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

[Ianno87]

I am inconvenienced by the road closures. That alone is enough to give me a right to complain. You can be very sure that more people are being inconvenienced by the road closures than will ever use what is basically a new-build rural branch line with a short DMU a couple of times an hour.

The number of people who will benefit from the railway is considerably more than the people that will use it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The number of people who will benefit from the railway is considerably more than the people that will use it.

I'd still venture that the number losing out from the road closures (particularly the one in central Bletchley to remove the flyover, though that one wasn't really avoidable) will by far exceed the number of people who will benefit from it. It's not HS2, it's a rural branch line.

 

[Energy]

so I strongly support the idea of hefty per-hour fees for doing so.

Fining NR is a bit pointless as the money would go back to the DfT and then back to NR to cover the cost of the fines, it just makes a pointless money transfer similar to how government employees cannot be furloughed.

 

[Ianno87]

I'd still venture that the number losing out from the road closures (particularly the one in central Bletchley to remove the flyover, though that one wasn't really avoidable) will by far exceed the number of people who will benefit from it. It's not HS2, it's a rural branch line.

No it's not, it will be an intercity standard inter-urban and freight railway, taking cars and lorries off the roads.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it's not, it will be an intercity standard inter-urban railway.

A single track non-electrified line with a short DMU a couple of times an hour is not an "intercity standard inter-urban railway". OK, it's not technically a branch line as it's double ended, but in terms of usage it is and will be.

It's the X5 on rails plus possibly a bit of freight. That's all it is and all it will ever be.

Fining NR is a bit pointless as the money would go back to the DfT and then back to NR to cover the cost of the fines, it just makes a pointless money transfer similar to how government employees cannot be furloughed.

This is a bit of a problem, as how do you rein them in from inconveniencing people when there is no need for them to do so, but it's simply easier for them?

 

[A0wen]

How many house building sites cause closures like this? Pretty much none of them. The vehicle movements are controlled by traffic lights and manual traffic marshalls.



Correct, because appropriate traffic lights, marshalling etc can be provided at NR's cost.



The one thing I am not complaining about is cost. My general view is to do things properly, and the cost is what the cost is. Set the level of public services we want, and set the tax level to pay for it - that way round. There is therefore no contradiction.



Well, I disagree with the Secretary of State (I was going to say "with respect", but I have no respect for any of the current Government) and I'm sure I am not the only one.

Some construction sites do result in road closures - it presumably depends on the location, nature of the construction, likely traffic to / from the site and various other factors.

OK - so rather than close the road, let's put more cost on NR to put up traffic lights or have a bloke standing around 'controlling' the traffic.

I think your last statement belies the truth here - you don't like the government ergo the decision is wrong. How about the fact this decision isn't a party-political one and a Labour SoS would almost certainly have reached the same conclusion based on the same evidence ? Because whether to close a road for construction probably isn't affected by the differing political approaches of the two main parties.

 

[Ianno87]

A single track non-electrified line with a short DMU a couple of times an hour is not an "intercity standard inter-urban railway". OK, it's not technically a branch line as it's double ended, but in terms of usage it is and will be.

Double track, 100mph railway, actually. And more than "a couple of times an hour" if it eventually goes through to Cambridge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some construction sites do result in road closures - it presumably depends on the location, nature of the construction, likely traffic to / from the site and various other factors.

OK - so rather than close the road, let's put more cost on NR to put up traffic lights or have a bloke standing around 'controlling' the traffic.

Yes, that is absolutely correct, that is what should be done.

I think your last statement belies the truth here - you don't like the government ergo the decision is wrong. How about the fact this decision isn't a party-political one and a Labour SoS would almost certainly have reached the same conclusion based on the same evidence ? Because whether to close a road for construction probably isn't affected by the differing political approaches of the two main parties.

No, the decision is wrong because it is inconveniencing people unnecessarily. The comment was simply that I will not use the term "with respect" in conjunction with any of the present shower.

 

[DarloRich]

I am inconvenienced by the road closures.

lets be clear. This is the issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Double track, 100mph railway, actually.

I stand corrected - only the Aylesbury bit is single track (if it happens). It's still just the X5 on rails, though.

lets be clear. This is the issue.

Yes, of course it is, I'm not suggesting otherwise, I'm suggesting that that inconvenience is unacceptable because it's avoidable.

Of course it won't just be me, it will be thousands of others.

 

[Ianno87]

I stand corrected - only the Aylesbury bit is single track (if it happens). It's still just the X5 on rails, though.

Less than half the journey time though. And the X5 doesn't take containers....

 

[A0wen]

I am inconvenienced by the road closures. That alone is enough to give me a right to complain. You can be very sure that more people are being inconvenienced by the road closures than will ever use what is basically a new-build rural branch line with a short DMU a couple of times an hour.

It doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be built, but, as usual, the railway gets to walk all over the locals.

If you were talking about HS2, I might have agreed with you - for two reasons, firstly HS2 is largely building a new formation (unlike EWR) and secondly, because HS 2 provides precisely no benefits to the communities who are having it built through them - they don't get improved access to the rail network, they don't get new services they can benefit from, instead they are seeing their lives turned upside down for no benefit.

Whereas EWR is quite different - it's rebuilding a recently abandoned railway line, it will provide new local stations and provide EW services the local communities will be able to benefit from.

So whilst you are being inconvenienced, it is only temporary and the local community will benefit from the end result.

 

[Energy]

This is a bit of a problem, as how do you rein them in from inconveniencing people when there is no need for them to do so, but it's simply easier for them?

Before a road is closed (for anyone) they have to prove that they can't just stick traffic lights on the road.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes, of course it is, I'm not suggesting otherwise, I'm suggesting that that inconvenience is unacceptable because it's avoidable.

Of course it won't just be me, it will be thousands of others.

The road closure in central Bletchley inconveniences me, especially on foot, but it is just one of those things that will hopefully only impact for a short time. I just shrug and get on with it. It isn't worth getting worked up over.

it was all consulted so perhaps that was the time to lodge any complaints. I did, especially about public transport disruption.

PS - I like complaining

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whereas EWR is quite different - it's rebuilding a recently abandoned railway line, it will provide new local stations and provide EW services the local communities will be able to benefit from.

So whilst you are being inconvenienced, it is only temporary and the local community will benefit from the end result.

Some locals will benefit from it. Not all of them. I bet most residents of Newton Longville will never use it, for instance. They aren't even getting a station (originally they might have been, but removing it was another cost-cut).

 

[Ianno87]

Some locals will benefit from it. Not all of them. I bet most residents of Newton Longville will never use it, for instance. They aren't even getting a station (originally they might have been, but removing it was another cost-cut).

What if the roads into MK are less congested (with Bicester/Oxford folk taking the train instead) so the folk of Newton Longville (Who still drive) get to work a little quicker? That's a benefit.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What if the roads into MK are less congested (with Bicester/Oxford folk taking the train instead) so the folk of Newton Longville (Who still drive) get to work a little quicker? That's a benefit.

No way will a 3-car DMU twice an hour, even full and standing, make any noticeable difference to that.

 

[Ianno87]

No way will a 3-car DMU twice an hour, even full and standing, make any noticeable difference to that.

A non-noticeable difference is still a difference. Saving 30 seconds per day, 5 days per week, 48 weeks per year is alot of time saved over one's working life.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A non-noticeable difference is still a difference. Saving 30 seconds per day, 5 days per week, 48 weeks per year is alot of time saved over one's working life.

I think to be honest that is clutching at straws in order to justify the railway (low usage) getting priority over the road (higher usage) just because it makes things a bit easier or cheaper. This is not right.

 

[Ianno87]

I think to be honest that is clutching at straws in order to justify the railway (low usage) getting priority over the road (higher usage) just because it makes things a bit easier or cheaper. This is not right.

The overall benefits per user of rail are higher than the overall benefits per user of a typical car.

And do you think the people of Newton Longville will never, ever use East West Rail? e.g. travel to Bletchley for a once a year day out in Oxford? Their house prices might benefit from being able to commute by rail to Oxford from Bletchley, etc?

 

[The Planner]

Double track, 100mph railway, actually. And more than "a couple of times an hour" if it eventually goes through to Cambridge.

I stand corrected - only the Aylesbury bit is single track (if it happens). It's still just the X5 on rails, though.

And depending on how things go, the first bit of railway around the WCML with an ETCS overlay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The overall benefits per user of rail are higher than the overall benefits per user of a typical car.

Of course you could have both benefits by not causing as much disruption by not closing a road for several months (I've now checked) to construct a compound, just because it saves you a few quid on banksmen and traffic light hire.

And do you think the people of Newton Longville will never, ever use East West Rail? e.g. for a once a year day out in Oxofrd?

MK is a very car-dependent place, and trains are generally considered as being for going to London. People in MK going for a day out to Oxford are most likely to use one of the Oxford park-and-ride bus services if they use public transport at all.

I would bet that over 90% of NL residents will never use it.

 

[Ianno87]

Of course you could have both benefits by not causing as much disruption by not closing a road for several months (I've now checked) to construct a compound, just because it saves you a few quid on banksmen and traffic light hire.

Feel free to get a job in one of planning construction and logistics, consents or transport planning and see if you can do it better yourself, whilst retaining value for money for the taxpayer.

MK is a very car-dependent place, and trains are generally considered as being for going to London. People in MK going for a day out to Oxford are most likely to use one of the Oxford park-and-ride bus services if they use public transport at all.

I would bet that over 90% of NL residents will never use it.

And do you not think making MK less car-dependent is a fundamentally good thing? The road safety and emissions benefits must be colossal.

 

[A0wen]

Some locals will benefit from it. Not all of them. I bet most residents of Newton Longville will never use it, for instance. They aren't even getting a station (originally they might have been, but removing it was another cost-cut).

Well, you never get something *everyone* benefits from - the point is there will be a benefit and whilst Newton Longville (which for those who don't know the area is only 3 miles from Bletchley station - there are places in Milton Keynes for which MK Central station is further than that) won't be getting it's own station it's nearest station will be getting improved services with a wider range of destinations - and places on the south side of MK (so Bletchley, Newton Longville etc) don't currently have easy access towards Oxford because the X5 goes north out of MK to serve Deanshanger and Buckingham.

You can't say that for HS2 - places like Buckingham or Brackley aren't suddenly better connected to the national rail network, despite having a new line being built in close proximity, it's even unclear what the impact will be on their "local" stations.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Feel free to get a job in one of planning construction and logistics, consents or transport planning and see if you can do it better yourself, whilst retaining value for money for the taxpayer.

This is rather subjective. A NL resident probably wouldn't consider closing that road for 3 months to save money good value.

And do you not think making MK less car-dependent is a fundamentally good thing?

EWR will not make substantial difference to that. Local transport investment (e.g. a tram system) might, but that's not on offer, and I don't count the "bendy bus with a bodykit" we are meant to get by 2030. NL barely even has a bus service to CMK.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not closed roads and paths where they didn't absolutely need to.

I understand the point of view... but...

When preparing plans for a consent submission - and this was more than 2 years ago - you can’t be precise about it. This has always been the case - it was the same for the building of the M40.

 

[A0wen]

And do you not think making MK less car-dependent is a fundamentally good thing? The road safety and emissions benefits must be colossal.

TBF, I don't think EWR will change that - MK is quite spread out. Traffic within MK won't be changed by EWR at all. Traffic into MK is unlikely to be, in part because MK Central or Bletchley aren't near alot of the places people want to go and MK doesn't have the "problems" with cars that either Oxford or Cambridge have, though it does have an avaricious local council that have become a bit dependent on parking charges, hopefully Covid will wean them off that particular dependency.......

For Oxford though I think it may sway a few people - currently it takes about an hour to drive from MK to the P&Rs at either Peartree or Oxford Parkway - you've then got another 20-30 mins on the bus into the centre of Oxford - so 90 mins or so.

Whereas EWR will cover that in somewhere between 30-60 mins, plus arrival will be into Oxford station, walking distance into the centre of Oxford.

I do sense a bit of synthetic indignation here - this is a Google Map which helpfully shows the Newton Longville road closure - and it's closed 1 of 2 routes into MK - if anything it's the longer one.

Now, whilst it *might* inconvenience people wanting to get to the A421 to head west, it isn't the A421 that's closed, and the diversions aren't excessively long.

It also shows the closure for the Bletchley viaduct works (just above the Blue Lagoon Nature Reserve) - and whilst that is much smaller, it's probably far more disruptive given it's in central Bletchley on one of the main roads.

 

[The Ham]

Feel free to get a job in one of planning construction and logistics, consents or transport planning and see if you can do it better yourself, whilst retaining value for money for the taxpayer.



And do you not think making MK less car-dependent is a fundamentally good thing? The road safety and emissions benefits must be colossal.

As someone who designs roads it's not always as straight forwards as some think.

However I also get frustrated when there's silly decision made (such as there being road works aloud on 2 key routes into a town at the same time - also with a lake on that side of the town so there's no back roads which could have been used).

 

[Bletchleyite]

As someone who designs roads it's not always as straight forwards as some think.

However I also get frustrated when there's silly decision made (such as there being road works aloud on 2 key routes into a town at the same time - also with a lake on that side of the town so there's no back roads which could have been used).

Network Rail, if I recall, came very close to closing both the Buckingham Road bridge in Bletchley and Water Eaton Road at the same time, which would leave the only diversionary routes being well over 5 miles long. I seem to recall it took the Council pointing it out that this was silly to get them to reschedule one until the other was done. It certainly made the local Press because it was so mind-numbingly stupid.

 

[The Ham]

Network Rail, if I recall, came very close to closing both the Buckingham Road bridge in Bletchley and Water Eaton Road at the same time, which would leave the only diversionary routes being well over 5 miles long. I seem to recall it took the Council pointing it out that this was silly to get them to reschedule one until the other was done. It certainly made the local Press because it was so mind-numbingly stupid.

In the example it was the council which gave the permission for both sets of roadworks to happen at the same time, so it's not only NR which can do things which aren't ideal. However unlike the above case the council in question didn't change things.