East-West Rail (EWR): Alternative options and speculation

[Ianno87]

Ok


I have no idea what the minimum separation is on the busway but I suspect that they could easily double or treble capacity by adding more buses.

The same as any other road, so effectively "a safe distance". I have seen vehicles following each other down the busway on plenty of occasions.

I believe the speed limit for the busway is 55mph, the Highway Code stopping distance for 60mph is 73m/240ft. Though the changing speed between 55mph and 30mph when they cross public highways probably stops you having a steady stream of buses following each other at minimum distance.

I suspect the limiting factor on the northern busway will ultimately be like on a tram line - the traffic light phasing at some of the road crossings on the route. But yes, current usage is well short of that being a problem (the bigger problem is dealing with all the buses in the centre of Cambridge).

On the southern busway, the "single line" section on approach to Trumpington Park and Ride will be the determinant of capacity (and the single deck restriction)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2021 ==

I believe the speed limit for the busway is 55mph, the Highway Code stopping distance for 60mph is 73m/240ft. Though the changing speed between 55mph and 30mph when they cross public highways probably stops you having a steady stream of buses following each other at minimum distance.

I recall there are rules where a bus approaching an occupied stop must wait a certain distance behind (presumably it's quite easy to misjudge braking on approach)

 

[gingerheid]

I recall there are rules where a bus approaching an occupied stop must wait a certain distance behind (presumably it's quite easy to misjudge braking on approach)

When WEBS started being a thing in Edinburgh there were a few accidents where bus three approached a stop under the impression that it was bus two, and as a result of planning to stop just behind bus one crashed into the real bus two.

 

[adrock1976]

Cant see through services Paddington to Bletchley, this would pigeonhole the East-West to be part of GWR, which is probably not the most appropriate. Not that I have much of a thought on whether it should be part of an existing TOC (still most likely), or a separate one in entirety.

Feel that the most appropriate solution would be as I described earlier and illustrate below, for which the only requirement would be one extra path on the relief lines between Didcot and Reading.
In short, following wiring of Didcot-Oxford:
*One Didcot EMU is extended to Oxford, replacing the diesel stopper.
*The other Didcot EMU remains to Didcot, but could later be extended to Swindon, should proposals for new stations on this stretch come to fruition.
*One East-West service operates to Didcot, replacing the diesel non stop shuttle, and then on to Reading. This creates a fifth fast train Oxford-Reading.
*The other East-West service terminates at Oxford
*London-Oxford fast terminator continues to Banbury roughly every two hours. Those that still turn back could go over to Electrostars, as happens with Newbury trains.

We all know that wiring to Banbury and beyond is still a way off, and doubtful until we see XC replace the Voyagers with bi-modes that can use them
For clarity, GWML services to Swindon and beyond are not shown.

[SNIP IMAGE]

Regarding the present (pre- Covid) Oxford terminator (the one in the opposite half hour to the Worcester/Malvern/Hereford train), I believe there is (or has been) a campaign to extend that to Moreton-in-Marsh (and onwards in the future to Stratford upon Avon if/when the Honeybourne - Stratford section is reopened to passengers).

 

[ABB125]

Regarding the present (pre- Covid) Oxford terminator (the one in the opposite half hour to the Worcester/Malvern/Hereford train), I believe there is (or has been) a campaign to extend that to Moreton-in-Marsh (and onwards in the future to Stratford upon Avon if/when the Honeybourne - Stratford section is reopened to passengers).

I think the long term "plan" is for both Oxford fasts to be extended to Worcester, the one run to Kidderminster and the other to Malvern/Hereford. London to Stratford via Honeybourne requires reversal at Honeybourne, and once you've sent the London train as far an Honeybourne you might as well send it to Worcester. Stratford-Honeybourne would be much better served by an extension of the Snow Hill service (cough cough Birmingham-Stratford-Worcester-Kidderminster-Birmingham circle, anyone? cough). Were this to be extended to (say) Worcester, more double track (or at least signalling changes allowing two trains to closely follow each other in the same direction) would be needed between Evesham and Norton Jn.

Much as I'd like a direct EWR service along the Cotswold line, it's not going to happen!

 

[The Planner]

I think the long term "plan" is for both Oxford fasts to be extended to Worcester, the one run to Kidderminster and the other to Malvern/Hereford. London to Stratford via Honeybourne requires reversal at Honeybourne, and once you've sent the London train as far an Honeybourne you might as well send it to Worcester. Stratford-Honeybourne would be much better served by an extension of the Snow Hill service (cough cough Birmingham-Stratford-Worcester-Kidderminster-Birmingham circle, anyone? cough). Were this to be extended to (say) Worcester, more double track (or at least signalling changes allowing two trains to closely follow each other in the same direction) would be needed between Evesham and Norton Jn.

Much as I'd like a direct EWR service along the Cotswold line, it's not going to happen!

I would expect if Stratford to Honeybourne ever got off the ground the chord would be put back in east to north. You wouldnt reverse.

 

[ABB125]

I would expect if Stratford to Honeybourne ever got off the ground the chord would be put back in east to north. You wouldnt reverse.

I definitely didn't forget that such a chord existed in the past...

Though personally I think any second London train along the Cotswold line should go to Worcester.

 

[adrock1976]

I think the long term "plan" is for both Oxford fasts to be extended to Worcester, the one run to Kidderminster and the other to Malvern/Hereford. London to Stratford via Honeybourne requires reversal at Honeybourne, and once you've sent the London train as far an Honeybourne you might as well send it to Worcester. Stratford-Honeybourne would be much better served by an extension of the Snow Hill service (cough cough Birmingham-Stratford-Worcester-Kidderminster-Birmingham circle, anyone? cough). Were this to be extended to (say) Worcester, more double track (or at least signalling changes allowing two trains to closely follow each other in the same direction) would be needed between Evesham and Norton Jn.

Much as I'd like a direct EWR service along the Cotswold line, it's not going to happen!

Now I have seen the Oxford (General) station plans, I feel it would be better the EWR trains terminating there or extended to Cowley being as at the Bedford side, they (EWR) are favouring track segregation so as to contain any delays that may happen.

Regarding my previous post, it was in response to David Goddard who made reference in extending the Oxford fast to Banbury. Also, on a final point, the reference I made to Stratford extension is that there is no need for a reversal at Honeybourne as the right hand side of the curve could be reinstated. In a thread I had started a while ago for post HS2 Snow Hill services, I think I had Leamington - Honeybourne and Walsall - Benson Road Curve - Solihull - Honeybourne so as to avoid a larger version of London Underground's 1949-2009 incarnation of the Circle Line.

EDIT: I have just seen the post made by The Planner above.

 

[tspaul26]

Another call for a northern approach from a "a scientist, local resident and keen builder of transport networks in computer games"

East West Rail: Why a northern approach via Northstowe should be considered

Opinion: Scientist and local resident James Perry shares his thoughts on the route.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

At least this one accepts that a new chord across Coldhams Common would be unfeasible.

It would appear that Dr Perry has deleted his Twitter account after a run-in with Gareth Dennis.

 

[Bald Rick]

I would expect if Stratford to Honeybourne ever got off the ground the chord would be put back in east to north. You wouldnt reverse.

That’s a very big if.

 

[camflyer]

It would appear that Dr Perry has deleted his Twitter account after a run-in with Gareth Dennis.

I like the comment in the Twitter thread that it was "it is was undemocratic not to include the northern route as an option in *any* consultations". Lot of options were options would have been considered and not put forward for consultation. There was even an early idea of a tunnel under Cambridge from the west. Giving people the choice of a bad idea isn't democratic (and look what happened the last time we had a referendum on a bad idea...)

 

[tspaul26]

I like the comment in the Twitter thread that it was "it is was undemocratic not to include the northern route as an option in *any* consultations". Lot of options were options would have been considered and not put forward for consultation. There was even an early idea of a tunnel under Cambridge from the west. Giving people the choice of a bad idea isn't democratic (and look what happened the last time we had a referendum on a bad idea...)

Even if it was “democratic”, consultation is not a plebiscite.

One person with a good idea outweighs 1,000 people repeating the same bad idea - and by law must do so.

Indeed, zero people with a good idea outweigh the 1,000!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Apr 2021 ==

(and look what happened the last time we had a referendum on a bad idea...)

I had almost forgotten about the AV referendum.

 

[gingerheid]

I like the comment in the Twitter thread that it was "it is was undemocratic not to include the northern route as an option in *any* consultations". Lot of options were options would have been considered and not put forward for consultation. There was even an early idea of a tunnel under Cambridge from the west. Giving people the choice of a bad idea isn't democratic (and look what happened the last time we had a referendum on a bad idea...)

Why not consult on eastern and south-eastern options while we're at it?

 

[The Planner]

That’s a very big if.

Indeed, probably should have been an if

 

[camflyer]

Why not consult on eastern and south-eastern options while we're at it?

As well as a monorail

 

[tspaul26]

As well as a monorail

Isn’t that a bit 19th century?

We should be aiming for maglev as a minimum and possibly even hyperloop, with a station in every village and hamlet.

 

[gingerheid]

As well as a monorail

Monorail is existing technology and therefore actually possible. We don't like that in this area. We prefer proposals that either aren't possible (northern approach and Coldham's Common chord) or that rely on technology that doesn't exist (CAM Metro).

 

[Tobbes]

Monorail is existing technology and therefore actually possible. We don't like that in this area. We prefer proposals that either aren't possible (northern approach and Coldham's Common chord) or that rely on technology that doesn't exist (CAM Metro).

Well, the northern approach is actually technologically possible, unlike CAM Metro bus-prentending-to-be-a-tram-thing.

 

[gingerheid]

Well, the northern approach is actually technologically possible, unlike CAM Metro bus-prentending-to-be-a-tram-thing.

Technically, but not practically in the slightest.

 

[swt_passenger]

We prefer proposals that either aren't possible (northern approach and Coldham's Common chord) or that rely on technology that doesn't exist (CAM Metro).

Preferably both…

 

[gingerheid]

I went for a cycle today, and presumably unintentionally followed the exact detailed proposed route. Saw lots of signs like this one wherever I went.

 

[ABB125]

I went for a cycle today, and presumably unintentionally followed the exact detailed proposed route. Saw lots of signs like this one wherever I went.

It's always nice to see a balanced view...

 

[edwin_m]

Monorail is existing technology and therefore actually possible. We don't like that in this area. We prefer proposals that either aren't possible (northern approach and Coldham's Common chord) or that rely on technology that doesn't exist (CAM Metro).

Practical but totally inappropriate for the purpose. Doesn't that qualify it to be put forward here?

 

[HSTEd]

They should just bore a tunnel and be done with it.
Underground except at stations.

 

[Tobbes]

They should just bore a tunnel and be done with it.
Underground except at stations.

From Bedford? Seriously, where should be tunnelled?

 

[HSTEd]

From Bedford? Seriously, where should be tunnelled?

The entire thing apart from stations.

The cost of the route is almost immaterial.

It would not consume nationally significant resources, the difficult and truly expensive part is overcoming endless local opposition and opprobium.

 

[gingerheid]

The cost of the route is almost immaterial.

I have a feeling they'd disagree!

 

[Tobbes]

The entire thing apart from stations.

The cost of the route is almost immaterial.

It would not consume nationally significant resources, the difficult and truly expensive part is overcoming endless local opposition and opprobium.

Tunnelling is *rather* expensive, and HS2 has only got the tunnelling it does because of political deals to buy off Tory shire opposition when (IIRC) Justine Greening was SoS (ie, she significantly increased the length of the tunnels to placate NIMBYs).

 

[HSTEd]

Tunnelling is *rather* expensive, and HS2 has only got the tunnelling it does because of political deals to buy off Tory shire opposition when (IIRC) Justine Greening was SoS (ie, she significantly increased the length of the tunnels to placate NIMBYs).

Tunnelling is rather expensive, but so is the cost of the endless delays forced by arguments like the ones going on.
The sooner the scheme is operational the better.

Tunnels are investments with extremely long lives, and as such the cost of them, amortised over said life, is very small compared to the costs of the delay to the programme. And the costs that will imposed by increased backlashes against future schemes caused by the impacts of this one.

The engineering problem of longer tunnels is much easier to solve than the political problems not tunneling creates.

 

[tspaul26]

I went for a cycle today, and presumably unintentionally followed the exact detailed proposed route. Saw lots of signs like this one wherever I went.

Ah, laminated paper: very sustainable.

I’m sure that the NIMBYs will be punctilious in removing the detritus once their campaign is finished as well to prevent the countryside being despoiled with litter.

 

[Ianno87]

They should just bore a tunnel and be done with it.
Underground except at stations.

Are you paying for it?

And Tunnels still require surface infrastructure (e.g. portals and ventilation shafts)