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

HowardGWR said:

I know a lot of this discussion is available in existing E-W documentation / consultation replies, and so on, but I think that for many pax, a through service without changing is preferable to a theoretically faster 'via London' service, and could lead to more modal shift, especially to airports such as Stansted that you mention. If the catchment of Stansted is widened, it could take far more flights, so that is a strategic consideration for government. I cite the present tendency of Newcastle upon Tyne and Glasgow pax to fly from Manchester. Also, for business travellers, city centre to city centre, to not have to change is attractive, if you want to get on with your work without having to traipse across London.

Click to expand...

The existing Birmingham-Stansted fulfils that role to a large extent. Creating a through service between the same places via Bedford, a bit faster than the existing but still slower than via London, probably doesn't do much more than abstracting a few people off the existing route. That doesn't strike me as a sensible use of line capacity on the busy WCML and via Coventry.

After speaking with Network rail about EWR I came to the conclusion that if a foot crossing pre-exists that funds will be made available for a bridge. In some circumstances I know of such crossings which have almost zero traffic per day (up to 10 people a day perhaps).

But if no crossing exists in places where much more traffic would cross, there is absolutely no consideration towards an effort to get a bridge put in place.

Surely a bridge where 100's of people would cross per day is more important than putting a million pound bridge in a place where only 10 people per day would cross.

Same goes for the stations on the Vale line. Less than 20 people a day use certain stations, yet moving a station to somewhere where 100's might use it is deemed "not for consideration".

Perhaps they like the trains empty on the Vale line?

It is quite difficult to understand what you actually mean

richieb1971 said:

After speaking with Network rail about EWR I came to the conclusion that if a foot crossing pre-exists that funds will be made available for a bridge. In some circumstances I know of such crossings which have almost zero traffic per day (up to 10 people a day perhaps).

But if no crossing exists in places where much more traffic would cross, there is absolutely no consideration towards an effort to get a bridge put in place.

Click to expand...

Such as where?

richieb1971 said:

Surely a bridge where 100's of people would cross per day is more important than putting a million pound bridge in a place where only 10 people per day would cross.

Click to expand...

depends on the scope of the job and the funds available.

richieb1971 said:

Same goes for the stations on the Vale line. Less than 20 people a day use certain stations, yet moving a station to somewhere where 100's might use it is deemed "not for consideration".

Perhaps they like the trains empty on the Vale line?

Click to expand...

Again - such as where? That's before we consider the utterly bonkers cost and limited returns.

My main "want" was a foot bridge in Kempston near the MML (on the branch line).

People are crossing there illegally to save walking all the way round. Cutting through fences. My wife walks around 9pm+ at night and people suddenly appear out of the bushes and she's only a little woman and quite easily scared.

Sometimes there is someone behind her and then a minute later they have disappeared. Equally as scary when you think about it.

She's going to try and pass her driving test but in the meantime I think it should have quite a strong recommendation for a footbridge there. If you wanted a Mcdonalds you have to walk a mile around the block. And there is no saying how many people on one side of the line work at the retail park which is potentially less than 200 metres away from their homes.

DarloRich said:

Again - such as where? That's before we consider the utterly bonkers cost and limited returns.

Click to expand...

I can only think of one such case on the Marston Vale and that would be to move Bow Brickhill slightly closer to the Caldecott business park and potentially to add a new station at Browns Wood to better serve Tilbrook, Browns Wood and Old Farm Park. Though without a service to MKC there'd be little usage.

The other stations are either in the place they claim to serve or in the middle of nowhere because there is nothing to serve (Kempston Hardwick).

Bletchleyite said:

I can only think of one such case on the Marston Vale and that would be to move Bow Brickhill slightly closer to the Caldecott business park and potentially to add a new station at Browns Wood to better serve Tilbrook, Browns Wood and Old Farm Park. Though without a service to MKC there'd be little usage.

The other stations are either in the place they claim to serve or in the middle of nowhere because there is nothing to serve (Kempston Hardwick).

Click to expand...

I proposed a halt at Kempston Retail park to replace the Kempston Hardwick station that gets literally zero custom to go with the aforementioned footbridge I spoke about. Its about a 1/2 mile down the track, which also supports a massive distribution complex, retail park and an industrial estate. But leaving an operating station that gets 1 or 2 people a days worth of custom is totally worth it at Kempston Hardwick.

What I am saying is that just because something pre exists seems to warrant its continued existence in the eyes of NR and the EWR. Where as the money could be better spent providing for a greater number of people elsewhere.

I can guarantee 100% that if the station moved there would be greater numbers of passengers on the vale services. Whether or not that justifies the expense of doing it I don't know.

richieb1971 said:

I proposed a halt at Kempston Retail park to replace the Kempston Hardwick station that gets literally zero custom to go with the aforementioned footbridge I spoke about. Its about a 1/2 mile down the track, which also supports a massive distribution complex, retail park and an industrial estate. But leaving an operating station that gets 1 or 2 people a days worth of custom is totally worth it at Kempston Hardwick.

Click to expand...

I'd expect a couple of closures once EWR properly gets started, personally. Kempston Hardwick certainly would be one. That or the stopping service drops to 2tpd (basically just the school trains) or similar.

richieb1971 said:

My main "want" was a foot bridge in Kempston near the MML (on the branch line).

People are crossing there illegally to save walking all the way round. Cutting through fences. My wife walks around 9pm+ at night and people suddenly appear out of the bushes and she's only a little woman and quite easily scared.

Sometimes there is someone behind her and then a minute later they have disappeared. Equally as scary when you think about it.

She's going to try and pass her driving test but in the meantime I think it should have quite a strong recommendation for a footbridge there. If you wanted a Mcdonalds you have to walk a mile around the block. And there is no saying how many people on one side of the line work at the retail park which is potentially less than 200 metres away from their homes.

Click to expand...

Footbridges currently exist off Ampthill Road at Sandhurst Road and one behind Evans Halshaw. Is there space for more without knocking down houses? I accept the line cuts the community in half but the angle of houses is back to back with the line with no obvious road ends available for the bridge to use.

At the other end of town there is a foot crossing off Chantry Road but that doesn't really lead anywhere. However what you are really saying is you want money spending on a footbridge for the triangle of houses off Magnolia Close. Without land take I don't think you could fit one in. You are bound in one one side by the industrial estate and on the other by the sports ground. Opposite is the dual carriage way A421. The bridge could only really serve the retail park and nothing else. It seems a lot of money to allow you to get a big mac slightly more quickly.

I assume the retail park you refer to is the interchange retail park. For those that don't know this it is a typical, small, out of town retail development with silver grey sheds housing Argos, TK Max, Sports Direct etc . I would bet most people drive to the retail park to work as it isnt really set up to accept pedestrians.

Bletchleyite said:

I can only think of one such case on the Marston Vale and that would be to move Bow Brickhill slightly closer to the Caldecott business park and potentially to add a new station at Browns Wood to better serve Tilbrook, Browns Wood and Old Farm Park. Though without a service to MKC there'd be little usage.

The other stations are either in the place they claim to serve or in the middle of nowhere because there is nothing to serve (Kempston Hardwick).

Click to expand...

maybe, but the issue is the cost would never be returned. It is easier to drive to MK centre than take the train from those areas listed

richieb1971 said:

I proposed a halt at Kempston Retail park to replace the Kempston Hardwick station that gets literally zero custom to go with the aforementioned footbridge I spoke about. Its about a 1/2 mile down the track, which also supports a massive distribution complex, retail park and an industrial estate. But leaving an operating station that gets 1 or 2 people a days worth of custom is totally worth it at Kempston Hardwick.

Click to expand...

There is no space or access to a site behind the interchange retail park. Kempston hardwick is a lonely little station, essentially because the brick works it was built to serve are long gone. it is very close to an Asda, Argos and Sainsbury distribution centre but the walking route is very poor and it is easier to drive out of Bedford to work there.

It is also worth noting that the entire area between the existing houses over the A 421 and the station is earmarked for residential development. ( That is why there is a double roundabout after the overpass off fields road) If that ever comes to pass the station will be ideally situated. It is also worth nothing that once completed the back end of Wixams will be connected to Kempston Hardwick. There are big plans for regeneration in much of the old brick fields along side the line. If they come off the line will be transformed.

However the main factors against any move is simple: Cost and benefit return. You could, at a very long push suggest the point just before the MML crosses the Vale line for a new station. In fact i think that was a station at some point in the dim and distant past.

(Kempston is more likely to simply close than move - but that has a cost implication to)


BTW It gets more than 2 passengers all day because for several months this year I was one of them. Sometimes there were 5 of us

richieb1971 said:

What I am saying is that just because something pre exists seems to warrant its continued existence in the eyes of NR and the EWR. Where as the money could be better spent providing for a greater number of people elsewhere.

Click to expand...

What I am saying is that the real world is a very different place to sitting with your crayon and a map. In the real world there are challenges to overcome and a limited budget to deliver with.

richieb1971 said:

I can guarantee 100% that if the station moved there would be greater numbers of passengers on the vale services. Whether or not that justifies the expense of doing it I don't know.

Click to expand...

You cant btw. You might think that but you cant guarantee it. And it wouldn't ever justify the expense.

DarloRich said:

What I am saying is that the real world is a very different place to sitting with your crayon and a map. In the real world there are challenges to overcome and a limited budget to deliver with.

Click to expand...

TBH richieb1971 has identified a real world issue, which is that the consultation culture and the complexity of footpath diversions etc. makes it much easier to continue provision at an existing location, even when a new location might be better.

If you try and stop up a footpath you will get complaints from the Ramblers and the like. If you try and get a new footpath put in where there wasn't one before, you immediately add more complications to your TWAO and have to start getting complex consultations underway with the county PRO officers, adjoining landowners, etc. etc.

NR (or potentially EWR in this case) just wants to get the railway open. So quite understandably, they stick with the status quo. Few will object and the legal hassles will be much less.

(And I wish this forum were a bit less keen to sneer "crayons" every time someone makes an idealistic point.)

Doctor Fegg said:

TBH richieb1971 has identified a real world issue, which is that the consultation culture and the complexity of footpath diversions etc. makes it much easier to continue provision at an existing location, even when a new location might be better.

If you try and stop up a footpath you will get complaints from the Ramblers and the like. If you try and get a new footpath put in where there wasn't one before, you immediately add more complications to your TWAO and have to start getting complex consultations underway with the county PRO officers, adjoining landowners, etc. etc.

NR (or potentially EWR in this case) just wants to get the railway open. So quite understandably, they stick with the status quo. Few will object and the legal hassles will be much less.

(And I wish this forum were a bit less keen to sneer "crayons" every time someone makes an idealistic point.)

Click to expand...

I take the point on board entirely. The system is complex, expensive and time consuming and there may be better places to put crossings or bridges but the reality ( and i unfortunately for many on this board I inhabit the real world) is that if the project is not mandated to consider those changes they wont. They don't have the time or the money.

There is also a misunderstanding within many people being consulted, especially the general public. They are being consulted (almost informed) on nearly firm proposals. They are not being consulted for ideas, wish lists or pie in sky thinking.

DarloRich said:

...

However the main factors against any move is simple: Cost and benefit return. You could, at a very long push suggest the point just before the MML crosses the Vale line for a new station. In fact i think that was a station at some point in the dim and distant past.
...

Click to expand...

Elstow Hardwick, I think it was.

The retail park has quite a lot of pedestrians going to it these days. My wife comes from Ampthill road though so wouldn't utilize the bridge I am asking for.

A few years ago I spoke to some people in Sharnbrook with a green metal £1+ bridge was put in place that only has people walking dogs going over it. Ampthill industrial estate has a similar bridge that leads to a field. Every time I've been there I've barely seen 1 or 2 people use it. I don't mind it because I film from it. In both circumstances bridges pre existed for whatever reason. I can guarantee there would be ZERO consideration for a bridge in these locations if bridges were not already in place.

DarloRich said:

if the project is not mandated to consider those changes they wont.

Click to expand...

Absolutely - spot on.

There is also a misunderstanding within many people being consulted, especially the general public. They are being consulted (almost informed) on nearly firm proposals. They are not being consulted for ideas, wish lists or pie in sky thinking.

Click to expand...

"Responding effectively to consultations" ought to be taught as Activism 101! The three points I'd always stress (having done it pretty often, though never in relation to railways) are: get in early; find allies; find hooks in adopted policies that support your argument.

Responding at planning permission to say "it'd be nicer if..." never works. But lobbying at an early stage to say "hey, you should do this, policy E5 of the Local Plan says you should do this too, and here are three organisations that agree with me (BTW I've attached their statements)" is much more likely to succeed.

70014IronDuke said:

Elstow Hardwick, I think it was.

Click to expand...

WW2 it was open, then closed again. The house by the MML was the station masters house. Its still there today.

QUOTE

(And I wish this forum were a bit less keen to sneer "crayons" every time someone makes an idealistic point.)[/QUOTE]

You are quite right here, for some folks on RUKF there is only the present and only the current way of doing things, there is nothing to be learned from the past and nought to be gained from trying something different in the future

8H said:

QUOTE

(And I wish this forum were a bit less keen to sneer "crayons" every time someone makes an idealistic point.)

Click to expand...

8H said:

You are quite right here, for some folks on RUKF there is only the present and only the current way of doing things, there is nothing to be learned from the past and nought to be gained from trying something different in the future

Click to expand...

and for the rest there is little or no connection with the realities of trying to deliver a railway project in the 21st century.

This forum exists for discussion, not for reality checks.

There are forums about the weather, but nobody can control the weather. But everyone is welcome to talk about the weather regardless of if they have any control over it or not.

If we could only talk about what we have control over, there would be almost no discussion at all.

In fact we are only here to express opinion and post information on what is actually really happening. I'm for all for being put in my place if I have a crazy idea that isn't going anywhere, but allow people to dream a bit.

On the case of the EWR proposals I stated, I thought it was common sense and although my thoughts are not in alignment with many others, I just wanted to vent it out there to get feedback. As it seems NR and the EWR alliance have not been forthcoming with my 2nd email I sent asking for answers. Their first reply was about what they are actually doing and had zero relativity to my question. Mostly about platform extensions.

DarloRich said:

and for the rest there is little or no connection with the realities of trying to deliver a railway project in the 21st century.

Click to expand...

Pompous statement. Members are entitled to discuss anything they wish without insults from 'experts'

muddythefish said:

Pompous statement. Members are entitled to discuss anything they wish without insults from 'experts'

Click to expand...

And other members are entitled to disagree with them without name-calling.

Going back to the original subject, nobody seems to have clarified that this issue with crossings is not specific to the railways - it's the law. It is illegal to obstruct a public right of way and changing or moving one requires consultation and the appropriate consent. It would be much easier if NR or other landowners could cut off access if they felt like it, but I doubt people would be happy.

67018 said:

And other members are entitled to disagree with them without name-calling.

Going back to the original subject, nobody seems to have clarified that this issue with crossings is not specific to the railways - it's the law. It is illegal to obstruct a public right of way and changing or moving one requires consultation and the appropriate consent. It would be much easier if NR or other landowners could cut off access if they felt like it, but I doubt people would be happy.

Click to expand...

I thought the original subject (my emboldening, BTW) is East West Railway. Could there not be a separate thread for rights of way?

Whilst at Quainton Road (Bucks railway Centre) on August Bank holiday Monday, I saw an exhibition about the East/West rail Link, which I gather is a plan to reinstate services between Oxford & Cambridge, along the currently mothballed Bicester to Bletcley line, and will include a link between Aylesbury and Calvert, using the line that passes through Quainton Road, wich is currently only used by trains taking London's Rubbish to Calveert, and by commuter trains between Aylesbury Parkway and Aylesbury Town Stations, plus a special passenger service operated between Aylesbury Town Station and Quainton Road twice yearly on Bank Holiday mondays. From what I saw, and was told by one of the Bucks railway Centre Staff, the first part of this route (Aylesbury to Calvert Junction) may be operational by early 2018. Does anyone have any more info. about this scheme?

There's a thead about it:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=99892&page=80

With no posts in almost a month it had got pushed down to page 7 of the index!

I don't know if this has been discussed on this thread before so don't blow me out of the water if it has. I read a piece by Paul Stephen in the Rail magazine last month which says that electrification has been pulled from the scope of E-W scheme
Seeing as the line will cross other London rsdial lines which are electrified is this wasting an opportunity or sound business sense?

fflint said:

I don't know if this has been discussed on this thread before so don't blow me out of the water if it has. I read a piece by Paul Stephen in the Rail magazine last month which says that electrification has been pulled from the scope of E-W scheme
Seeing as the line will cross other London rsdial lines which are electrified is this wasting an opportunity or sound business sense?

Click to expand...

Surely electrification only worked IF the MML & "Electric Spine" was electrified at the same time?

DarloRich said:

Surely electrification only worked IF the MML & "Electric Spine" was electrified at the same time?

Click to expand...

The proposed 2tph Reading - Oxford - Milton_Keynes / Bedford services could be EMU operated (and be extensions of services to/from Heathrow/Paddington).

Southcombe said:

From what I saw, and was told by one of the Bucks railway Centre Staff, the first part of this route (Aylesbury to Calvert Junction) may be operational by early 2018. Does anyone have any more info. about this scheme?

Click to expand...

Did you see that Aylesbury-Calvert will be re-doubled and partially realigned to make way for HS2? That's a lot of work, and construction isn't expected to get underway until at least late 2019.

It is anticipated that the project will be open by 2023, but as it stands work is due to start on the route in September 2019 – 18 months after the TWA application is submitted, which would push the project close to the end of CP6. In order to overcome this, and get the team on site earlier, the EWR Alliance will also be submitting a number of local planning applications to construct new overbridges at the same time as the TWA.

Click to expand...

Southcombe said:

an exhibition about the East/West rail Link,

Click to expand...

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/east-west-rail-route/

is the map. It doesn't seem to include reopening Quainton Road.

Some trains that currently run from Marylebone to Aylesbury via Princes Risborough will be extended to Milton Keynes.

fflint said:

Seeing as the line will cross other London rsdial lines which are electrified is this wasting an opportunity or sound business sense?

Click to expand...

It's pragmatic in the circumstances, and won't prevent electrification in the future - something that's very likely IMO.

The most up to date information, including maps, can be found on the EWR consultation website:

http://ewrconsultation.co.uk/

Chris125 said:

It's pragmatic in the circumstances, and won't prevent electrification in the future - something that's very likely IMO.

Click to expand...

Deliberately taking the opposite position to help the discussion along...

Presumably EWR electrification would be an off-line project (i.e. no active railway), so surely this would be much cheaper*, and significantly move the business case

*How much cheaper? Anybody know/want to speculate?