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

[zwk500]

When building a new railway and it crosses and potentially makes another service suffer as a consequence and all of that is under the jurisdiction of the Dft you would think the dots are joined up.

The DfT are involved, ergo dots cannot possibly be joined up.

Also it just occurred to me that if the route going south of Bedford was chosen and you had all these measures put in place to stop flooding Bedford, how did the Hitchin alignment work in the 1960's? If the route went south of Bedford it would cross that old alignment.

The old alignment left the Marston vale immediately south of the Current Bedford St John's station and went through the bus garage and behind that massive Tesco. I presume it crossed Cardington Road on the level.

As you can see its practically brand new looking and less than a few years old. If you put 2 new tracks in there I'm sure thats coming down as well, or at least will need to be moved somewhat. Would it squeeze in there?

You might squeeze the fast lines over to the west, or just pick up the equipment. It's a pain, but that OLE would have been designed when nobody knew which way out of Bedford EWR would run.

 

[Magdalia]

Also it just occurred to me that if the route going south of Bedford was chosen and you had all these measures put in place to stop flooding Bedford, how did the Hitchin alignment work in the 1960's?

Very similar to the Midland Main Line, a big embankment then a tunnel through the Greensand ridge.

 

[snowball]

Something else that I've just noticed is that one of those MML OHLE pylon feeder stations has just been built next to Sainsbury's a bit further up the track.
View attachment 138068

As you can see its practically brand new looking and less than a few years old. If you put 2 new tracks in there I'm sure thats coming down as well, or at least will need to be moved somewhat. Would it squeeze in there?

Is that a railway feeder station or is it just a grid facility that happens to be next to the railway?

It appears to be shown on Open Infrastructure Map as Cut Throat Lane Switching Station. I don't remember it being mentioned in the MML electrification thread.

It could of course still be unfortunately sited for the EWR plan.

 

[richieb1971]

The old alignment left the Marston vale immediately south of the Current Bedford St John's station and went through the bus garage and behind that massive Tesco. I presume it crossed Cardington Road on the level

That is the Cambridge line my friend. The Hitchin line bypassed St Johns (old one) and exited Bedford in alignment with the River ouse bridge. It crossed the Cambridge line on a flat crossing.



Cardingington road had a road bridge over the railway until it became a freight only operated line.. At which point a level crossing was put in place. Remnants of it exist today.

Is that a railway feeder station or is it just a grid facility that happens to be next to the railway?

It appears to be shown on Open Infrastructure Map as Cut Throat Lane Switching Station. I don't remember it being mentioned in the MML electrification thread.

It could of course still be unfortunately sited for the EWR plan.

It was built at the same time as the OHLE went up. Everything in that area of land is less than 5 years old.

 

[bspahh]

If the financial case for building the station at Cambourne relies on new houses on the old Bourn airfield the Environment Agency might cause delays for East West rail. This was the lead item on the June 26th 6.30pm Look East. Its covered on the WWW site here:

Water supply fears prompt first housing objections

The Environment Agency objects to thousands of new homes because of "significant risk" of harm.

www.bbc.co.uk

Water supply fears prompt first housing objections​

By Ben Schofield
Political correspondent, East of England

Fears supplying water to thousands of new homes "will pose a significant risk" have led to the first planning objections from the Environment Agency.
It is the first time it has objected to new housing over water concerns.
The planned homes are all in the south of Cambridgeshire, which could see more than 50,000 new homes by 2041. Some may now be built more slowly.
Cambridge Water said it has "resilient, long-term" plans to increase supplies and is trying to reduce demand.
The Environment Agency has raised concerns about five planning applications, including at least 4,425 dwellings.
Plans to build 3,000 homes on Bourn Airfield and another 1,000 on Darwin Green on the outskirts of Cambridge are among them.
The Environment Agency said water is a "precious resource that is under pressure across the country" and that taking more from natural stores is "posing a real risk to chalk streams, river, and wetland habitats".
It added: "We have objected to some proposed development applications in the Greater Cambridge area on the basis that the water supply for these developments will pose a significant risk to our local water environment."

'Concern' over supply plans​

The East of England is the driest region in the UK and was declared to be in drought 10 months ago.
In Cambridge and South Cambridgeshire, most water is pumped from an underground chalk aquifer before being supplied to homes and businesses.
Cambridge Water, which supplies the area, said it was "working hard to reduce water demand in the region" and "focusing on reducing leakage across our network".
The company said it has "resilient, long-term" plans to increase supplies and was trying to reduce demand.
To bolster supplies, the company hopes to transfer water from neighbouring Anglian Water and is supporting proposals for a new reservoir in the Cambridgeshire Fens, which might be complete in the mid-to-late 2030s.
Cambridge Water said it was "working closely with the Environment Agency" to boost supplies and reduce the amount of water taken from underground aquifers "to protect rare chalk streams in the region".
"We're confident that we have a resilient, long-term solution to achieve this."
Brookgate, the developer behind one site that would include 425 homes near Cambridge North Station, said it was proposing a "highly sustainable" development, which would exceed water efficiency standards.
House-builder Countryside said new homes it is proposing at Bourn Airfield would be built to "high standards of water conservation".
The Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire described house building proposals in his constituency as "reckless".
Anthony Browne said: "The problem is we've got a really rapid rate of house building in one of the driest parts of the country and we've simply run out of water.
"The district council has to go back to the drawing board and think again about how it can have a local plan that actually fits in with the reality of the environmental situation."
South Cambridgeshire District Council is considering cutting water consumption regulations in new homes from 110 litres per person per day to 80 litres.
Councillor Tumi Hawkins, a Liberal Democrat who leads on planning for the authority, said some housing plans might have to be "slowed down" but that the growth in the area "is down to market forces".
"We can't stop that. What we need to do is manage it in a sustainable way," she said.
"We will look at each case on its own merit and work with suppliers – Cambridge Water, Anglian Water – but we also must manage the growth in the best way that we can."
Helen Brookes, 48, from Linton Friends of the River Granta, said the river is "vibrant" but "very vulnerable".
"If you take too much out, then rivers like this dry up."

 

[Edvid]

[Cut Throat Lane Switching Station] was built at the same time as the OHLE went up. Everything in that area of land is less than 5 years old.

It's a 132kV DNO site (UK Power Networks, I presume) that just happens to be sited alongside an electrified railway. It has no physical connection to the OLE nearby.

 

[stuving]

It's a 132kV DNO site (UK Power Networks, I presume) that just happens to be sited alongside an electrified railway. It has no physical connection to the OLE nearby.

There was a T-junction of three 2x132kV lines there before, so the substation must provide switching at that point. There is a new OLE sectioning site (switching; no external feed) just south of Bedford station, between Ford End Road and the Ouse.

 

[tspaul26]

When building a new railway and it crosses and potentially makes another service suffer as a consequence and all of that is under the jurisdiction of the Dft you would think the dots are joined up.

It is still too early in the optioneering process for a fully detailed design to have been worked up as you seem to (wrongly) assume exists.

The distance of the east side of the bridge to the nearest double mini roundabout isn't that far. Add another span and the road becomes significantly steeper. We asked for extra width last time for cyclists and they ignored it. I can see that cyclist huffing and puffing up there with 30 cars behind it with all manner of cars locked in at that double roundabout. Just saying it isn't an ideal place for what is suggested.

There is sufficient room to incorporate an extra bridge span compliant with all applicable railway and highway standards.

And it is still less disruptive overall than attempting to widen the existing bridge.

Also it just occurred to me that if the route going south of Bedford was chosen and you had all these measures put in place to stop flooding Bedford, how did the Hitchin alignment work in the 1960's?

It is not clear what your point is here, quite frankly. Ultimately, a route passing south of Bedford hasn’t been chosen so this is plain speculation.

If the route went south of Bedford it would cross that old alignment.

So?

Something else that I've just noticed is that one of those MML OHLE pylon feeder stations has just been built next to Sainsbury's a bit further up the track.

It is nothing specifically to do with the OHLE - it is a general electrical switching station.

 

[Magdalia]

If the financial case for building the station at Cambourne relies on new houses on the old Bourn airfield the Environment Agency might cause delays for East West rail. This was the lead item on the June 26th 6.30pm Look East.

I saw this too. As a local I have been concerned about water supply for a while now. I regard water supply as the biggest constraint on development in and around Cambridge. But it is a very local issue for Cambridge because of its reliance on Cambridge Water using the underground chalk aquifer for water supply, and the risk of damage to the chalk streams that feed the River Cam that results from over abstraction and/or drought. It is right that the Environment Agency hold Cambridge Water to account on their so called "resilient long term plans" to increase water supply, and objecting to plans for new housing is an interesting way of doing that.

 

[tspaul26]

If the financial case for building the station at Cambourne relies on new houses on the old Bourn airfield the Environment Agency might cause delays for East West rail. This was the lead item on the June 26th 6.30pm Look East. Its covered on the WWW site here:

Water supply fears prompt first housing objections

The Environment Agency objects to thousands of new homes because of "significant risk" of harm.

www.bbc.co.uk

It doesn’t.

 

[Class 170101]

It is right that the Environment Agency hold Cambridge Water to account on their so called "resilient long term plans" to increase water supply, and objecting to plans for new housing is an interesting way of doing that.

I think this was raised as an issue earlier in the year (or was it last year?) around Norfolk by the Environment Agency reference Housing and lack of infrastructure for water supply.

Seems to be a recurring issue in this region.
Ely area works, yet to be authorised and funded (may affect EWR) (and similar for Haughley Jn)
Housing (more potential custom for EWR)

All infrastructure issues whether water, housing, railways or energy.

 

[richieb1971]

It is still too early in the optioneering process for a fully detailed design to have been worked up as you seem to (wrongly) assume exists.

There is sufficient room to incorporate an extra bridge span compliant with all applicable railway and highway standards.

And it is still less disruptive overall than attempting to widen the existing bridge.

It is not clear what your point is here, quite frankly. Ultimately, a route passing south of Bedford hasn’t been chosen so this is plain speculation.

So?

It is nothing specifically to do with the OHLE - it is a general electrical switching station.

Ok, there is potentially a large electrical obstacle in the way that was only built a few years ago.

On the other points about the Hitchin railway, it seems to me it existed and it didn't pose a flooding problem which EWR touted as being the reason they didn't choose a southern option.

Your responses are not really helpful, very short and NEVER take the persons view point into consideration. Anyone can say "this is how it is, deal with it!"

This consultation process is a bit pants. We are not supposed to speculate but the whole process is riddled in smoke and mirrors.

 

[zwk500]

Ok, there is potentially a large electrical obstacle in the way that was only built a few years ago.

At a time when the EWR route was not known.

On the other points about the Hitchin railway, it seems to me it existed and it didn't pose a flooding problem which EWR touted as being the reason they didn't choose a southern option.

Are you sure it didn't pose a flood problem? Quite often these victoriana railways caused nothing but nightmares for the way they changed local flood and water management patterns.
Also, environmental standards change.

 

[tspaul26]

Ok, there is potentially a large electrical obstacle in the way that was only built a few years ago.

It’s not actually that much of an issue to deal with in practice.

On the other points about the Hitchin railway, it seems to me it existed and it didn't pose a flooding problem which EWR touted as being the reason they didn't choose a southern option.

This is not the only reason for the decision and, even if this particular flood risk concern did not exist, it is highly likely that the latest decision on the preferred alignment (including six tracking the Midland Mainline) would have been the same.

The key issue is that EWR Co and the DfT think it is important for all of the new EWR trains to serve Bedford town centre (including connections at Bedford Midland station) directly.

Your preferred route south of Bedford cannot achieve that without adding journey time penalties and introducing greater pathing and timetabling complexity (and hence performance risk).

Your responses are not really helpful, very short and NEVER take the persons view point into consideration. Anyone can say "this is how it is, deal with it!"

But it is how it is.

You are being persistently and wilfully blind to that reality because you have decided that your personal preferences must be best - you then ignore or belittle the reasons why they have not been pursued when these are explained to you.

Routes passing to the south of Bedford have been looked at several times, in detail, and they have been rejected on the grounds of cost risk, environmental impacts and expected transport user benefits (and by extension overall strategic fit).

That is the reality.

This consultation process is a bit pants. We are not supposed to speculate but the whole process is riddled in smoke and mirrors.

There is no ‘smoke and mirrors’. Utter conspiracy theory.

And as for the consultation process, I think that your complaint is in truth more to do with the fact that the announcement isn’t what you personally wanted.

If DfT (and wider government) draw any conclusions from this then I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up deciding that consulting with the public at an earlier stage in the optioneering process for a major infrastructure scheme (as EWR Co has done) is more trouble than it’s worth.

 

[richieb1971]

It’s not actually that much of an issue to deal with in practice.

This is not the only reason for the decision and, even if this particular flood risk concern did not exist, it is highly likely that the latest decision on the preferred alignment (including six tracking the Midland Mainline) would have been the same.

The key issue is that EWR Co and the DfT think it is important for all of the new EWR trains to serve Bedford town centre (including connections at Bedford Midland station) directly.

Your preferred route south of Bedford cannot achieve that without adding journey time penalties and introducing greater pathing and timetabling complexity (and hence performance risk).

But it is how it is.

You are being persistently and wilfully blind to that reality because you have decided that your personal preferences must be best - you then ignore or belittle the reasons why they have not been pursued when these are explained to you.

Routes passing to the south of Bedford have been looked at several times, in detail, and they have been rejected on the grounds of cost risk, environmental impacts and expected transport user benefits (and by extension overall strategic fit).

That is the reality.

There is no ‘smoke and mirrors’. Utter conspiracy theory.

And as for the consultation process, I think that your complaint is in truth more to do with the fact that the announcement isn’t what you personally wanted.

If DfT (and wider government) draw any conclusions from this then I wouldn’t be surprised if they end up deciding that consulting with the public at an earlier stage in the optioneering process for a major infrastructure scheme (as EWR Co has done) is more trouble than it’s worth.

I admit I cannot change what is being planned, I am only pondering on the whys. Also, I live where I live and I see what I see. Many of you do not live where I live. Trying to envisage the outcomes are much easier for me to envisage on a daily life basis. The more information that is brought forward the more I can prepare myself for what is coming. I also have a habit of weighing up pros and cons of what is going to be. Believe me I do see pros to this alignment that has been chosen and one of those is a NESW connection at Bedford which I am excited about. For me though, its just another way to get from A to B, I have no investment in commuting to work via any of these routes.

If we take one of the other stations that is also on the cross over which is Bletchley, work started quite a while ago and the works seems to be largely confined to network rail land. Bedford will be a different beast to deal with. Bletchley didn't have any new rail alignments (yet), it doesn't require much in the way of adjusting platforms that pre existed.

Lastly, maybe I am ignorant to processes, but the disappointing thing to me is that announcements so far are about what is planned, without telling you how. Bedford station is boxed in by 2 bridges, a housing estate and a main road. To me the only way to fit more in is to squeeze it hard like trying to vaccum the air out of it. Maybe if Bedford was like Leicester where everything slows down or stops I could envisage it, but apparently we need 90mph trains running through it as well.

 

[Magdalia]

On the other points about the Hitchin railway, it seems to me it existed and it didn't pose a flooding problem which EWR touted as being the reason they didn't choose a southern option.

Flood management considerations in the 21st century are very different from the 19th century, when they would have been almost completely ignored. Read the early history of the Lea Valley line between Tottenham and Cheshunt to learn about that.

The River Great Ouse, which flows through Bedford, is, by English standards, a big river. It has significant flood management issues in Bedford itself and downstream in places such as St Neots, Godmanchester and St Ives. This is because the water flow has to be regulated to ensure that the Bedford Levels are not overwhelmed leading to flooding of the Fens. It would be very foolish for East West Rail to ignore those risks just because the Victorian railway engineers ignored them.

This consultation process is a bit pants. We are not supposed to speculate but the whole process is riddled in smoke and mirrors.

All consultation processes are "a bit pants", because they are compromises, having to balance finding the right solution without taking forever to do it. But the process is transparent, it is not riddled with smoke and mirrors. It is an iterative process and (hopefully) each iteration gets nearer to the optimal solution. The process won't be the same, but Cambridge South station is a good example of how a consultation process moves to a more optimal solution.

 

[richieb1971]

Flood management considerations in the 21st century are very different from the 19th century, when they would have been almost completely ignored. Read the early history of the Lea Valley line between Tottenham and Cheshunt to learn about that.

The River Great Ouse, which flows through Bedford, is, by English standards, a big river. It has significant flood management issues in Bedford itself and downstream in places such as St Neots, Godmanchester and St Ives. This is because the water flow has to be regulated to ensure that the Bedford Levels are not overwhelmed leading to flooding of the Fens. It would be very foolish for East West Rail to ignore those risks just because the Victorian railway engineers ignored them.


All consultation processes are "a bit pants", because they are compromises, having to balance finding the right solution without taking forever to do it. But the process is transparent, it is not riddled with smoke and mirrors. It is an iterative process and (hopefully) each iteration gets nearer to the optimal solution. The process won't be the same, but Cambridge South station is a good example of how a consultation process moves to a more optimal solution.

Thanks Magdalia. You put things across very well.

 

[12LDA28C]

If we take one of the other stations that is also on the cross over which is Bletchley, work started quite a while ago and the works seems to be largely confined to network rail land. Bedford will be a different beast to deal with. Bletchley didn't have any new rail alignments (yet), it doesn't require much in the way of adjusting platforms that pre existed.

Comparing Bedford with Bletchley is hardly a fair comparison. As you correctly state, there is no new alignment required there because the route across the flyover already existed although has been out of use for many years. You can't compare updating and renovating an existing railway alignment with building a totally new route in terms of scope, effect on the local community and disruption during construction.

 

[mwmbwls]

Can I draw your attention to the article "Preferred East West Route Confirmed" published in the July 2023 edition of "Modern Railways". It details the results of te DfT's "Affordable Connections Programme " in effect a "Containing Costs"Review. Its key features have been adopted by EWR.

 

[Snow1964]

I used the Q+A email address and asked about Bedford. I got an automated response stating that it may take some time if experts from different fields are required to answer the questions.

I asked if Bedford station remodelling was taking into consideration the Thameslink reversals, Jowitt Sidings capacity from 4 lines to 2 lines for the 12 car trains and how they will handle that and where they expect parking capacity to be expanded once EWR gets to Bedford. I am guessing they will respond in a wishy washy way in typical "we don't know yet". EWR are going about this in a way that they tell you half the story, but from our standpoint since it affects other services they must have been informed and have "A plan". Each of those arches under Ford end road bridge can only handle 2 tracks if straight under the arches, but the Jowitt lines are coming at it from an angle of 50 odd degrees so at least one arch needs to be widened by x1.5 approx. The Marston vale line into Bedford comes in at the same angle with the single line going down the middle of the arch.

What do you think will be required to Ford end road bridge - Here is a pic
View attachment 137959

Its a while since I was in the area, but it might be easier to squeeze in and add a track on both sides, than trying to acquire enough space for 2 tracks on the east side.

It would require a slew each end of the area, but it is not hard to slew onto a new track, then in sequence slew each line onto the track to west for it.

Regarding the terminating trains, have to consider if Bedford is the best place. To some extent easier to build a new southbound island platform 2 or 3 miles further north with southbound track on new alignment flanking it. Imagine something like Crossrail at Westbourne Park reversing sidings, but an island platform between the reversing tracks. Something similar was considered about 40 years ago which is why the then new 319s had Milton Ernest on their destination blinds. Basically don't end at Bedford, continue to new development area bit further north.

 

[MarkyT]

Regarding the terminating trains, have to consider if Bedford is the best place. To some extent easier to build a new southbound island platform 2 or 3 miles further north with southbound track on new alignment flanking it. Imagine something like Crossrail at Westbourne Park reversing sidings, but an island platform between the reversing tracks. Something similar was considered about 40 years ago which is why the then new 319s had Milton Ernest on their destination blinds. Basically don't end at Bedford, continue to new development area bit further north.

If EWR East was fully electrified, some current Thameslink Bedford terminators might plausibly run on to Cambridge. ISTR of the 4TPH proposed for that part of EWR, only 2 would run through to Bletchley and beyond.

 

[zwk500]

Its a while since I was in the area, but it might be easier to squeeze in and add a track on both sides, than trying to acquire enough space for 2 tracks on the east side.

It would require a slew each end of the area, but it is not hard to slew onto a new track, then in sequence slew each line onto the track to west for it.

The slew would be quite problematic for 110mph traffic.

Regarding the terminating trains, have to consider if Bedford is the best place. To some extent easier to build a new southbound island platform 2 or 3 miles further north with southbound track on new alignment flanking it. Imagine something like Crossrail at Westbourne Park reversing sidings, but an island platform between the reversing tracks. Something similar was considered about 40 years ago which is why the then new 319s had Milton Ernest on their destination blinds. Basically don't end at Bedford, continue to new development area bit further north.

Extending further north would cost an awful lot, as well as needing more crew.

If EWR East was fully electrified, some current Thameslink Bedford terminators might plausibly run on to Cambridge. ISTR of the 4TPH proposed for that part of EWR, only 2 would run through to Bletchley and beyond.

I don't see that, personally. Keeping the service separate is far and away the best option for a reliable railway.

 

[richieb1971]

Is it possible that its simply a pathing solution for Bedford? Keep the terminating/reversing trains in and out of Bedford, making do with less resource at Jowitt Sidings and starting services at Cricklewood in the early mornings or something like that?

 

[edwin_m]

Is it possible that its simply a pathing solution for Bedford? Keep the terminating/reversing trains in and out of Bedford, making do with less resource at Jowitt Sidings and starting services at Cricklewood in the early mornings or something like that?

It's likely that Bedford would need more platforms, given the frequency of Thameslink terminators (some of which have travelled a very long distance so need a good turnaround time) and the difficulty other trains have passing those platforms when things are disrupted. And it's likely that removing one siding would involve providing another one somewhere else, so all the trains have somewhere to go. As posted previously I still believe there's an arguable case that pathing would avoid the six-tracking, but the station will definitely need some major enhancement.

 

[jfowkes]

Six tracking through Bedford is one of the few proposals that's actually optimistic about rail. Maybe you could fit current services onto four tracks now, but what about in 10 years? In 20? Or 30?

Actually assuming that moving people and things by rail will be in greater demand in the future. Imagine that. I wish more people did it.

 

[richieb1971]

Six tracking through Bedford is one of the few proposals that's actually optimistic about rail. Maybe you could fit current services onto four tracks now, but what about in 10 years? In 20? Or 30?

Actually assuming that moving people and things by rail will be in greater demand in the future. Imagine that. I wish more people did it.

They would if you had monorail to take you to the station, no strikes and it was competitively priced. Piling in 200000 a month down a victorian street isn't fun now. One of the most often Bedford questions asked on the Facebook Bedford group is "any parking left at 8am"? Answer "no".

 

[jfowkes]

They would if you had monorail to take you to the station, no strikes and it was competitively priced. Piling in 200000 a month down a victorian street isn't fun now. One of the most often Bedford questions asked on the Facebook Bedford group is "any parking left at 8am"? Answer "no".

Maybe we need some optimistic planning there too.

 

[Redbus74]

Can I draw your attention to the article "Preferred East West Route Confirmed" published in the July 2023 edition of "Modern Railways". It details the results of te DfT's "Affordable Connections Programme " in effect a "Containing Costs"Review. Its key features have been adopted by EWR.

What does it say for those that do not have it ?

 

[mwmbwls]

Six tracking through Bedford is one of the few proposals that's actually optimistic about rail. Maybe you could fit current services onto four tracks now, but what about in 10 years? In 20? Or 30?

Actually assuming that moving people and things by rail will be in greater demand in the future. Imagine that. I wish more people did it.

EWR's explanatory video.

It's an old trick but it sometimes works - as for example London Bridge - described by the Network Rail Project manager as unravelling the spaghetti. .
In order to remain within the existing overall footprint of the station EWR recognise that the station will need to be extensively rebuilt. This would appear to suggest a rebuild similar to that of Reading - with ticketing and associated retail facilities on the first floor. Such a move would enable EWR to use the vacant portal to the east of the existing Midland main line and provides the operational rational for the need to acquire the Poets Corner properties.

One further point - after the rebuild would we/should we expect that all trains including long distance EMRs to stop at Bedford.

 

[zwk500]

One further point - after the rebuild would we/should we expect that all trains including long distance EMRs to stop at Bedford.

Not necessarily. If they're not building additional Fast Line platforms the capacity constraints on IC trains will remain, and connectivity between EWR and Leicester/Nottingham/Sheffield isn't really a big priority.