Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
With the DfT doing U-turns every few months about what they actually want from EWR I'll be amazed if the project ever gets completed. Timescales are already slipping.
Thanks for posting. TBH, I'd rather everyone got on with building a railway rather than risking it being culled due to cost. So, stop working on non-diesel, start working on the day job of building the railway.
There’s no way Bicester to Bletchley/Bedford will open as anything other than diesel. I reckon theres not time for anything else, so this is just saying what they want to hear in the area east of Bedford.
Has there been any official proposal set forward for partial electrification? E.g. between Bletchley/Bedford and Cambridge. At the risk of turning this into a speculative discussion, it could [eventually] unlock an opportunity for battery train operation.
Has there been any official proposal set forward for partial electrification? E.g. between Bletchley/Bedford and Cambridge. At the risk of turning this into a speculative discussion, it could [eventually] unlock an opportunity for battery train operation.
The original plan was for full electrification throughout before the western end between Bicester and Oxford was de-scoped although it was still built with gauging for OHLE. I assume this will continue for the line east of Bicester.
The original plan was for full electrification throughout before the western end between Bicester and Oxford was de-scoped although it was still built with gauging for OHLE. I assume this will continue for the line east of Bicester.
Clear favourite here is to get something like the 755s, then the option for electrification remains and advantage taken what's already electrified and then sections can be done in the future.
Clear favourite here is to get something like the 755s, then the option for electrification remains and advantage taken what's already electrified and then sections can be done in the future.
Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/prior-information-notice-chiltern-services.246470/ I don't see the logic of Chiltern operating it. With Class 196s being sub-leased (or hired in) from WMR surely it would be better for services to be run by WMR using Bletchley...
Might that no longer be the case now the branch is a shuttle, though? It can take an hourly service and isn't constrained by much else at that end as it runs into the bay at Risborough and Aylesbury has more platforms than it needs. I suppose you could end up with poor connections onto...
The original plan was for full electrification throughout before the western end between Bicester and Oxford was de-scoped although it was still built with gauging for OHLE. I assume this will continue for the line east of Bicester.
It didn’t get fully gauge cleared for wires. Only the bridges that were completely new are definitely clear for electrification. Some were not altered at all, if they were ok for the necessary freight gauge. The best example is just out of Bicester at Charbridge Lane where the level crossing replacement bridge is clear for wires, but about 100 yards past it towards Bletchley it’s the same tight brick arch it’s always been.
Just out of interest are the railways succombed to this 2035 fossil fuel rule that no new vehicles can be built based on fossil fuels? The trains will be running by then obviously.
Also, since the world is warming up, are the rails certified to be 100% operational in 40C temperatures?
Just out of interest are the railways succombed to this 2035 fossil fuel rule that no new vehicles can be built based on fossil fuels? The trains will be running by then obviously.
Also, since the world is warming up, are the rails certified to be 100% operational in 40C temperatures?
There is no rule. Jo Johnson made an unscripted remark years ago, and this has since been widely assumed to be a binding deadline, even though no legislation, primary or secondary, has been brought to make it apply to the railway.
Just out of interest are the railways succombed to this 2035 fossil fuel rule that no new vehicles can be built based on fossil fuels? The trains will be running by then obviously.
Also, since the world is warming up, are the rails certified to be 100% operational in 40C temperatures?
There is no rule. Jo Johnson made an unscripted remark years ago, and this has since been widely assumed to be a binding deadline, even though no legislation, primary or secondary, has been brought to make it apply to the railway.
I think @richieb1971 is referring to the law about Cars.
the answer to that is no, the railway are not bound by it (for trains).
Re rails and 40C temperatures. All Continuosly Welded Rail is good for an air temperature of 40C, so long as it has not been recently worked on, the ballast is on good order, and the rail itself is correctly stressed.
There’s no way Bicester to Bletchley/Bedford will open as anything other than diesel. I reckon theres not time for anything else, so this is just saying what they want to hear in the area east of Bedford.
That was confirmed months ago. Six 2-car units subleased from WMT for a half-hourly service initially although I believe services will not now start as planned in December 2024.
That was confirmed months ago. Six 2-car units subleased from WMT for a half-hourly service initially although I believe services will not now start as planned in December 2024.
Services are planned to start in 2025 albeit within the December 2024 timetable. I believe the Class 196 units for EWR are being maintained at Tyseley.
Services are planned to start in 2025 albeit within the December 2024 timetable. I believe the Class 196 units for EWR are being maintained at Tyseley.
Thats a big old gap between it being handed over and entering service. Certainly with the amount of work on getting the timetable sorted doesnt suggest that, nor the dating of renewing and slightly speeding up Denbigh Hall South Jn on the WCML.
Thats a big old gap between it being handed over and entering service. Certainly with the amount of work on getting the timetable sorted doesnt suggest that, nor the dating of renewing and slightly speeding up Denbigh Hall South Jn on the WCML.
Rather less to do with the provision of the infrastructure and more to do with the DfT changing its mind about where it wants drivers to be based and the units to be maintained, delaying the recruitment and training process. AFAIK there's not even been a decision made yet as to whether the route will be DOO or not.
Rather less to do with the provision of the infrastructure and more to do with the DfT changing its mind about where it wants drivers to be based and the units to be maintained, delaying the recruitment and training process. AFAIK there's not even been a decision made yet as to whether the route will be DOO or not.
So at this point it probably not worth even mentioning a date for passenger use. Because there is no operating procedures for operating stake holders to agree to.
If the Government insists on driver only I can see it being if the line see passenger not when.
So at this point it probably not worth even mentioning a date for passenger use. Because there is no operating procedures for operating stake holders to agree to. If the Government insists on driver only I can see it being if the line see passenger not when.
Not sure how you work that out. Chiltern already operate DOO trains which of course includes the western end of EWR between Oxford and Bicester. All that would have to be decided is if DOO equipment (monitors) were to be installed on stations, or whether in-cab monitors would be used instead.
Not sure how you work that out. Chiltern already operate DOO trains which of course includes the western end of EWR between Oxford and Bicester. All that would have to be decided is if DOO equipment (monitors) were to be installed on stations, or whether in-cab monitors would be used instead.
Specifically in relation to EWR? Chiltern 'expanded DOO' when they started running DOO between Bicester South Junction and Oxford, also Aylesbury to AVP. The key factor I suggest will be whether the 196s are set up for DOO operation.
Specifically in relation to EWR? Chiltern 'expanded DOO' when they started running DOO between Bicester South Junction and Oxford, also Aylesbury to AVP. The key factor I suggest will be whether the 196s are set up for DOO operation.
Well. The anti EWR people in Cambs are whipping up some publicity again.
"At every turn our questions are fobbed off. Stressed water infrastructure? EWR Co. say it’s not their problem. Insufficient hospital capacity? Not even mentioned by EWR Co, even though we know Addenbrooke’s Hospital already has a £100million maintenance backlog and the new Cancer hospital plans are now blocked by lack of water infrastructure.”
No, Anglia Water don't run the bus service, but in Cambridge they don't supply the water either. The only thing that Anglia Water do in Cambridge is sewage. So don't get onto Anglian Water unless you want to talk about sewage,
Cambridge Water Company supplies the water in Cambridge but it is now struggling to meet demand. Cambridge Water Company's sources are chalk aquifers of limited capacity. It doesn't have reservoirs that are fed independently from the chalk aquifers. Over abstraction of the aquifers leads to reduced flow into the chalk streams that feed the River Cam, damaging important wildlife habitats. The Cambridge area has more than 20 chalk streams, about 10% of all the chalk streams in the world. If over abstraction and or drought happen then eventually Cambridge will literally run out of water and the chalk stream habitats will be destroyed.
The water supply issue does have to be resolved to permit the level of economic development in Cambridge that will make EWR justifiable.
"Not enough water" is a standard reply to any proposal for building things in East Anglia - whether that is EWR or Sizewell C, with good reason as Water is a real issue in the area, particularly around Cambridge, but solutions do exist, including reducing demand, supplying water from outside the area, etc. Of course, choosing and implementing solutions isn't up to the railway, and it shouldn't be. As everywhere, NIMBYs will come up with any argument to oppose developments that sounds vaguely reasonable, and in Cambridge one of these is water
Of course the hospitals would benefit by making commuting in easier for staff, (some) patients, and visitors, so what point they're trying to make there I'm not sure about
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
No, Anglia Water don't run the bus service, but in Cambridge they don't supply the water either. The only thing that Anglia Water do in Cambridge is sewage. So don't get onto Anglian Water unless you want to talk about sewage,
Cambridge Water Company supplies the water in Cambridge but it is now struggling to meet demand. Cambridge Water Company's sources are chalk aquifers of limited capacity. It doesn't have reservoirs that are fed independently from the chalk aquifers. Over abstraction of the aquifers leads to reduced flow into the chalk streams that feed the River Cam, damaging important wildlife habitats. The Cambridge area has more than 20 chalk streams, about 10% of all the chalk streams in the world. If over abstraction and or drought happen then eventually Cambridge will literally run out of water and the chalk stream habitats will be destroyed.
The water supply issue does have to be resolved to permit the level of economic development in Cambridge that will make EWR justifiable.
So to fix the water issue, can the EW Railway be built with a handy embankment doubling as a dam to hold back a supply for Cambridge?
I think this will be another of those lines like the Scottish Tweedbank line, which will be far more successful than predicted because it will create journeys where you can avoid travelling through London.
I think this will be another of those lines like the Scottish Tweedbank line, which will be far more successful than predicted because it will create journeys where you can avoid travelling through London.
I think it's very likely to widen the Oxford commuter and visitor area to include Winslow and Bletchley (the latter in particular being quite cheap for the South East and no less nice than Bicester - both are largely 1960s London overspill type housing with some new build), and once the Cambridge bit is built do the same over that side, particularly for Bedford, too.
I'd be relatively surprised if it took a lot of journeys that would otherwise cross London (e.g. GWML to WCML) because the interchange points won't have much in the way of long distance service, e.g. MKC only has three of the 9tph fast on the WCML and Oxford requires an extra change, and because there is already a direct Birmingham and Manchester to Oxford service on XC. I suspect most journeys on it will be direct.
I think it's very likely to widen the Oxford commuter and visitor area to include Winslow and Bletchley (the latter in particular being quite cheap for the South East and no less nice than Bicester - both are largely 1960s London overspill type housing with some new build), and once the Cambridge bit is built do the same over that side, particularly for Bedford, too.
I'd be relatively surprised if it took a lot of journeys that would otherwise cross London (e.g. GWML to WCML) because the interchange points won't have much in the way of long distance service, e.g. MKC only has three of the 9tph fast on the WCML and Oxford requires an extra change, and because there is already a direct Birmingham and Manchester to Oxford service on XC. I suspect most journeys on it will be direct.
I'd be relatively surprised if it took a lot of journeys that would otherwise cross London (e.g. GWML to WCML) because the interchange points won't have much in the way of long distance service, e.g. MKC only has three of the 9tph fast on the WCML and Oxford requires an extra change, and because there is already a direct Birmingham and Manchester to Oxford service on XC. I suspect most journeys on it will be direct.
There are more long distance services in the peaks. Yes the Birmingham/Coventry side have directs to Oxford and that would be silly - but there are also the TV/Crewe services, Rugby and Northampton markets themselves, Stoke-Manc (which might be quicker than the direct) - and other Avanti services which do run from Liverpool and so on. Maybe a smattering of feed via the Marston!
Bicester Village will also be a big regional draw.
I think this will be another of those lines like the Scottish Tweedbank line, which will be far more successful than predicted because it will create journeys where you can avoid travelling through London.
1. Hasn't the Borders line actually largely met it's long-term projections, it just got to the 5-year mark a bit early.
2. How has the Borders line created journeys where you can avoid London?
The potential for EWR to intercept cross-London traffic is fairly minimal, it will be edge cases only of people determined to avoid London or who enjoy spending more time than necessary on the trains. What EWR will do is create an important commuter corridor linking Oxford, MK and Cambridge (and Bedford, to a lesser extent) to a wider area rather than being concentrated on the London radial infrastructure. This will hopefully allow more development to take place between those towns at places like Bicester, Winsford, Stewartby, St Neots, Cambourne etc that will provide some measure of relief to the UK's shattered housing market as well as possibly build a limited amount of economic counterweight to London and so temper the economic domination of the capital.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
