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

[John R]

Road schemes in this country take jut as long as rail schemes to get going. Just look at the M1/M6/A14 replacement junction - it's taken 15 years from original plans through to opening. Ridiculous situation for such a strategic junction on the road network.

In truth both the road and rail links between Oxford and Cambridge need improving,

As for £27 million pounds on the roads - it wouldn't even sort out Black Cat!

Which was remodelled on the cheap when the Great Barford Bypass was built a few years ago. So it's not only rail schemes where cheap inadequate options are adopted. The proliferation of non-hard shoulder motorways is probably the best example of that, but that's another debate, and probably not one for this particular forum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

not at all :roll: £27m buys next to nothing. It wont even give you detailed design!

The roads between MK & Oxford are poor.

Dualling the A421 and installing an MK South Bypass and Buckingham Bypass would certainly be of huge value, railway or no (the A421 traffic through MK is causing increasing problems, making it very hard to get out of certain estates in the peak, mine included, and will only get worse with further MK expansion - they must be kicking themselves for building the grade separated A5D through MK but not building an equivalent A421D and A422D). Dualling Wing-Aylesbury would be of similar value. Much of the rest of it, if you go via the A43 and M40, is then already dualled.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The proliferation of non-hard shoulder motorways is probably the best example of that, but that's another debate

Well, you brought it up I won't go deeply into it, but it isn't as clear-cut as you think for many reasons.

 

[AndyW33]

I don't believe so. Bletchley did have a north facing bay (for parcels I believe) but not south-facing. Of course it was nowhere near as busy then as now.

If you didn't want to build platforms on the flyover the easiest way would be go to (Aylesbury/Oxford)-MKC (reverse)-BLY (reverse)-Bedford - but that would be quite frustrating for passengers, I'd imagine.

Oh yes, there was a south facing bay at the back of the down fast platform, which could be accessed from the Oxford line without affecting the WCML at all, along with other trackwork in the space between the powerbox building and the down fast. This is why the powerbox was set back so far from the line when other WCML boxes of the same period butted up to the railway - when it was designed and built there were tracks in the intervening area.
Don't forget there wasn't just a service to Oxford out of the bay - there were also infrequent trains running to Buckingham and Banbury in early BR days, the usual haunt of the original Derby Lightweight single unit DMUs.
The north end bay did handle parcels, but it was primarily used for mail - vans were stabled during the day and gradually filled up with mailbags,then attached to northbound trains after the evening peak was over. Bletchley saw, in later years at least, a stop by the West Coast Postal as well.
The bay was used because there was level road access instead of having to lug everything across the bridge using the lifts.

 

[DarloRich]

Dualling the A421 and installing an MK South Bypass and Buckingham Bypass would certainly be of huge value, railway or no (the A421 traffic through MK is causing increasing problems, making it very hard to get out of certain estates in the peak, mine included, and will only get worse with further MK expansion - they must be kicking themselves for building the grade separated A5D through MK but not building an equivalent A421D and A422D). Dualling Wing-Aylesbury would be of similar value. Much of the rest of it, if you go via the A43 and M40, is then already dualled.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed!

Oh yes, there was a south facing bay at the back of the down fast platform, which could be accessed from the Oxford line without affecting the WCML at all, along with other trackwork in the space between the powerbox building and the down fast. This is why the powerbox was set back so far from the line when other WCML boxes of the same period butted up to the railway - when it was designed and built there were tracks in the intervening area.
Don't forget there wasn't just a service to Oxford out of the bay - there were also infrequent trains running to Buckingham and Banbury in early BR days, the usual haunt of the original Derby Lightweight single unit DMUs.
The north end bay did handle parcels, but it was primarily used for mail - vans were stabled during the day and gradually filled up with mailbags,then attached to northbound trains after the evening peak was over. Bletchley saw, in later years at least, a stop by the West Coast Postal as well.
The bay was used because there was level road access instead of having to lug everything across the bridge using the lifts.

thanks for the info - there are some extra details here: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=128365&highlight=marston+vale

 

[edwin_m]

I don't believe so. Bletchley did have a north facing bay (for parcels I believe) but not south-facing. Of course it was nowhere near as busy then as now.

If you didn't want to build platforms on the flyover the easiest way would be go to (Aylesbury/Oxford)-MKC (reverse)-BLY (reverse)-Bedford - but that would be quite frustrating for passengers, I'd imagine.

And also an issue for capacity, even if it doesn't touch the fast lines. Running E-W Bedford trains into MKC seems to have been ruled out for a combination of these two reasons, although I believe the trains via Aylesbury are still intended to terminate there.

 

[jimm]

And also an issue for capacity, even if it doesn't touch the fast lines. Running E-W Bedford trains into MKC seems to have been ruled out for a combination of these two reasons, although I believe the trains via Aylesbury are still intended to terminate there.

Proposed service patterns have been on the East West website for quite some time.

Basically as follows:

Reading-Oxford-Bicester-Bletchley-Bedford
Reading-Oxford-Bicester-Bletchley-MK Central
Marylebone-High Wycombe-Aylesbury-Bletchley-MK Central

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/train-services/

 

[cle]

Plus possible XC services either up the WCML (to Manchester I believe was mentioned) and then also proposed was up the MML to Corby/Nottingham/Sheffield and beyond. Lots of possibilities. I think the project was upscaled at a certain point to enable more paths for fast and freight services.

Part of it was also another semi-fast or slow Marston Vale service I thought. And a trade off for those terminating at MKC could always be running to Reading up to Northampton - if platform space at MKC is an issue. Southern is being cut back to Watford too I thought.

 

[jimm]

Plus possible XC services either up the WCML (to Manchester I believe was mentioned) and then also proposed was up the MML to Corby/Nottingham/Sheffield and beyond. Lots of possibilities. I think the project was upscaled at a certain point to enable more paths for fast and freight services.

Part of it was also another semi-fast or slow Marston Vale service I thought. And a trade off for those terminating at MKC could always be running to Reading up to Northampton - if platform space at MKC is an issue. Southern is being cut back to Watford too I thought.

There is a note on the web page I linked to saying that the route may be used by cross-country services (and freight) as well.

Platform 2A at MK Central, the south-facing bay, was built for the express purpose of providing somewhere for East West trains to turn round, rather than blocking a through platform.

 

[aylesbury]

The dualling of the Wing Aylesbury road was mentioned ,some years ago a road was proposed from Wheatley to L/Buzzard but to many groups were against it.

The most prominent objector was Lord Rothschild of Wing who did not want to see a dual carriageway passing below his house and he won.

The councils are pushing for an early start on East West so as to capitalise on the rising business activity in our region.

 

[The Planner]

They wont go to Northampton.

 

[CdBrux]

Perhaps this NIC report gives a rather closer view of the likely government position than the professional doom merchants:

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...pportunity-for-britains-silicon-valley-armitt

there is a lot in there, I get the impression for example they hint at a review of the scope even of the western section to open up more housing opportunities by integrating more with a spatial strategy, but the key summary:

Recommendations in full

Recommendation 1: Local authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships, government departments and national delivery agencies, should work together to develop an integrated strategic plan for infrastructure, housing and jobs across the corridor.
•The plan should provide a framework for cross-corridor economic and transport strategies and for strategic spatial plans which, when combined, enable a step-change in housing provision and connectivity.
•The plan should also ensure that options for funding infrastructure are fully integrated into the strategy.
•The Commission will support this process as part of the second phase of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford study.

Recommendation 2: The quality of infrastructure design and its impact on maintaining and enhancing the character of the built environment should be central to any strategic plan for the area.
•As part of the next stage of its work, the Commission will continue to work with urban planners and the design community to understand how infrastructure can enable new and expanded settlements which incorporate the highest standards of design and place making.

Recommendation 3: Local authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships, government departments and national delivery agencies, should work together to develop proposals for the joint governance arrangements required to deliver coordinated planning.
•This work should build on and strengthen existing cross-corridor collaborations and should consider the potential for formal joint governance mechanisms (e.g. joint committees, combined authorities, sub-national transport bodies, or the creation of unitary authorities). These should include consideration of future devolved powers, freedoms and financial flexibilities.
•The work should also consider the full range of delivery mechanisms capable of accelerating housing growth, including looking at the potential for new development corporations to accelerate and drive delivery.
•The Commission will support this process as part of the second phase of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford study.

Recommendation 4: The government should commit to delivering the Western Section of the East West Rail project before 2024 (the end of the rail industry’s Control Period 6).
•To achieve this, the government should bring forward £100m in funding to accelerate design and development, and commit construction monies as necessary to:
•avoid abortive cost (subject to the development process demonstrating rigorous disciplines in planning, cost management and value management)
•integrate construction of the East West Rail Western Section with work HS2.
•To fully maximise the benefits of the project local authorities should recognise the potentially transformational benefits of East West Rail and develop and agree, working with national government, an ambitious strategy for housing development and delivery around stations and station towns.
•The Commission will support this process as part of the second phase of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford study.

Recommendation 5: The government should commit up to £10m in development funding to continue work on the Central Section of the East West Rail link.
•Government should provide clear guidance that a core objective for the development of this scheme should be to support the provision of new housing and connect it to local and regional labour markets.
•Local partners and national government should work together to develop a plan for the Central Section which links development work on the East West Rail Central Section to options for local housing development. *Government should explore the potential for alternative delivery and financing mechanisms for the railway. This should include consideration of how third party contributions could be leveraged.
•The Commission will support this process as part of the second phase of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford study.

Recommendation 6: The government should commit £27m to the end of 2018/19 to fund the next phase of development work on the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway study, allowing the detailed design process to begin as soon as possible.
•Highways England should work with relevant local authorities to develop and assess the potential Expressway options and develop a proposal which maximises the scheme’s potential to unlock housing growth and connect it to local and regional labour markets, alongside delivering wider benefits.
•The Commission will support this process as part of the second phase of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford study.

Recommendation 7: In order to maximise the benefits of new strategic infrastructure and to ensure that urban centres across the corridor continue to function effectively - Local Authorities, Local Enterprise Partnerships, government departments and national delivery agencies, should work together in each centre to define a set of credible, coherent and co-owned city centre transport strategies.
•These strategies may build on existing plans, but also ensure that national and regional level schemes are properly integrated into local thinking.
•These strategies should be consistent with partners’ wider work to develop a plan for the corridor that maximises its potential to support housing growth.
•This should include realistic proposals on funding and financing and any consideration of any devolved powers, freedoms or financial flexibilities.
•The Commission will support this process as part of the second phase of the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford study.

 

[cle]

There is a note on the web page I linked to saying that the route may be used by cross-country services (and freight) as well.

Platform 2A at MK Central, the south-facing bay, was built for the express purpose of providing somewhere for East West trains to turn round, rather than blocking a through platform.

Yes, but my point was that other things may use it (LM slows, long-planned Bedford, Southern to Croydon) and so sending any of those on to Northampton might make sense.

 

[jimm]

Yes, but my point was that other things may use it (LM slows, long-planned Bedford, Southern to Croydon) and so sending any of those on to Northampton might make sense.

The bay is there for East West services and the proposed service pattern is clear enough.

About the last thing anyone is going to want to do is try to path more services up to Northampton, given how tight capacity on the WCML is already.

 

[Andyjs247]

The bay is there for East West services and the proposed service pattern is clear enough.

About the last thing anyone is going to want to do is try to path more services up to Northampton, given how tight capacity on the WCML is already.

However, interestingly the map on page 45 of the National Infrastructure Commission report does show services continuing beyond MK to Northampton and possibly Manchester...

The same map shows trains continuing beyond Oxford. Presumably to Reading although it is not labelled (Reading appears in the legend). Probably just a simple omission but I'm now wondering if EWR2 opens before Didcot-Oxford is wired whether those Didcot-Oxford shuttles could extend to Bletchley etc as an interim solution. And somewhere (I think related to the central section) I did read that Paddington via Heathrow might be on the cards as an eventual destination .

 

[jimm]

However, interestingly the map on page 45 of the National Infrastructure Commission report does show services continuing beyond MK to Northampton and possibly Manchester...

The same map shows trains continuing beyond Oxford. Presumably to Reading although it is not labelled (Reading appears in the legend). Probably just a simple omission but I'm now wondering if EWR2 opens before Didcot-Oxford is wired whether those Didcot-Oxford shuttles could extend to Bletchley etc as an interim solution. And somewhere (I think related to the central section) I did read that Paddington via Heathrow might be on the cards as an eventual destination .

Probably a reference to the proposed XC services on East West to and from Manchester.

I just can't see the demand being there for lots of people to travel Oxford-Northampton - the A43 can be pretty empty most of the time - but an hourly XC call might well suffice for any potential custom.

East West is highly unlikely to be delivered before Oxford-Didcot wires - lots of the piling has been done already and the Radley feeder station installed, with the North Oxford one to follow, so once Oxford track and resignalling is sorted out, the wiring work would be pretty straightforward.

 

[Andyjs247]

£110M funding for East West Rail and commitment to deliver Oxford to Cambridge Expressway just announced in the Autumn Statement, according to BBC.com

Sounds like the National Infrastructure Commission wish list was agreed?

 

[MikePJ]

Yeah, that's £100m towards detailed design and construction of the Bicester-Bletchley "Western Section" and £10m for the next round of design work on the Bedford-Cambridge section.

 

[TheDavibob]

What does £10 million get in terms of design work?

 

[CdBrux]

Oh yes it does, it is a smack in the face for rail as road is given preference again over rail. Oxford-Cambridge coach operators must be laughing their socks off as they can now compete on time as well as price with East-West Rail. Profit on a plate.

How does the £110 for EWR announced in todays autumn statement fit your statement of road priority vs rail?

Do you think the EWR western section (Oxford to MK & Bedford) will happen before, after or about the same time as the expressway from Oxford to MK which does seem less advanced in the planning as much as such projects can be compared?

 

[deltic08]

How does the £110 for EWR announced in todays autumn statement fit your statement of road priority vs rail?

Do you think the EWR western section (Oxford to MK & Bedford) will happen before, after or about the same time as the expressway from Oxford to MK which does seem less advanced in the planning as much as such projects can be compared?

I haven't a clue on delivery. What I do know is that the Government is more committed to connecting Oxford and Cambridge with a two lane Expressway that will reduce journey time by an hour to about 90 minutes. This will make coach travel between the two cities shorter in time than a rail journey so why bother with a rail link now so undermined that it cannot compete on time?

 

[JamesT]

I haven't a clue on delivery. What I do know is that the Government is more committed to connecting Oxford and Cambridge with a two lane Expressway that will reduce journey time by an hour to about 90 minutes. This will make coach travel between the two cities shorter in time than a rail journey so why bother with a rail link now so undermined that it cannot compete on time?

That would be a stunning reduction in time to get to 90 minutes, it's more like 3.5-4 hours for Oxford to Cambridge currently with the X5. It also has issues with service at the start and end of the day as all the X5s are based in Bedford.

EWR is looking at an hour to Bedford, and under 90 minutes for Cambridge from Oxford, so I'd be pretty confident it would beat a coach, even on a decent road.

 

[Andyjs247]

I haven't a clue on delivery. What I do know is that the Government is more committed to connecting Oxford and Cambridge with a two lane Expressway that will reduce journey time by an hour to about 90 minutes. This will make coach travel between the two cities shorter in time than a rail journey so why bother with a rail link now so undermined that it cannot compete on time?

I very much doubt coach travel will be quicker than rail. The X5 coach is already non-stop between Oxford and Bicester where the A34 and A41 is already dualled. But it still has to negotiate traffic in Oxford; if traffic is light you might do it in 25 minutes (it's still timed for 30 though). It is often rather more. From December the train will take as little as 14 minutes. Even at peak times and with a stop at Oxford Parkway.

Oxford to Cambridge by rail could be 1-1.5 hours (in 1967 the fastest time was 1hr59). An Expressway at the Oxford end is years away. It is not going to help you get through traffic into Oxford city. The X5 Oxford to Cambridge time is 3hr 35 - if it doesn't stop anywhere you might get it down to 2hrs eventually but it is not going to compete with a 100mph railway.

 

[MikePJ]

The rail project is definitely further advanced than the road. £27m was announced for a road design study into the whole Cambridge-Oxford corridor (~80 miles), whereas we're now promised £10m for a design study into the rail route between Cambridge and Bedford (30 miles). Also, I suspect the local opposition to a new road in Buckinghamshire will be strong, even though it provides a lot of benefits locally, because it means cutting a whole new route through the countryside.

Having lived in both cities (currently in Cambridge) I think we need both road and rail connections. The rail route supports faster passenger journeys, the road to support multipoint freight journeys. Even with a new road, the coach route is unlikely to compete on speed with the train - it spends far too long getting in and out of town centres en route. Oxford has two train operators and two coach operators on routes to London - it doesn't have to be either-or.

 

[edwin_m]

Paddington via Heathrow might be on the cards as an eventual destination .

Heathrow via the Western Access looks like a good fit, but extending into Paddington looks to me like waste of a path for what is probably a short train and doesn't create any through journey opportunities.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I very much doubt coach travel will be quicker than rail. The X5 coach is already non-stop between Oxford and Bicester where the A34 and A41 is already dualled. But it still has to negotiate traffic in Oxford; if traffic is light you might do it in 25 minutes (it's still timed for 30 though). It is often rather more. From December the train will take as little as 14 minutes. Even at peak times and with a stop at Oxford Parkway.

Oxford to Cambridge by rail could be 1-1.5 hours (in 1967 the fastest time was 1hr59). An Expressway at the Oxford end is years away. It is not going to help you get through traffic into Oxford city. The X5 Oxford to Cambridge time is 3hr 35 - if it doesn't stop anywhere you might get it down to 2hrs eventually but it is not going to compete with a 100mph railway.

Yep. Exactly.

You also have to look at where the bus stops along the way. The diversions into Bicester town centre, Buckingham, Central MK etc. each add a good few minutes. The only way you'll get a time even rivalling that of a railway is if you withdraw these and stop only on along the fastest route, and I would be amazed if Stagecoach chose to do this and thereby remove much of the X5's point-to-point traffic.

 

[DarloRich]

What does £10 million get in terms of design work?

special crayons and some paper

I haven't a clue on delivery. What I do know is that the Government is more committed to connecting Oxford and Cambridge with a two lane Expressway that will reduce journey time by an hour to about 90 minutes. This will make coach travel between the two cities shorter in time than a rail journey so why bother with a rail link now so undermined that it cannot compete on time?

A coach wont be quicker than the train. The bus has to run into each town along the way and getting in and out of those towns will eat up lots of time. It also doesn't run by the most direct route at present.

A super new road will make the journey quicker ( obviously) but will still mean the bus competes on price not speed

 

[deltic08]

I very much doubt coach travel will be quicker than rail. The X5 coach is already non-stop between Oxford and Bicester where the A34 and A41 is already dualled. But it still has to negotiate traffic in Oxford; if traffic is light you might do it in 25 minutes (it's still timed for 30 though). It is often rather more. From December the train will take as little as 14 minutes. Even at peak times and with a stop at Oxford Parkway.

Oxford to Cambridge by rail could be 1-1.5 hours (in 1967 the fastest time was 1hr59). An Expressway at the Oxford end is years away. It is not going to help you get through traffic into Oxford city. The X5 Oxford to Cambridge time is 3hr 35 - if it doesn't stop anywhere you might get it down to 2hrs eventually but it is not going to compete with a 100mph railway.

I was just equating 3 hours 20 minutes for 180 miles from Leeds to Golders Green non stop by coach with 80 miles from Oxford to Cambridge non stop on an Expressway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A coach wont be quicker than the train. The bus has to run into each town along the way and getting in and out of those towns will eat up lots of time. It also doesn't run by the most direct route at present.

A super new road will make the journey quicker ( obviously) but will still mean the bus competes on price not speed

There will be enough passengers for a non-stop service between both varsity cities in under two hours. Coach operators will see to that by tempting fares.

 

[DarloRich]

There will be enough passengers for a non-stop service between both varsity cities in under two hours. Coach operators will see to that by tempting fares.

Stagecoach don't do that now even with a monopoly on the X5 route. They serve all kinds of places between the two cities. A large number of passengers head to Bicester Village.

In any event they will still want to serve MK having a higher population than both Cambridge and Oxford. The journey from the A421 into the centre and out again eats up quite a lot of time.

I would suggest they would also want to serve Bedford as there is a a market for travel between there and MK that they could compete on speed with the train.

 

[CockneySparrow]

The Bletchley-Bicester link is likely to reopen eventually, creating a useful through route from Oxford to Bedford, linking the GW/West Coast/Midland main lines. However, the announcement of this road enhancement probably kicks any possible new line from Bedford to Cambridge, which would be very expensive to build and of limited benefit, into the long grass.

Couldn't agree more, although there is £10m to look at options I personally can't see anything coming of it, some of the original trackbed is built on although the best option people talk about is linking Bedford with the ECML, but whether it can get out of Bedford is another matter
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Stagecoach don't do that now even with a monopoly on the X5 route. They serve all kinds of places between the two cities. A large number of passengers head to Bicester Village.

In any event they will still want to serve MK having a higher population than both Cambridge and Oxford. The journey from the A421 into the centre and out again eats up quite a lot of time.

I would suggest they would also want to serve Bedford as there is a a market for travel between there and MK that they could compete on speed with the train.

Completely different ball game the bus vs train, the bus will still get passengers from the small villages on route to the next big city that's the market the bus is in, where the train will probably either run non stop between cities or use stations at large populated towns

 

[muddythefish]

Couldn't agree more, although there is £10m to look at options I personally can't see anything coming of it, some of the original trackbed is built on although the best option people talk about is linking Bedford with the ECML, but whether it can get out of Bedford is another matter

If there is perceived demand for an Oxford - Cambridge "Expressway" the same is true of the railway - only even more so because the railway will provide a much needed east-west link from the old WR to the old ER that was lost in the Beeching years. Agree it's unlikely to happen because of Treasury/govt inate bias towards roads - building a new road on greenfield land is apparently so much easier than a railway line.