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

[Bletchleyite]

Odd then, that they built the New City along the old road (which they built a bypass for), rather than the Motorway - keeping access to the M1 really rather poor (OK, some quality grid roads end up at/near J14, but if they built the A5(D) for N-S traffic, you'd have thought something of a similar quality between it and the M1 if the M1 was really important to the New City).

They built it to incorporate the old towns. It couldn't have gone anywhere else if the predicate of having Bletchley, Stony/Wolverton and Newport at three corners of what is very roughly a (distorted) triangle was to be followed, and the railway did enter thinking - Wolverton and Bletchley were to provide the train service (which is why CMK doesn't straddle the railway, which might have made sense for it to a bit more like say Telford).

I suspect the lack of an A421(D) and A422(D) as a laid-on-top mini-grid is now being regretted heavily, though a longer bypass is to be built (Bletchley Southern Bypass) at some point and is much needed.

Note: the (D) suffix means diversionary, the original road followed what is now the V4 Watling Street grid-road, which some locals know as "the old A5".

 

[si404]

Any Thoughts on the Article?

Some idealistic political grandstanding, some rationality (eg from the Tory that Midland-serving routes are more expensive and not the best performing and so it would be a fight to get it).

Here's a look at the figures given by the consultation document to see what's worth it.

Route B costs £2.6bn, its Midland-serving equivalent Route E costs £3.4bn and is an extra 2 minutes longer Oxford-Cambridge
Route C costs £2.5bn, its Midland-serving equivalent Route D costs £2.6bn and is an extra 3 minutes longer Oxford-Cambridge

Transport benefit figures (in the Technical Report) for the options suggest somewhere between £100m and £200m of transport benefits if Bedford Midland is served by the through route. Bedford South gives development-related benefits (and I believe that figure is higher), but we'd ignore that.

£100m and 3 minutes added to journey times is a decent price for serving Bedford properly - ie if it's a choice between C and D. However, if Tempsford isn't worth serving, then that's £600m and 7 minutes over Route A (which skips Tempsford) and becomes a high price for serving Midland rather than South. And if Cambourne should be served (ie B vs E), then the time difference of 2 minutes is fine, but the £800m price difference is very high.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Will services extend to Norwich or Ipswich? If not it would be huge opportunity missed.

I assume the proposed timetable is:

• 1tph Aylesbury-Milton Keynes
• 2tph Oxford Milton Keynes
  
• 2tph Oxford-London
• 1tph Oxford-Bedford
• 2tph Oxford-Cambridge

I would:

• 1tph London-Milton Keynes
• 2tph Reading-Milton Keynes
• 1tph Reading-Bedford
• 1tph Bristol-Norwich
• 1tph Bristol-Ipswich

 

[Bletchleyite]

• 1tph London-Milton Keynes

The problem with doing that is that if the WCML ends up in a mess, Aylesbury passengers won't be able to board half their London service. It's bad enough when the 0700 off Bletchley is full of MKC passengers when the VTs are up the spout.

 

[si404]

Will services extend to Norwich or Ipswich? If not it would be huge opportunity missed.

Both, on a two-hourly alternation, is what is pencilled in.

The problem with doing that is that if the WCML ends up in a mess, Aylesbury passengers won't be able to board half their London service.

Though surely this will be the case even with it being change-at-Aylesbury?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though surely this will be the case even with it being change-at-Aylesbury?

Some will, no doubt, but a train with LONDON on the PIS and on the front is that bit more attractive.

 

[cle]

The problem with doing that is that if the WCML ends up in a mess, Aylesbury passengers won't be able to board half their London service. It's bad enough when the 0700 off Bletchley is full of MKC passengers when the VTs are up the spout.

This was the plan all along until very recently. Let's not make out that it was extreme. It's more for through working at Princes Risborough - but also connects High Wycombe which was a key benefit. It's just part of the short-sighted cuts like the wires, line speed and improvements to the Chiltern stretches.

Perhaps a second tph (not to London) might be useful in time, if people decide they like to travel north and for local journey frequency. Perhaps Aylesbury to Northampton - or sending the Marston Vale stopper down to there. Could cut Winslow from some longer distance services too.

 

[ABB125]

Will services extend to Norwich or Ipswich? If not it would be huge opportunity missed.

I assume the proposed timetable is:

• 1tph Aylesbury-Milton Keynes
• 2tph Oxford Milton Keynes
  
• 2tph Oxford-London
• 1tph Oxford-Bedford
• 2tph Oxford-Cambridge

I would:

• 1tph London-Milton Keynes
• 2tph Reading-Milton Keynes
• 1tph Reading-Bedford
• 1tph Bristol-Norwich
• 1tph Bristol-Ipswich

I think there needs to be a Cambridge-Bedford Midland service should a Bedford South option be persued. Maybe it could run as a circular Cambridge-Bedford-Corby-Peterborough-Cambridge loop

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I think there needs to be a Cambridge-Bedford Midland service should a Bedford South option be persued. Maybe it could run as a circular Cambridge-Bedford-Corby-Peterborough-Cambridge loop

It would be more likely that MKC-Cambridge service would be running maybe 1tph there and another between Bedford and Cambridge

 

[Ianno87]

Some will, no doubt, but a train with LONDON on the PIS and on the front is that bit more attractive.

This was the plan all along until very recently. Let's not make out that it was extreme. It's more for through working at Princes Risborough - but also connects High Wycombe which was a key benefit. It's just part of the short-sighted cuts like the wires, line speed and improvements to the Chiltern stretches.

Perhaps a second tph (not to London) might be useful in time, if people decide they like to travel north and for local journey frequency. Perhaps Aylesbury to Northampton - or sending the Marston Vale stopper down to there. Could cut Winslow from some longer distance services too.

The journey time from Milton Keynes to Marylebone would be seriously unattractive to most people (about an hour and a quarter maybe - quarter of an hour slower than the slowest stopper to Euston today), and into a relatively poorly connected terminal. And a few stragglers would be discoraged (if capacity is a problem) by using fake destinations on the CIS.

Connecting MK with High Wycombe is precisely the sort of journeys EWR should be looking to do.

 

[cle]

Yes, but from HW it may as well run into Marylebone and in fact, doesn't really have anywhere else to go. Perhaps OOC eventually would be interesting, and worth 2tph out of there to the Chiltern route - a fast to MK and a slower local service to HW.

But nobody is suggesting anyone will use it from Milton Keynes or Bletchley to London - all for the interim journey pairs.

 

[camflyer]

Will services extend to Norwich or Ipswich? If not it would be huge opportunity missed.

I assume the proposed timetable is:

• 1tph Aylesbury-Milton Keynes
• 2tph Oxford Milton Keynes
  
• 2tph Oxford-London
• 1tph Oxford-Bedford
• 2tph Oxford-Cambridge

I would:

• 1tph London-Milton Keynes
• 2tph Reading-Milton Keynes
• 1tph Reading-Bedford
• 1tph Bristol-Norwich
• 1tph Bristol-Ipswich

Currently Bristol - Ipswich is just over 4 hours and Bristol - Norwich about 4 hr 50 via Paddington and Liverpool St. Once Crossrail is open will take a little off the connection time. What would be the EWR time be?

 

[jimm]

This was the plan all along until very recently. Let's not make out that it was extreme. It's more for through working at Princes Risborough - but also connects High Wycombe which was a key benefit. It's just part of the short-sighted cuts like the wires, line speed and improvements to the Chiltern stretches.

Perhaps a second tph (not to London) might be useful in time, if people decide they like to travel north and for local journey frequency. Perhaps Aylesbury to Northampton - or sending the Marston Vale stopper down to there. Could cut Winslow from some longer distance services too.

Creating a link between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes is and will continue to be far more important than linking Milton Keynes with High Wycombe, never mind Marylebone.

As far as most people in High Wycombe are concerned, MK is way off their radar and highly unlikely to attract a strong commuter flow, unlike from Aylesbury. The Chiltern Hills are both a physical and psychological barrier and running direct trains between MK and HW would not change that.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Deleted

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Currently Bristol - Ipswich is just over 4 hours and Bristol - Norwich about 4 hr 50 via Paddington and Liverpool St. Once Crossrail is open will take a little off the connection time. What would be the EWR time be?

Around 4h 10 depending on the route between Bedford and Cambridge for Bristol-Norwich better than the current 4h 50 Via London

That’s assuming the following:

• No more than an 80 minute journey time between Oxford and Cambridge
• 1 hour 20 min from Cambridge to Norwich
• 1 hour 30 min from Bristol to Oxford

Which adds to around 4h 10 mins

 

[si404]

As far as most people in High Wycombe are concerned, MK is way off their radar and highly unlikely to attract a strong commuter flow

Because links are terrible.

The Chiltern Hills are both a physical and psychological barrier and running direct trains between MK and HW would not change that.

It would certainly reduce it somewhat. But the barrier isn't so much the Chiltern ridge*, but the inability to get past/through Aylesbury easily.

*cf Wycombe-Oxford commuters, etc. I'm very much of the view that Bucks is Chalk and Cheese, but that doesn't mean that there isn't commerce and commuting between the two different areas.

 

[Tobbes]

Currently Bristol - Ipswich is just over 4 hours and Bristol - Norwich about 4 hr 50 via Paddington and Liverpool St. Once Crossrail is open will take a little off the connection time. What would be the EWR time be?

Bristol TM to Oxford is c 80 mins, 80 mins Ox-Cambs, 90 mins Cambs-Ipswich for 4hrs 10 mins - times close, and a direct service would be much more pleasant

Cambs-Norwich 80 mins, so 4 hours dead and a considerable time saving as well as being more convenient.

 

[cle]

Creating a link between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes is and will continue to be far more important than linking Milton Keynes with High Wycombe, never mind Marylebone.

As far as most people in High Wycombe are concerned, MK is way off their radar and highly unlikely to attract a strong commuter flow, unlike from Aylesbury. The Chiltern Hills are both a physical and psychological barrier and running direct trains between MK and HW would not change that.

Isn't that the point of opening new routes - changing journey patterns and perceptions of accessible places?

 

[jimm]

Because links are terrible.It would certainly reduce it somewhat. But the barrier isn't so much the Chiltern ridge*, but the inability to get past/through Aylesbury easily.

*cf Wycombe-Oxford commuters, etc. I'm very much of the view that Bucks is Chalk and Cheese, but that doesn't mean that there isn't commerce and commuting between the two different areas.

Isn't that the point of opening new routes - changing journey patterns and perceptions of accessible places?

Just because you provide a direct train service doesn't mean that is is going to overturn geographic logic, historical ties, etc.

People have been able to get trains from Oxfordshire to Worcestershire and Herefordshire and vice versa for 150 years plus - but not that many people make such journeys, even with what is now the most frequent service ever on the Cotswold Line. Local traffic splits at Moreton-in-Marsh - east of there people look towards Oxford, west of there people look towards Worcester and the use of the trains reflects that - with an overlay of Reading/London traffic throughout the route.

So why would people in the south-west corner of Buckinghamshire all suddenly develop a desire to travel all the way to Milton Keynes, when they have London, Oxford and Reading/Thames Valley close by and have done for years?

It's pretty clear that the modelling East West Rail is using has told them the demand will be between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes, hence the decision they took.

Linking services south of Aylesbury with MK would also bring the issue of remapping of the Chiltern franchise into the equation. I'd rather they just get on and get a service running.

If Aylesbury is then swamped by passengers changing trains, there would clearly be a case for looking at through running again, but we are some way off that point yet.

 

[cle]

No modelling was done, it was Grayling, simple. Much like the wires, the frequencies, the line speed.

 

[coppercapped]

No modelling was done, it was Grayling, simple. Much like the wires, the frequencies, the line speed.

Is that an opinion, or do you know it for a fact?

 

[cle]

Well I think it's pretty clear in the context of the other cuts - 'efficiencies' were looked for and this is clearly already the ugly ginger stepchild of the operation, and so it was scaled back. Nothing at the time of the other cuts seemed to indicate that modelling had taken place and that this was an intervention which was supported by that.

Open to seeing otherwise though, if I missed it?

 

[CdBrux]

yes,the one they have just finished refurbishing!

that's planning for you!

what would you have done differently?

 

[eastdyke]

No modelling was done, it was Grayling, simple. Much like the wires, the frequencies, the line speed.

Modelling was carried out. DfT/East West Rail Co. commissioned LeighFisher to do just that.
See 'The Case for East West Rail, Western Section Phase 2':
https://assets.publishing.service.g...or-east-west-rail-western-section-phase-2.pdf
From page 26 onwards:

Modelling rail passenger demand
DfT and EWR Co commissioned LeighFisher consultants to assess the potential passenger demand and transport benefits from rail services enabled by EWR Phase 2.
LeighFisher developed a forecasting framework to undertake the economic appraisal and to produce the BCRs included in this report. A diagram of the model suite created is given below.

The model was not used to look at project options, so the assumptions, base data and the scope of the defined project may not be any help in satisfying your basic premise.
And yes the project was 'value engineered'. I would add the new platform lengths (106m) and the single line section at Fenny Stratford to your list.

The overall document above only surfaced in December 2018, my guess to fill an apparent gap in the suite of documents that formed the TWAO submission.

 

[hooverboy]

what would you have done differently?

said on here before:

1) chord from fenny(+ double track) toward MKC,through the present bletchley sidings, new station at Milton keynes stadium(for stadium and bowl)
2)tmd/train presentation at stewartby brickworks to replace maintainance and train storage at bedford/bletchley
3)remove st johns curve and have EW come onto MML between kempston and stewartby
4) remodel bedford midland for 6 platform.
6) EW rail to cambridge depart to the north of bedford (slows), intersection with ECML at st neots, station at cambourne.
7) wire it up!. would be necessary for trains anyway as TMD's now relocated.
8) all stations stopper to bletchley at peak/lunch times only(additional train-2 car 15x suitable).
9)standard service would run to MKC instead of bletchley..2-tph
Stopping pattern: (from oxford)MKC-MK Stadium- woburn-Ridgemont-stewartby-bedford midland(to cambridge)
10) removal of as many level crossings as possible with under/over pass
11) uprate for 75mph+ running
12) new traction 90mph minimum cl158-ideally 159 or networker (service would probably need 3 car standard/6 car peak)so as not to obstruct WCML/MML workings on 100mph+ sections

 

[jimm]

Well I think it's pretty clear in the context of the other cuts - 'efficiencies' were looked for and this is clearly already the ugly ginger stepchild of the operation, and so it was scaled back. Nothing at the time of the other cuts seemed to indicate that modelling had taken place and that this was an intervention which was supported by that.

Open to seeing otherwise though, if I missed it?

I see, so Rob Brighouse, who led the first two Chiltern Evergreen projects - a prime example of incremental developments ultimately leading to the Chiltern Line we see today - just stuck a finger in the air, looked at his orders from Chris Grayling and cried 'Eureka!'

As opposed to doing a thorough analysis of what was needed to get the route up and running at long last and what train services were appropriate in that context, without things like getting enmeshed in remapping of the Chiltern franchise, or indulging assertions on this forum that people in High Wycombe want to travel to Milton Keynes all the time, and vice versa, and will do so in sufficient numbers to justify through trains the instant East West is open.

All sorts of studies and modelling have been done on all kinds of aspects of reopening the East West route for years now, so there will have been plenty of material for Mr Brighouse and his team to analyse before they came up with the current scheme.

When/if Bedford-Cambridge gets off the ground, then that phase gives an obvious opportunity to look at further development of the parts of the line already operating by then - in the same way that the Chiltern line was upgraded for 100mph running in 2011 when the Mainline timetable was launched - almost a decade after the redoubling of Princes Risborough-Bicester-Aynho was completed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Stopping pattern: (from oxford)MKC-MK Stadium- woburn-Ridgemont-stewartby-bedford midland(to cambridge)

I'd keep the station on the overpass at Bletchley idea as well. But I would I suppose.

Regarding almost-Parlying the local stations, that's silly. Close them if you really don't want them, but I'd say that at least two-hourly all stations should be provided, that only requires a single unit and crew.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So why would people in the south-west corner of Buckinghamshire all suddenly develop a desire to travel all the way to Milton Keynes, when they have London, Oxford and Reading/Thames Valley close by and have done for years?

It's pretty clear that the modelling East West Rail is using has told them the demand will be between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes, hence the decision they took.

Clearly that's the big demand, but I've done Bletchley to/from Wycombe a few times over the last year or so. No basis for a through service, but certainly a basis for ensuring reasonable connections at Aylesbury.

OTOH the demand between MK and Aylesbury is substantial and mostly goes by car at present.

 

[si404]

So why would people in the south-west corner of Buckinghamshire all suddenly develop a desire to travel all the way to Milton Keynes

They have that demand, to an extent, but there's little/no supply for them to do it as road routes are terrible (with an Aylesbury bottleneck) - unlike places like Swindon, Basingstoke or Hatfield, and rail non-existent.

If I change this to "why would people in Oxfordshire suddenly develop a desire to travel all the way to Bedford" or "why would people in Cambridgeshire suddenly develop a desire to travel all the way to Milton Keynes", it's exactly the same point. If we're happy with people changing trains between end-on-services, then lets just have local railways and no through service - all trains at Winslow go to MK, Marston Vale stays self-contained, etc. Certainly no Bristol-East Anglia service...

A Bucks N-S service is just applying the same principals as the idea of E-W Rail being one cross-regional line, rather than three separate local services. Yes it complicates things, but it isn't something to automatically reject. Decent transfers at Aylesbury would be alright initially, but beyond the medium term, terminating trains there will look increasingly shortsighted. As Wycombe is going to be pulled northwards politically, culturally and economically over the next decade, the lack of direct trains to MK will be much more seen as a problem come 2030. There's also journeys like AVP - HW and south Aylesbury (when the development comes) - MK that would use the cross-Aylesbury service.

 

[67018]

If I change this to "why would people in Oxfordshire suddenly develop a desire to travel all the way to Bedford" or "why would people in Cambridgeshire suddenly develop a desire to travel all the way to Milton Keynes", it's exactly the same point. If we're happy with people changing trains between end-on-services, then lets just have local railways and no through service - all trains at Winslow go to MK, Marston Vale stays self-contained, etc. Certainly no Bristol-East Anglia service...

A Bucks N-S service is just applying the same principals as the idea of E-W Rail being one cross-regional line, rather than three separate local services. Yes it complicates things, but it isn't something to automatically reject. Decent transfers at Aylesbury would be alright initially, but beyond the medium term, terminating trains there will look increasingly shortsighted. As Wycombe is going to be pulled northwards politically, culturally and economically over the next decade, the lack of direct trains to MK will be much more seen as a problem come 2030. There's also journeys like AVP - HW and south Aylesbury (when the development comes) - MK that would use the cross-Aylesbury service.

However there is an established demand for Oxford-MK-Bedford-Cambridge travel, as evidenced by a well used and frequent service on the X5. HW to MK is purely hypothetical and the decisions taken so far by EWR suggest that the existing analysis they have done doesn't really substantiate it.

There's also he consideration that if they try to meet every possible future need now, the thing will never get built in the first place.