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

[Domh245]

Deliberately taking the opposite position to help the discussion along...

Presumably EWR electrification would be an off-line project (i.e. no active railway), so surely this would be much cheaper*, and significantly move the business case

*How much cheaper? Anybody know/want to speculate?

Material costs and design would all be the same, but labour and plant hire would be cheaper (in addition to a lack of payments that would have to be made in the event of possesion overruns/ issues that prevent trains running following works). I can't see any such breakdown, but I imagine costs wouldn't come down by vast amounts - I would have thought fixed costs (materials, grid access, etc) would be the largest cost by an order of magnitude.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

E-W Rail is now a project outside Network Rail, reporting directly to the DfT.
I'd expect the new team will be looking at all options to get the line up and running.
Hopefully they will include electrification from the start (to Bletchley initially, for through running to the WCML).
It will be much easier to put the wires up before trains start running.
The "electric spine" won't be part of the scope any more, which downgrades wiring prospects east of Bletchley.

 

[snowball]

Material costs and design would all be the same, but labour and plant hire would be cheaper (in addition to a lack of payments that would have to be made in the event of possesion overruns/ issues that prevent trains running following works). I can't see any such breakdown, but I imagine costs wouldn't come down by vast amounts - I would have thought fixed costs (materials, grid access, etc) would be the largest cost by an order of magnitude.

There would be no time wasted setting up and closing down possessions, which I gather is a huge element elsewhere, and all work could be done in the daytime.

 

[The Planner]

You can bet your house on it not being wired from the start.

 

[edwin_m]

Much of the cost escalation on NR electrifications would appear to be down to things like unexpected cables and changes to standards. One would hope that EWR, being effectively built from scratch, would have all its cables in known positions and all structures brought up to standard for future electrification (assuming the standards don't change again...).

 

[work-traveller]

You can bet your house on it not being wired from the start.

Quite - you can expect to see EWR brought into service with no electrification and minimal passive provision.

 

[paul1609]

Much of the cost escalation on NR electrifications would appear to be down to things like unexpected cables and changes to standards. One would hope that EWR, being effectively built from scratch, would have all its cables in known positions and all structures brought up to standard for future electrification (assuming the standards don't change again...).

I think the changes in standards is frankly a lame excuse for poor project management. I can see it being responsible in an extreme case of say 50% over budget, 500% is frankly just sheer incompetence and would have bankrupted any normal organisation.

 

[work-traveller]

From what I saw, and was told by one of the Bucks railway Centre Staff, the first part of this route (Aylesbury to Calvert Junction) may be operational by early 2018. Does anyone have any more info. about this scheme?

EWR doesn't start construction work until autumn 2018. OXD expected to be commissioned in 2022, including MCJ4/3 as far south as the works authorised by the Greatmoor Sidings TWAO.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Quite - you can expect to see EWR brought into service with no electrification and minimal passive provision.

To me, building a new diesel line in 2017 is absolutely nuts, unless (like the Borders line) almost everything else there is diesel too.

 

[deltic]

Quite - you can expect to see EWR brought into service with no electrification and minimal passive provision.

And the chances of it ever getting to Cambridge are virtually zero in the next 20 years

 

[Andyjs247]

And the chances of it ever getting to Cambridge are virtually zero in the next 20 years

I disagree. I'd say the railway has rather more chance of getting to Cambridge than the Expressway road has of reaching Oxford!

 

[Andyjs247]

EWR doesn't start construction work until autumn 2018. OXD expected to be commissioned in 2022, including MCJ4/3 as far south as the works authorised by the Greatmoor Sidings TWAO.

Are you sure it is EWR that is starting construction so soon? I understood it was technically the works for HS2 around the 'Calvert Box' area that would begin, but early in 2018 rather than autumn. These works for HS2 are already authorised by Parliament, royal assent having been given in February. The EWR TWAO will be rather later.

By the way does anyone have up to date information on phasing of the works so that access to Calvert waste site can be maintained?

 

[Bald Rick]

And the chances of it ever getting to Cambridge are virtually zero in the next 20 years

I disagree. I'd say the railway has rather more chance of getting to Cambridge than the Expressway road has of reaching Oxford!

Agree that the railway has more chance than the expressway. However that doesn't make the deltic's statement wrong!

 

[edwin_m]

Are you sure it is EWR that is starting construction so soon? I understood it was technically the works for HS2 around the 'Calvert Box' area that would begin, but early in 2018 rather than autumn. These works for HS2 are already authorised by Parliament, royal assent having been given in February. The EWR TWAO will be rather later.

By the way does anyone have up to date information on phasing of the works so that access to Calvert waste site can be maintained?

Calvert will also be a railhead for HS2 construction so having them sever access to it would be rather like sawing off the branch they are sitting on.

 

[The Planner]

Are you sure it is EWR that is starting construction so soon? I understood it was technically the works for HS2 around the 'Calvert Box' area that would begin, but early in 2018 rather than autumn. These works for HS2 are already authorised by Parliament, royal assent having been given in February. The EWR TWAO will be rather later.

By the way does anyone have up to date information on phasing of the works so that access to Calvert waste site can be maintained?

Different TWAO, FCC have to move down to the incinerator as HS2 destroys their current site. Bicester Claydon is blocked first then from the new FCC down to Aylesbury Vale Parkway.

 

[jimm]

I disagree. I'd say the railway has rather more chance of getting to Cambridge than the Expressway road has of reaching Oxford!

Both projects are rather more long-term than short-term.

Even on the DfT's own forecasts, the MK-Aylesbury-M40-Abingdon Expressway route - apparently the favoured option - isn't targeted to be open until 2031.

That's the best part of another 15 years without any relief for the A34 around Oxford and whatever one thinks about building more roads, that's a pretty grim prospect, given how busy that road already is.

 

[Southcombe]

I've been re-reading some of these posts, but am still not sure what is meant by TWAO and FCC in this context. The latter is presumably the organisation which runs the Calvert Wate Facility, right?

 

[absolutelymilk]

I've been re-reading some of these posts, but am still not sure what is meant by TWAO and FCC in this context. The latter is presumably the organisation which runs the Calvert Wate Facility, right?

I believe TWAO is Transport and Works Act Order.

 

[work-traveller]

Are you sure it is EWR that is starting construction so soon? I understood it was technically the works for HS2 around the 'Calvert Box' area that would begin, but early in 2018 rather than autumn. These works for HS2 are already authorised by Parliament, royal assent having been given in February. The EWR TWAO will be rather later.

By the way does anyone have up to date information on phasing of the works so that access to Calvert waste site can be maintained?

I was referring to the OXD works delivered by EWR (Bicester to Bletchley, excl. Calvert Box - not yet authorised), rather than the OXD works delivered by HS2 (Calvert Box - authorised). Any rail access to the Steeple Claydon IMD before 2022 (when OXD comes into passenger service) would be via MCJ. From 2022 it can be from the re-opened OXD.

This report proposes a staging of the works. Looks to be pre-Greatmoor Railway Sidings TWAO however, which relocates the FCC sidings from their current location to further south by the new incinerator plant.

 

[swt_passenger]

I was referring to the OXD works delivered by EWR (Bicester to Bletchley, excl. Calvert Box - not yet authorised), rather than the OXD works delivered by HS2 (Calvert Box - authorised). Any rail access to the Steeple Claydon IMD before 2022 (when OXD comes into passenger service) would be via MCJ. From 2022 it can be from the re-opened OXD.

Any chance of explaining OXD and MCJ too please? It really helps to spell things out on their first appearance if they are not immediately obvious from the context.

 

[work-traveller]

Any chance of explaining OXD and MCJ too please? It really helps to spell things out on their first appearance if they are not immediately obvious from the context.

OXD - Oxford to Denbigh Hall. In practice, for EWR2 this means from Bicester (Gavry Junction) to the west end of Bletchley Flyover.

MCJ - Marylebone to Claydon Junction. In practice, for EWR2 this means from Aylesbury to Claydon Junction. MCJ is actually subdivided into MCJ1/2/3/4.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

OXD - Oxford to Denbigh Hall. In practice, for EWR2 this means from Bicester (Gavray Junction) to the west end of Bletchley Flyover.
MCJ - Marylebone to Claydon Junction. In practice, for EWR2 this means from Aylesbury to Claydon Junction. MCJ is actually subdivided into MCJ1/2/3/4.

Presumably these are the ELRs (Engineer's Line References) for the EWR routes.
It's unclear to me how this work will be delivered, now the project is outside NR control.
Is the funding even agreed?

 

[work-traveller]

Presumably these are the ELRs (Engineer's Line References) for the EWR routes.
It's unclear to me how this work will be delivered, now the project is outside NR control.
Is the funding even agreed?

NR is one of the 'partners' in the 'EWR Alliance' delivery organisation. In practice I suspect it won't make terribly much difference. Instead of the capital funding coming from the NR Control Period 5 or 6 budget, it's coming directly from the DfT. Whilst 'EWR Ltd' (not to be confused with EWR Alliance or EWR Consortium) may or may not be set as the formal client, the money will still be coming from the DfT. In all other respects, I think the project is delivered like any other large NR scheme - and very much like the recent 'Stafford Alliance'.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The most recent NR enhancements milestone report (June) said that GRIP 3 for this project (and the attached electrification) would be reached in July.
You'd expect this to lead to a realistic scope/cost for the project.
Do we know if this was achieved?

 

[The Planner]

No, for reasons that will probably eventually filter out but no fault of the project.

 

[swt_passenger]

OXD - Oxford to Denbigh Hall. In practice, for EWR2 this means from Bicester (Gavry Junction) to the west end of Bletchley Flyover.

MCJ - Marylebone to Claydon Junction. In practice, for EWR2 this means from Aylesbury to Claydon Junction. MCJ is actually subdivided into MCJ1/2/3/4.

Thanks for that detail...

 

[Tobbes]

No, for reasons that will probably eventually filter out but no fault of the project.

Do you have a feel for when this is likely to be achieved?

 

[KingDaveRa]

NR is one of the 'partners' in the 'EWR Alliance' delivery organisation. In practice I suspect it won't make terribly much difference. Instead of the capital funding coming from the NR Control Period 5 or 6 budget, it's coming directly from the DfT. Whilst 'EWR Ltd' (not to be confused with EWR Alliance or EWR Consortium) may or may not be set as the formal client, the money will still be coming from the DfT. In all other respects, I think the project is delivered like any other large NR scheme - and very much like the recent 'Stafford Alliance'.

Having looked at Companies House, I'm none the wiser over why EWR Ltd exists, but if I had to guess I'd assume that at the end of the project, EWR Ltd and its assets can be sold onto the eventual franchise owner/operator far easier than having to effectively privatise it if it was part of the DfT. I think HS2 is being done the same way.

 

[swt_passenger]

Having looked at Companies House, I'm none the wiser over why EWR Ltd exists, but if I had to guess I'd assume that at the end of the project, EWR Ltd and its assets can be sold onto the eventual franchise owner/operator far easier than having to effectively privatise it if it was part of the DfT. I think HS2 is being done the same way.

In this case, Network Rail already own the existing (mothballed) railway between Claydon Junction and Bletchley. I wonder if they could recover some of their costs on the project so far by selling it to EWR Ltd? Should raise a fair sum given its potential...

 

[MarkRedon]

The National Infrastructure commission, the NIC, has published its final report into what it calls “Partnering for Prosperity: a new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford Arc”. The report is available at: https://www.nic.org.uk/publications...-new-deal-cambridge-milton-keynes-oxford-arc/, published 17/11/2017.

The report calls for major infrastructure investment, costing an estimated £7 billion in all, to support up to 1 million new homes along the arc. The report also has major recommendations to make on the parallel Oxford Cambridge Expressway road project and the governance changes which are also necessary if the development envisaged is to be completed in timescales which are extremely ambitious. In a summary of the aspects of the report I am concentrating on the railway-related issues.

The report calls for very early progress on the East West rail project. It seeks services on the phase 2 railway between Bletchley and Bedford by 2023 and between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury – and onwards into London – about two years later.

The report clarifies what it sees as the purpose of progressing the East West Rail project as an inter-urban commuter railway – limiting the number of stations in order to safeguard commuting times. It is intended to permit larger scale development around a smaller number of transport hubs and interchanges. It calls upon the government to commit £1bn to deliver the infrastructure necessary for a high quality and resilient rail commuter service between Bicester and Bedford. It wants to see accelerated delivery of this section of East West Rail by a target date of 2023. It then wants accelerated work on the development of the new East West Rail line between Bedford and Cambridge, where it calls upon the government to commit to open the line by 2030.

The report notes that East West Rail proposals include services between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury, via an upgrade of an existing freight line. Some changes to existing services and infrastructure could enable services to continue from East West Rail, via Aylesbury and into central London on the Chiltern line. Improvements could unlock major growth opportunities in the arc between Bicester and Bletchley, and enable faster journeys between London and Aylesbury.

One of its recommendations is therefore that Government should seek to introduce fast, direct services to London to enable growth in the arc between Bicester and Bletchley and improve connectivity between London and Aylesbury. Any such improvements should be contingent on local authorities’ commitment to major development between Bicester and Bletchley and around existing settlements.

The report goes on to note that while East West Rail will unlock major settlement opportunities across the arc, targeted rail investments can play a key role in unlocking and accelerating local housing development in the short term. Small scale interventions, aligned to wider plans for East West Rail, could reduce stress on the existing rail network enabling immediate opportunities for growth. The report does not clarify what these investments might be.

A surprising recommendation is for essential works required to enable passenger services between Oxford and Cowley no later than 2019; and l the acceleration of East West Rail phase 3 works around south Cambridge to enable the delivery of a Cambridge South station in 2022 as part of Control Period 6.

The proposal for phase 2 of East West Rail involves connecting Bicester and Bedford, utilising the existing Marston Vale line between Bletchley and Bedford as part of this scheme. Phase 3 involves a wholly new line between Bedford and Cambridge. The report is explicit in saying that

“Taken together, this is essentially the re -establishment of the old ‘Varsity line’ that was closed in 1967, albeit with a new route for phase 3 and a number of stations different to those of the previous railway.”

The report notes that

“the original track bed for phase 2 of East West Rail remains mostly intact, and there appears little benefit in deviating in any major way from this route. Doing so would not only create unnecessary blight, but also significantly slow the delivery of the infrastructure. This is a factor of particular importance due to the interface with the route of High Speed 2 at Calvert, where there would be a six year delay to East West Rail if works to enable the crossing of the HS2 route are not complete before HS2 takes possession of the land for construction of their maintenance depot and track works. The imperative for speed is essential and therefore it is encouraging to see that proposals for a special purpose vehicle to design and deliver East West Rail at pace are already being considered.”

The report puts a very heavy emphasis on the value that East West Rail can unlock by means of its ability to connect communities with centres of employment. Further, it holds, it can play a vital role in unlocking land for development. For this reason, it thinks that the railway must be designed not so much to improve end-to-end journey times - the emphasis should be on the value of relatively more local links. Fast intercity services may be part of the service mix, but not the primary consideration. Instead, designing the railway to deliver a ‘sub-regional’ commuter service would allow greater choices on route variations, station numbers, and station locations.

Conversely, following the introduction of East West Rail, it may be more beneficial to the arc and the existing settlements in the Marston Vale to replace the existing slow service with faster East West rail services which would help maximise the capacity of the line. This might require skip-stopping, with different stations receiving different service patterns. In all, the focus of service patterns should be around key nodes where development is taking place and therefore where the demand will be highest. The number of new stations should be limited and should be linked to the current and potential future demand for services in that area. A substantial number of people and/or jobs would be needed to justify the addition of a station.

The report explicitly calls for expansion in and around the Sandy area in central Bedfordshire, and along the A1 corridor, potentially supporting the development of a large town. This would exploit both new East West Rail and existing north-south connectivity via the East Coast Main Line. Delivering major growth may require other changes such as the re-alignment of the A1, and potentially relocating the existing East Coast Main Line station at Sandy.

Therefore, the report recommends that Government should commit £1bn to deliver the infrastructure necessary for a high quality and resilient rail commuter service between Bicester and Bedford, accelerating delivery of this section of East West Rail to a target date of 2023; and that it should accelerate work on the development of the new East West Rail line between Bedford and Cambridge, and commit to open the line by 2030.

The report states that the proposal for Phase 2 of East West Rail already includes the upgrade of the existing freight line to Aylesbury via a single track.

Technically, trains could continue from Aylesbury into London via the Chiltern Line, providing a London link to any major new developments between Bicester and Bletchley. The report is not explicit in stating where such major developments might occur, but holds that the attractiveness of what it calls a city-scale settlement would be enhanced by a direct link to London. It hints that any new settlements should be comparable with the other major centres in the arc, and help to support its success in the longer term. The report (very ambitiously) calls for a journey time from such a new settlement to London of less than an hour. It notes some of the obstacles that exist to the delivery of such a service, talking of a congested route shared with the Metropolitan line. It recognises that there exist a number of constrained junctions and that journey times between Aylesbury and London are already slow. The addition of a fast new service to a new major settlement would add to the pressures on this route. Timetable changes may be required which would need detailed discussion with Transport for London and Chiltern Railways who currently operate services along this stretch of railway. It is also likely that more substantial works are needed to alleviate pinch points – the report mentions Neasden Junction.

An explicit recommendation is that:

“Government should seek to introduce fast, direct services to London to enable growth in the arc between Bicester and Bletchley and improve connectivity between London and Aylesbury. Any such improvements should be contingent on local authorities’ commitment to major development between Bicester and Bletchley and around existing settlements.”

The report notes that, following the completion of Phase 3 of East West Rail, Bedford’s connectivity will be significantly enhanced. However, that gives rise to the question as to whether the best location for a station is central or south of Bedford. The chosen solution will need to be affordable and to secure the greatest benefits in terms of regeneration and new homes. In this connection, the report notes the lack of eastern facing junctions on East West Rail at Bedford and Milton Keynes – this could mean neither centre would have direct services toward Cambridge. The report appears to back interventions such as four-tracking the railway between Oxford and Didcot and junction improvements south of Cambridge.

In this summary, I have not concentrated on other infrastructure improvements, which the report suggests might include rapid transit proposals for Oxford, including the A44, A420, A34 North and A34 South corridors.

I would comment that the proposals, particularly the timescales, are throughout very ambitious. I note the timing of the report, just before the Chancellor’s budget statement. An earlier report by the NIC was published just before the Chancellor released monies to further the work on phases two and three of East West Rail at about this time last year. I wonder if Lord Adonis and his fellow commissioners will receive such a prompt response this year? Even if they do so, I would suspect that a coalition of NIMBYs, great newts and hard-bitten railway professionals telling it how it is will together contrive to elongate the timescales a little or a lot! However, it is clear that the NIC recognises the need to get at least some work done in advance of the construction of HS2, now relatively imminent.