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

[BrianW]

Don’t think this video has been mentioned, (it‘s not just about the flyover):

or this one, (he has a few more online):

Thank you for these- well shot and informative. Not sure about the music, but that's me Thank you.

 

[fishwomp]

Don’t think this video has been mentioned, (it‘s not just about the flyover):

or this one, (he has a few more online):

Thanks for sharing these videos. Fresh

 

[DaveHarries]

Thank you for sharing those clips: it is good to see progress being made.

One thought though, and apologies if it is a daft comment, but what I can't deduce from the video is whether they will get the new Bletchley flyover in place without removing the OHLE supports. From that aerial photo it looks as if the supports for the new flyover are the same height as the OHLE supports.

Dave

 

[Bald Rick]

Thank you for sharing those clips: it is good to see progress being made.

One thought though, and apologies if it is a daft comment, but what I can't deduce from the video is whether they will get the new Bletchley flyover in place without removing the OHLE supports. From that aerial photo it looks as if the supports for the new flyover are the same height as the OHLE supports.

Dave

The OLE has been moved already.

 

[richieb1971]

Agree

The current standard is that a minimum radius of 360m is advised for platforms, with a radius of 200m the absolute limit. The documentation I have doesn't show the radius for St John's directly (possibly because it's never a constant radius), but does show the curves at Bedford Midland to St John's as 250m minimum radius, and Bletchley to Fenny Stratford as 550m minimum radius. If BSJ is only being served by 3/4 car local trains, the derivation to the lower value of the standards is possible.

Here's a photo showing the area is slightly more detail. You're absolutely right that 2 tracks + platforms under the bridge is not going to happen, but 2 tracks on their own can, and possibly at W10/12 clearance. Note the gradient of the road, and proximity of the T junction on the left making rebuilding the bridge very expensive/disruptive. The track is very, very likely to need to be doubled to permit the proposed service. If that happens, the platform under the bridge has to go. So then the choice is either to close the station completely or to resite it. The houses are less than 100m from the existing station, and surrounded by industrial units. I suspect if they are given the choice between closure or the station being nearer, they'd opt for the latter. From the look of St John's car park (out of shot) even if the local houses did object, there'd still be more than enough support from the wider area to justify proceeding, with suitable mitigation in place for those next to the line. You're correct the residents' views cannot be just ignored, but neither can they prevent the station being rebuilt.
View attachment 89386

BSJ doesn't have a car park. The car park in the picture is the hospital car park and maybe still owned by Network rail as it hosted the former Hitchin line.
The single line is barely 1/4 mile.
There is some construction going on right now on the other side of the bridge. That shed might not even be there anymore.

 

[DaveHarries]

The OLE has been moved already.

Ah ok. Thanks.

Dave

 

[21C101]

Why are they replacing the whole of the White Elephant (Bletchley Flyover), it is not that old as it was only built during West Coast Main Line electrification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why are they replacing the whole of the White Elephant (Bletchley Flyover), it is not that old as it was only built during West Coast Main Line electrification.

"Concrete cancer", i.e. the rusting of the steel reinforcement.

 

[zwk500]

Why are they replacing the whole of the White Elephant (Bletchley Flyover), it is not that old as it was only built during West Coast Main Line electrification.

It was opened in 1959, it's 60 years old. It's going to need work sooner or later. Therefore, better to do that major work now, when the line is closed and nobody is disrupted by it, than to wait 10 or 20 years and have to close the line for the same amount of time. It's one of the reasons the descoping of electrification is such a frustrating decision.

 

[BrianW]

Parapet removal takes place on Bletchley Flyover - FreyssinetUK

Freyssinet was employed by East West Rail Alliance under an ECI-type contract to refurbish the 37-span Bletchley flyover which carries the East-West Railway over the West Coast Main Line (WCML). The flyover was due to be repaired and upgraded to suit the needs of East-West Rail plan to connect...

freyssinet.co.uk

Upthread and elsewhere there's quite a lot of discussion of repair.
Freyssinet is the name of a pioneer of concrete construction- see Wikipedia e.g. No idea whether there is a link between that man and this firm!
60 years is quite a good age for exposed concrete. Note the extensive works on its repair on eg M5/M6 around Birmingham- years of disruption.

 

[mr_jrt]

I suspect I already know the answer, but does the reconstruction offer an opportunity to make the new high-level station even better, and has anything been planned to take advantage of the situation?

I'm thinking better alignments, easing of the gradient through the platform area over a longer length, integrated support for the platforms, cheaper provision of longer platforms, etc.

 

[swt_passenger]

I suspect I already know the answer, but does the reconstruction offer an opportunity to make the new high-level station even better, and has anything been planned to take advantage of the situation?

I'm thinking better alignments, easing of the gradient through the platform area over a longer length, integrated support for the platforms, cheaper provision of longer platforms, etc.

Not at all likely. The platform area is unaffected by the viaduct work. There’s no change to the alignment because some of the existing piers are reused, the only 100% replacement is the wider box to be built over the WCML, but the tracks will still cross it on the same diagonal as before.

 

[hwl]

Why are they replacing the whole of the White Elephant (Bletchley Flyover), it is not that old as it was only built during West Coast Main Line electrification.

"Concrete cancer", i.e. the rusting of the steel reinforcement.

No - Bearing issues same as many highway concrete bridges where the support is not perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the deck build before the mid 1980s.

The decks could have been retained if the bearings were replaced but it needed less WCML closures to demolish + start again, which then also guarantees the rest of the structure near the WCML is very low maintenance for a many many decades instead of ~ 20 years.

 

[Tobbes]

No - Bearing issues same as many highway concrete bridges where the support is not perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the deck build before the mid 1980s.

The decks could have been retained if the bearings were replaced but it needed less WCML closures to demolish + start again, which then also guarantees the rest of the structure near the WCML is very low maintenance for a many many decades instead of ~ 20 years.

Many thanks, @hwl very helpful - sounds like a very sensible decision.

 

[hwl]

Many thanks, @hwl very helpful - sounds like a very sensible decision.

All the supports near the track will also have needed improved impact protection (single smooth concrete entities to avoid the equivalent of Diana's limo wrapping itself round a sharp column) but that is an easy retrofit, but given the other stuff as well easier to start again.

 

[Hey 3]

Why are they replacing the whole of the White Elephant (Bletchley Flyover), it is not that old as it was only built during West Coast Main Line electrification.

It is old especially considering it was barely used and the line got closed just 12 years later and Bletchley Flyover isnt a white elephant. In fact without it you would need paths a Denbigh South and North(good luck with that on a congested WCML) and thus with the fly over you have no track conflicts.

 

[21C101]

It is old especially considering it was barely used and the line got closed just 12 years later and Bletchley Flyover isnt a white elephant. In fact without it you would need paths a Denbigh South and North(good luck with that on a congested WCML) and thus with the fly over you have no track conflicts.

It has been a white elephant for the last 50 years and is widely known in enthusiast circles as "The White Elephant"

It was built to service the giant modernisation plan marshalling yard at Swanbourne which was promptly cancelled,

 

[swt_passenger]

Why are they replacing the whole of the White Elephant (Bletchley Flyover), it is not that old as it was only built during West Coast Main Line electrification.

There’s a good summary of the reasoning in post #3624, from Feb last year. It’s extra work outside the original TWA ORDER scope: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-not-speculation.99892/page-121#post-4420208

 

[21C101]

cheera

There’s a good summary of the reasoning in post #3624, from Feb last year. It’s extra work outside the original TWA ORDER scope: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-progress-and-updates-not-speculation.99892/page-121#post-4420208

Many thanks. Wish there was a "like" option here.

I will be glad when the new 85m span is safely installed. Would hate it to end up like the half built Northern Line platforms at Finsbury Park.

 

[work-traveller]

Also, has the option been looked at of adding a fifth track to the WCML between Milton Keynes and Bletchley? From Google satellite view, the existing railway land seems wide enough to accommodate 5 tracks south from Milton Keynes to the road H7. And also from just south of Watling St to Bletchley station. So the gap that would need widening is from H7 to Watling St, a distance of just 1.2 miles. Not far at all, but several major bridges would need widening, so I don't know how practical that would be?

Yes - it was considered at GRIP 2 and discounted. At that point, interesting options included:

• Up/Down chords between OXD and LEC1, connecting directly onto the Up/Down fast lines.
• Up/Down chords between OXD and LEC1, running parallel with LEC1 to just south of MKC, before crossing over LEC1 on a new structure to arrive at a new MKC platform 0.
• DHF line no longer connecting to LEC1 immediately north of Bedford Carriage Sidings, instead running parallel to LEC 1 and arriving as a new MKC platform 0.

 

[Andyjs247]

I was able to take a walk earlier today along Charbridge Lane, Bicester. Work had been ongoing for some time here and I drive past regularly but the weather hasn’t been kind enough to get much of a view. Today however the earlier mist cleared which allowed me to get some photos showing the progress on EWR here. In January the road was diverted on to a new alignment west of the former level crossing which will allow an over bridge to be constructed in its place. The large crane and piling equipment have appeared on site this week.

The first photo is looking towards Bicester. In the second the new road looks to have a noticeable twist although it doesn’t seem as bad when driving.

 

[DaveHarries]

I was able to take a walk earlier today along Charbridge Lane, Bicester. Work had been ongoing for some time here and I drive past regularly but the weather hasn’t been kind enough to get much of a view. Today however the earlier mist cleared which allowed me to get some photos showing the progress on EWR here. In January the road was diverted on to a new alignment west of the former level crossing which will allow an over bridge to be constructed in its place. The large crane and piling equipment have appeared on site this week.

The first photo is looking towards Bicester. In the second the new road looks to have a noticeable twist although it doesn’t seem as bad when driving.

Are they going to leave any LCs at all? Surely it would bring the costs down to do so rather than to replace them by building new roads. Or are they doing this to minimise delays to traffic / trains? Also how many LCs on the route will remain?

Dave

 

[BrianW]

Are they going to leave any LCs at all? Surely it would bring the costs down to do so rather than to replace them by building new roads. Or are they doing this to minimise delays to traffic / trains? Also how many LCs on the route will remain?

Dave

Level crossings are potential killers unfortunately, esp of pedestrians with headphones or on mobile phones and chancers.

 

[swt_passenger]

Are they going to leave any LCs at all? Surely it would bring the costs down to do so rather than to replace them by building new roads. Or are they doing this to minimise delays to traffic / trains? Also how many LCs on the route will remain?

Dave

They’re definitely leaving London Rd in Bicester for now, as there’s no agreed straightforward alternative.

 

[Ianno87]

Are they going to leave any LCs at all? Surely it would bring the costs down to do so rather than to replace them by building new roads. Or are they doing this to minimise delays to traffic / trains? Also how many LCs on the route will remain?

Dave

Level crossings are potential killers unfortunately, esp of pedestrians with headphones or on mobile phones and chancers.

ORR have quite a firm mantra of "no new level crossings" because of the safety implications.

 

[jfowkes]

Are they going to leave any LCs at all? Surely it would bring the costs down to do so rather than to replace them by building new roads. Or are they doing this to minimise delays to traffic / trains? Also how many LCs on the route will remain?

Dave

Apart from the safety aspects mentioned, it's also the case that LCs have a much higher operational cost than bridges. They need regular inspection and maintenance as they are safety critical. Whereas a bridge can pretty much be left alone once it's built.

 

[edwin_m]

Apart from the safety aspects mentioned, it's also the case that LCs have a much higher operational cost than bridges. They need regular inspection and maintenance as they are safety critical. Whereas a bridge can pretty much be left alone once it's built.

More operational disruption too, dealing with failures and incidents that may not injure anyone but need people on site and delay trains.

 

[fishwomp]

ORR have quite a firm mantra of "no new level crossings" because of the safety implications.

They do.. it's really quite wasteful though. If you look at Oxford-Bicester - at the Oxford end, there are farm track crossings that were replaced by a concrete bridge. Literally in some cases to a single house, maybe a car or two a day. All for a line with 90mph, four trains an hour total, maybe eight in the future max.

Meanwhile.. less than 10 miles away, Sandy Lane in Yarnton sees a fatality about once or twice a year - is a busy road, a 90 degree turn, and a 110 mph (?) railway, with around 8 trains an hour already (XC, freight, stoppers).

Ideally, instead of building a bridge on the new line, they would have spent the same money [+ closure for a week...] on a site with a real problem. Same money spent, more lives saved.

Another idea would be buying the house at the other side of the line outright, and splitting the land in two and selling separately as disconnected cheaper than a bridge - just legal fees and change in value of a field/house..

 

[Andyjs247]

Actually Sandy Lane crossing is being proposed for closure with diversion via an alternative bridge which is being provided to replace the crossing further south at Yarnton Lane - currently a little used track. It would avoid the awkward 90degree bend at Sandy Lane. Line speed on the Cherwell Valley is not 110mph - that was only possible with tilt enabled Class 221s. The line is otherwise quite twisty mostly 85/90mph IIRC.

From Oxford Parkway to Bicester (and beyond to Bletchley) is 75/HST 100mph. It will see 10tph (both ways) when you add in 2tph to MK and 1tph to Bedford; 11tph with freight.

If one bridge can replace several level crossings then that is ideally what will be done, subject to the necessary funding, consultation and permissions being in place. This is what happened between Oxford and Bicester and what is being done elsewhere on EWR and at Sandy Lane for example. Charbridge Lane, Bicester is a far busier road than either Sandy Lane or Yarnton Lane and definitely requires a bridge.

 

[The Planner]

Line speed on the Cherwell Valley is not 110mph - that was only possible with tilt enabled Class 221s. The line is otherwise quite twisty mostly 85/90mph IIRC.

Not sure it was you know.