ground in CP5. That worries me for two reasons. Firstly, there is a lack of visible commitment: we've started so we'll finish. The second concern is that: if there's a need, both "strategic" and specific to flows of real people wanting trains now - why delay?

Re the electrification - the route will be ready to wire immediately on completion, with just minor snagging to fix. Everything will be in the right places and all structures cleared. When it's done will, as I've said previously, depend on plant and manpower availability (or assets, as are often referred to).

You're giving me an answer to my second concern: there is so much to do and it can't all be done at once.

I'm aware that behind the scenes - thus almost invisibly - there's a lot of planning going on. I also appreciate that the detail may have to be hidden for a while, especially as some hard decisions will be made. These will probably include no service to Bedford Midland, no physical interconnection with the ECML and at best a Retford-style two-level station at or near Sandy.

However, at least the project is still alive and the line should eventually be electrified - good news.

 

[jimm]

I find it worrying that there is even less detail in the recent Hendy supplementary report than there was in the full report. Phase 2 timescales have been "reset" for several years hence and with no detail. I fear that no spades will enter the ground in CP5. That worries me for two reasons. Firstly, there is a lack of visible commitment: we've started so we'll finish. The second concern is that: if there's a need, both "strategic" and specific to flows of real people wanting trains now - why delay?

Exactly, with no detail. That's what they need to work on, isn't it? And it still won't be a five-minute job.

Just because there isn't anything 'visible', bar of course vegetation clearance, surveying, etc, etc doesn't mean nothing is happening - that there aren't people clad in orange running around building things is not that surprising when consultation is still taking place and there is no TWA order in place.

There may be a need for the route but where are all the people to meet that need by rebuilding the line coming from? Given all the other things going on across the network and the delays to assorted other key projects that are already in hand, East West is bound to be affected and will just have to take its place in the queue for those resources, whether you like it or not.

 

[swt_passenger]

... These will probably include no service to Bedford Midland, no physical interconnection with the ECML and at best a Retford-style two-level station at or near Sandy.

All that is way beyond phase 2 though, so surely as DfT haven't authorised any of it, then NR won't mention it either, and certainly not in their CP5 plans?

 

[petersi]

Does Bicester to Bletchley require a TWA as I thought it was a moth balled line. Or has it formally been closed

(I know some of the track was removed but I thought that was through theft not decommissioning)

 

[snowball]

Does Bicester to Bletchley require a TWA as I thought it was a moth balled line. Or has it formally been closed

(I know some of the track was removed but I thought that was through theft not decommissioning)

There's certainly been talk of a TWA Order. Some level crossings are proposed for closure - if any are replaced by bridges that will require an order. There may be other reasons I don't know about.

 

[Elecman]

There is the small matter of track laid on land not in railway ownership by error that needs regularising through a TWA

 

[HowardGWR]

There is the small matter of track laid on land not in railway ownership by error that needs regularising through a TWA

Where's that please?

 

[MarkRedon]

Exactly, with no detail. That's what they need to work on, isn't it? And it still won't be a five-minute job... There may be a need for the route but where are all the people to meet that need by rebuilding the line coming from? Given all the other things going on across the network and the delays to assorted other key projects that are already in hand, East West is bound to be affected and will just have to take its place in the queue for those resources, whether you like it or not.

I've tidied up and put my toys back in the pram! What I "like" is irrelevant. The 'strategic' case (subtext: who cares about BCRs, it's Coalition policy and helpfully parries Boris Johnson's Golden Triangle) was made by the DfT back in 2013; see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tech-connected:

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.

Once both of these lines are completed they will allow for fast direct rail services between Cambridge and Oxford for the first time in a generation.

My fear is that priority will be given to the parallel road expressway as the difficult and expensive rail line through to Cambridge gets kicked into CP7 or beyond.

 

[Andyjs247]

There's certainly been talk of a TWA Order. Some level crossings are proposed for closure - if any are replaced by bridges that will require an order. There may be other reasons I don't know about.

There's also the interface with HS2 around Calvert / Claydon. Lots of things happening including an Infrastructure Maintenance Depot for HS2 which has to tie in to EWR. And EWR is going over the top of HS2 IIRC whereas presumably the old GC mainline went over the original Oxford-Bletchley line - maybe some realignment necessary in addition to the depot and connections. And coming up from Aylesbury the parallel HS2 and EWR routes won't all fit on the GC footprint so some additional land is likely to be required along with a TWA order.

The EWR and HS2 teams will no doubt need to be working quite closely in this area. In general I think they would want to minimise the requirement to go for a TWA order and the scope for objections delays etc by doing as much as they can within existing railway boundaries - if Chiltern's recent experience is anything to go by.

There is the small matter of track laid on land not in railway ownership by error that needs regularising through a TWA

Where's that please?

I suspect it's on the mothballed section further east, but unfortunately I can't find the details.

 

[The Planner]

Most of the issues that interact with HS2 are covered by the hybrid bill and the protective provisions agreement with NR.

 

[Blamethrower]

I've tidied up and put my toys back in the pram! What I "like" is irrelevant. The 'strategic' case (subtext: who cares about BCRs, it's Coalition policy and helpfully parries Boris Johnson's Golden Triangle) was made by the DfT back in 2013; see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/tech-connected:


My fear is that priority will be given to the parallel road expressway as the difficult and expensive rail line through to Cambridge gets kicked into CP7 or beyond.

Perfect chance for the 2 parties to collaborate wouldn't you agree?

I've always advocated taking ewr through Bedford midland, round the top, join the A421 and follow it all the way to Cambridge (shadowing the new a428 expressway that links to the a421)

Potential for connecting to St Neots too

 

[Chris125]

Where's that please?

IIRC it's one of, if not both of the sections either side of Winslow - if you look at the route on Google Earth you can see the line is otherwise almost entirely straight, but there's a couple of obvious deviations presumably due to ground conditions.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Perfect chance for the 2 parties to collaborate wouldn't you agree?

I've always advocated taking ewr through Bedford midland, round the top, join the A421 and follow it all the way to Cambridge (shadowing the new a428 expressway that links to the a421)

Potential for connecting to St Neots too

More chance of a compound working into St Pancras on a scheduled service from Manchester Central.

If you look at a map, the Midland and GN main lines converge to a point on the latitude at Bedford-Sandy at about 8 miles distance, before they immediately begin to diverge again - like the waist of a 14-year-old girl.

There is a good reason for that, namely the hills that appear immediately to the north of Bedford (and they are there, though not so immediately on the GN side).

Then you've got the section from St Neots into Cambridge - that ain't exactly plains as I remember it.

Much as it would be better for passenger numbers and connectivity, unless they choose St Neots to be a second Milton Keynes, with integrated public transport from the outset, including E-W Rail (yeah, right - more compounds into St Pancras), it would cost the earth.

No, either they revive (most of) the original route to Sandy, or they go south along the Bedford-Hitchin route - which makes a mockery of calling it East-West Rail, but still, it's somehow doable. Sorry, but going north and then east from Bedford just isn't going to happen.

 

[MarkRedon]

The current East West planning has narrowed the Central Section corridors down to two in number, one via Bedford and one via Hitchin. My strong expectation is that Bedford will be served (if at all) by a station at or near St Johns in much the same way that through east – west trains will serve Milton Keynes at Bletchley high-level. (I say if at all, because a via-Hitchin route may be preferred as being the only realistic way in which to achieve any kind of ECML connection.) That is because the inter-regional emphasis of the whole scheme requires fast unobstructed routes. And if that sounds harsh, just look at how many intermediate stations are planned for HS2...

 

[Class 170101]

But presumably depending upon which Central Section routre is chosen Bedford Midland could still be served as an end of route station?

For example the route via St John's is chosen so perhaps a Reading to Bedford to Midland service could operate.
or
the Route via Hitchin could be via a reversal at Bedford Midland (even if a west to south chord near Bedford is built).

I think Bedford Midland will still see East West Rail services even once the Central Section is built as it would be too big a traffic generator and destination to ignore.

 

[Tobbes]

I'm with Mark Redon on this: though a more radical idea is to have a new parkway station where the MML crosses over EWR on the edge Bedford. Google earth suggests that there is room for it, and there's what looks like a P&R there already (proximity to the A6). This Bedford Parkway HL/LL would provide a good interchange for MML slows and semi-fasts, and plug neatly into the Bedford bus system.

It also saves reopening Bedford St Johns (Old) and allows EWR to pick the best way out of town (though I'd prefer a northerly route via Sandy and come into Cambridge from the north, with an intermediate station at Cambourne before calling at the Science Park. The railway would fit nicely on the alignment of the, er, busway, in fact.

 

[Lurpi]

The current East West planning has narrowed the Central Section corridors down to two in number, one via Bedford and one via Hitchin.

Surely you mean "one via Sandy and one via Hitchin"? They would both start at Bedford Midland.

There is the small matter of track laid on land not in railway ownership by error that needs regularising through a TWA

Where's that please?

The sections are shown in this video from about 6:30 onwards. Not all were built in error - a third section was built during the Second World War under emergency powers. That also lacks authorisation.

 

[NotATrainspott]

Would there be space for another pair of tracks to run along the eastern side of Sandy station? Instead of having a Tamworth-style cross-shaped station, the EWR line could curve around the north of Sandy and pass over the ECML before curving round to run parallel. After running past the station with a new pair of platforms, it can then curve around and head towards Shepreth, so that it would share the existing line into Cambridge at the end. This would make it similar to Nuneaton, where most traffic stays on the line it's on but it is still possible for trains to cross between them. The grade-separation of EWR and the ECML doesn't need to be perfect, as you can have trains cross the EWR tracks on the flat so long as they don't do that on the ECML. If the tracks are properly parallel through Sandy, then going between the southbound ECML and the eastbound EWR track in either direction would just involve crossing over the westbound EWR track. The switch between the northbound ECML and the westbound EWR would just require some limited extra earthworks and tracks, with the northbound ECML to EWR just needing a curve following the inside of the angle between the two lines at the EWR overbridge and the other way just needing a similar curve from the other side then curving round to rejoin the ECML.

If the line is going to be built, then it will never be rebuilt, so they may as well do it properly. Since all EWR services would call at Sandy, there would be no great harm in having some conflicting movements on its tracks if that then avoids the need for conflicting movements on the ECML. Additionally, a design like this would be able to be staged, with the line from Bedford being reopened to the new platforms at Sandy first before the link to Cambridge is built. A simpler cross-shaped scheme wouldn't be able to do this so easily, and it would also require ECML platforms to be built and ECML services to be slowed down extra.

Over in Bedford I think the best idea is to build a Bedford South at the cross between the two lines near the A421. Stopping MML services here at an extra station would be more justified than stopping ECML services at a Sandy North station because of the park and ride connection to the wider road network. The connection to the MML can be retained and simplified and St Johns station moved to wherever is most appropriate on the reopened line out to Sandy.