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

DarloRich · 16 Jan 2018

richieb1971 said:
I don't know how much the revamped Bletchley with extra platforms would cost, but I'd ditch that idea first. You already have a station with more than enough platforms as it is. Put some points in south of the station, let the passenger trains cross all the tracks and join it up at Swanbourne (or thereabouts). Freight goes over the top. This way all services operate as normal. The MKC service can opt to stop at Bletchley or go over the top for a quicker end to end time.

Is that a serious suggestion?

RailUK Forums

mr_jrt · 16 Jan 2018

richieb1971 said:
I don't know how much the revamped Bletchley with extra platforms would cost, but I'd ditch that idea first. You already have a station with more than enough platforms as it is. Put some points in south of the station, let the passenger trains cross all the tracks and join it up at Swanbourne (or thereabouts). Freight goes over the top. This way all services operate as normal. The MKC service can opt to stop at Bletchley or go over the top for a quicker end to end time.

...you what?

You're aware, right, that the line approaches Bletchley from the south west and runs diagonally across the WCML to the point its basically parallel on the site of the proposed platforms? I'm going to be generous here and assume you mean to branch off before the flyover and run alongside, dive under Water Eaton Road (as if you go over, you'll have to be as high as the flyover!), then get under
the flyover and run into bays alongside the fast line platforms on the site of the demolished station buildings?

I assume that because I certainly hope you're not proposing to cross the WCML fast lines at grade to access the slow line platforms...

...and you think all that will be cheaper than two new platforms on the flyover as proposed?

muddythefish · 16 Jan 2018

DarloRich said:
You do understand the difference in funding a private and public company don't you?
?

Like Carillion you mean ?

muddythefish · 16 Jan 2018

coppercapped said:
In Germany there is a project (Stuttgart 21) to rebuild the terminus station in Stuttgart as a underground station and to connect it to the existing high speed line towards Mannheim to the northwest and to the high speed line - now under construction - eastwards towards Ulm, Augsburg and Munich. First conceived in 1988, the project has gone through several permutations. The new station and urban redevelopment project originally had a price tag of €2.6 billion ($3.3 billion), but the likely outturn costs will be around €10 billion and it will be completed several years late. This is for 6 platforms and the connecting tunnels...

And the US aircraft carrier Gerald R Ford cost $10.4 billion (without aircraft) when completed last year...

The difference being that those countries swallowed the cost and completed projects to full specification whereas the UK cuts back in the face of rising costs resulting in an inferior outcome that is not up to the job. Infrastructure in this country is woeful and has been so for decades, and it won't be improved by penny pinching.

BucksBones · 16 Jan 2018

DarloRich said:
Your "good ideas" cant be delivered within the available budget. That is the key issue you seem unable to grasp. I wish you could.

I have no idea what that has to do with the post you quoted. Please re-read it.

But as we're here, please stop accusing me of having ideas! I haven't actually expressed any.

I am quite prepared to accept that there is a limited budget for this project; what I do not accept is that the country is totally skint. There are numerous enormous infrastructural projects on the go, not least HS2, and the odd passing loop on a single track line is quite literally a drop in the ocean in comparison.

BUT...(and perhaps I didn't make myself clear on this, for which I apologise)....

.....as to whether the odd passing loop is necessary in this particular instance is not the point I was trying to make as I have no idea! I was just expressing the hope that what is delivered is actually useful. Actually, reading some of the more informed posts on the last few pages has gone some way to convincing me that it will be fine.

deltic08 · 16 Jan 2018

mr_jrt said:
Does reducing the platform lengths on a new-build railway really make a noticeable enough impact to the costs to warrant the inflexibility they will cause? Seems madness to cut them back when you have a near enough blank slate to work from.

That's the British Disease again for you.

Non Multi · 16 Jan 2018

In the thread Rail renationalisation- do you support it? There is only one single mention (post #852) of The 'dead hand' of the Treasury, and yet here it is. A renationalised rail infrastructure provider that can only build what it's allowed to. The horror!

deltic08 · 17 Jan 2018

coppercapped said:
DarloRich has it spot on in Post #1496. This is the reality - it is as true for public procurement just as it is for private purchases. Although I might like a 58" TV with all the bells and whistles - if the money only stretches to a 32" set then that is what is has to be.

It is a very simple concept to understand.

Unless you buy on higher purchase over three years.
I don't see any cutbacks in HS2.

Andyjs247 · 17 Jan 2018

No one has yet answered how much is actually being “saved” by descoping - eg shorter platforms at Winslow and Bletchley; single track from Aylesbury to Claydon; no loops at Newton Longville; no second platform (and lifts not required) at Aylesbury Vale Parkway and improvements to the south binned. How much was it going to cost before this was cut? And what is it costing now?

If cutting out some gold plating is possible and we can still get the same benefits for less cost, then great. But I’m skeptical. Can what has been cut still be reinstated easily if required? I just hope that it won’t prove to be a costly decision that is regretted.

Chris125 · 17 Jan 2018

deltic08 said:
I don't see any cutbacks in HS2.

Do the Heathrow branch and HS1 connection not count? It's scope has changed like most projects.

DarloRich · 17 Jan 2018

mr_jrt said:
Does reducing the platform lengths on a new-build railway really make a noticeable enough impact to the costs to warrant the inflexibility they will cause? Seems madness to cut them back when you have a near enough blank slate to work from.

deltic08 said:
That's the British Disease again for you.

Potentially. However there is more to it than simply changing the length of platforms. There are other costs tied up in that work. You might need to buy a smaller plot of land, you need less materials and man power you might not have to divert those services, you don't need to run as much piping and cabling, you don't need that second shelter etc etc. It all adds up.

muddythefish said:
Like Carillion you mean ?

muddythefish said:
The difference being that those countries swallowed the cost and completed projects to full specification whereas the UK cuts back in the face of rising costs resulting in an inferior outcome that is not up to the job. Infrastructure in this country is woeful and has been so for decades, and it won't be improved by penny pinching.

So the answer to my question is no. You have no idea about the differences between how a private company is funded and how a public company is funded. Thanks for confirming that. Would you like me to explain them?

BucksBones said:
I have no idea what that has to do with the post you quoted. Please re-read it.

But as we're here, please stop accusing me of having ideas! I haven't actually expressed any.

I am quite prepared to accept that there is a limited budget for this project; what I do not accept is that the country is totally skint. There are numerous enormous infrastructural projects on the go, not least HS2, and the odd passing loop on a single track line is quite literally a drop in the ocean in comparison.

BUT...(and perhaps I didn't make myself clear on this, for which I apologise)....

.....as to whether the odd passing loop is necessary in this particular instance is not the point I was trying to make as I have no idea! I was just expressing the hope that what is delivered is actually useful. Actually, reading some of the more informed posts on the last few pages has gone some way to convincing me that it will be fine.

What is delivered will be VERY useful. Very useful indeed. It is immensely frustrating to see items cut/ specifications reduced as I am a local resident and want this line up and running. However, that world of making choices and delivering for the available budget is the world I live in every day and we have to make the best of it. Moaning about road funding or wishing for a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow to deliver a superb railway instead of merely a good one wont help get that good railway built.

And the country is FAR from skint. However as we all know politicians control how and where that money is spent & upon what it is spent. If they will only fund a certain amount that is what gets built. NR has to deliver more than just E-W with the available money and another project might have a better call for the money needed to gold plate this project.

richieb1971 said:
I don't know how much the revamped Bletchley with extra platforms would cost, but I'd ditch that idea first. You already have a station with more than enough platforms as it is. Put some points in south of the station, let the passenger trains cross all the tracks and join it up at Swanbourne (or thereabouts). Freight goes over the top. This way all services operate as normal. The MKC service can opt to stop at Bletchley or go over the top for a quicker end to end time.

it seems you want me to be nicer to people therefore:

This is a very good idea. Thanks for suggesting it. There is merit in the suggestion. However I would like to point out a few challenges we may need to over come in order to make this idea a reality. Off the top of my head they are, in no particular order:

I know the area quite well and suggest land would have to be purchased to build a new line
While it may currently be open land this area is earmarked for a substantial housing development
There is a substantial height differential between the WCML and the E-W line. That will mean earth works are required
A bridge will also be required over Water Eaton Road
There are two lakes in the target area for such a curve - they need to be avoided
Minerals have been extracted in the local area which could have an adverse impact on ground conditions
Having to bridge Water Eaton road means that the path that I assume is the course of the old track bed cant be used due to the height differential.
Your flat junction on the WCML introduces a considerable maintenance risk.
Your junction would have to cross both fast and slow lines and allow access to platforms 5 & 6 WITHOUT blocking the stone terminal shunt.
The connection to your junction would be very close to the existing flyover - there may not be space
I suspect that the outrigger for the flyover may block the path of any junction
I feel it unlikely existing WCML off peak traffic patterns would allow any crossing movement. ( Peak hours would be next to impossible)
You could suggest a route between the two ponds/lakes but that requires a much greater land take and doesn't fix the crossing moves

The Planner · 17 Jan 2018

It was considered as an option but binned very early on for the variety of reasons alluded to above.

Dunnyrail · 17 Jan 2018

muddythefish said:
So the money isn't there to build a double track railway line but £7bn plus is around to build a gold-plated road expressway. In the real world, and contrary to what politicians say (well done for quoting them by the way), money is always available.

Scaling back EWR smacks of expediency and will inevitably lead to the problems that have afflicted the Border railway, another reopened line descoped to save costs in the short term but now shackled with regards to future long term growth because of cost cutting.

Well said that man.

jimm · 17 Jan 2018

muddythefish said:
So the money isn't there to build a double track railway line but £7bn plus is around to build a gold-plated road expressway. In the real world, and contrary to what politicians say (well done for quoting them by the way), money is always available.

Scaling back EWR smacks of expediency and will inevitably lead to the problems that have afflicted the Border railway, another reopened line descoped to save costs in the short term but now shackled with regards to future long term growth because of cost cutting.

Retaining single-track for a dozen miles or so between Aylesbury and Claydon junction is in no way comparable with the Borders Line - which is three times the distance, with a half-hourly service.

Why on earth would anyone build a double-track railway on a side arm of the main East West route, with one passenger train per hour each way between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes (and I'd expect them to be passing each other on the double track somewhere between Claydon and Winslow anyway) plus the odd freight - hardly a compelling case for a gold-plated railway line, is it?

If there was a need to buy land and build from scratch, the costs of the East West Rail Link would look pretty eye-watering too - so the Bedford-Cambridge section certainly will pile up the bills as much as any new road.

Can you stop flinging this £7bn figure around as though it is a true, accurate, fully-costed estimate - never mind that the government has not actually committed to build any road(s) yet.

What Kingham West actually posted (post #1482 on page 50) was this

the£ 3 to £7 billion , expressway

The DfT report at the end of 2016 has a table on page 44, with estimates of £3bn to £3.5bn, with the following rider

(plus uncertainty and project risk)

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...expressway-strategic-study-stage-3-report.pdf

Even by government procurement standards, £7bn would be quite some cost inflation.

coppercapped · 17 Jan 2018

muddythefish said:
The difference being that those countries swallowed the cost and completed projects to full specification whereas the UK cuts back in the face of rising costs resulting in an inferior outcome that is not up to the job. Infrastructure in this country is woeful and has been so for decades, and it won't be improved by penny pinching.

The USS Gerald R Ford aircraft carrier had a budgeted cost of just over $10 billion - the final outturn was nearly $13 billion some 8 years after construction had begun - total overspend of some 20%. This was covered by stretching the construction time into other budget periods.

Neither Stuttgart 21 nor the new Berlin airport have yet been completed, so in these cases your statement is incorrect.

It is now looking possible that the airport will not be completed to the present design - in the meantime flight operations continue at the constrained and overcrowded airports such as Tegel. Stuttgart 21 will be almost certainly be completed as work has progressed on the new Stuttgart - Ulm high speed line so reverting to the old station layout will not be possible. However, as money is limited even in Germany, because of the cost overruns there are several significant proposed improvements in railway infrastructure in Baden-Wurttemberg which have been delayed or cut back.

Overspending does come at a price - and that is true everywhere.

richieb1971 · 17 Jan 2018

So currently we have a loop (Don't know if its long enough) on the Marston Vale at Forders Sidings. How far west would you have to go to get to the next loop?

jimm · 17 Jan 2018

I think some signalling upgrades might be required but the Bicester MoD depot exchange sidings could probably do the job and have access for trains from both directions to enter and exit.

richieb1971 · 17 Jan 2018

By road thats 35 miles. Is 35 miles a long distance between freight loops?

At least it means Forders will get used again unless they build on it.

Just to save me looking it up is Wootton Broadmead crossing going to be bridged?

coppercapped · 17 Jan 2018

deltic08 said:
Unless you buy on higher purchase over three years.
I don't see any cutbacks in HS2.

I assume you are joking, but if not than I would point out if you buy something on hire purchase, or a leasing scheme, you will pay interest on the money the lender has advanced to you. This makes the thing more expensive so you will have to forgo some other purchases.

Others have answered the HS2 points.

70014IronDuke · 17 Jan 2018

Leslie Fletcher said:
But also wrong. Countries, unlike households, can print money .... .

What brilliant idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?
<does a bit of googling> Oh, they have.
Like Weimar Germany in 1921.
Hungary in 1946.
Yugoslavia in the 1980s.
Zimbabwe in 2000s.
Hmmm.
Do I detect a pattern emerging here? Mthinks this might need a bit more research.

Andyjs247 · 17 Jan 2018

richieb1971 said:
So currently we have a loop (Don't know if its long enough) on the Marston Vale at Forders Sidings. How far west would you have to go to get to the next loop?

Is there going to be the possibility to loop something at Claydon by the new depot and will it be possible to get from say Oxford to Aylesbury with a reversal still? Can it be done without blocking the through lines though?

Also if coming down the WCML, is there a loop at Denbigh Hall before you get to the flyover? Won’t help if you’re coming from Bedford though.

jimm said:
I think some signalling upgrades might be required but the Bicester MoD depot exchange sidings could probably do the job and have access for trains from both directions to enter and exit.

My understanding is that the loop there is fully signalled and able to handle 775m freight.

70014IronDuke · 17 Jan 2018

cle said:
.......
3tph via Winslow I am guessing include 2tph to MKC and 1 tph to Bedford, referenced. The MKC assumptions being the Marylebone and then a E/W from Reading/Oxford. Nothing long distance seemingly - with the Bedford being a future Cambridge. I wonder if they could extend to Corby or Northampton on these routes - and do a little more....

I'd wager a ten bob note that Bedford - Cambridge will never be (re-) built and the best that will happen is - c 2035 - an extension to Manton with new south-east cord allowing through working to Stamford and Peterborough.
Not my wish, you understand. Just my best-case scenario, given the orrible cost of rail development projects.

70014IronDuke · 17 Jan 2018

richieb1971 said:
I don't know how much the revamped Bletchley with extra platforms would cost, but I'd ditch that idea first. You already have a station with more than enough platforms as it is. Put some points in south of the station, let the passenger trains cross all the tracks and join it up at Swanbourne (or thereabouts). Freight goes over the top. This way all services operate as normal. The MKC service can opt to stop at Bletchley or go over the top for a quicker end to end time.

There are some crackpot ideas brought up in this forum, for sure, but this takes the Weetabix. Installing a flat crossing junction and introducing conflicting movements across all four WCML tracks makes re-opening Carmarthen-Aberystwyth look a guaranteed winner. Trans-Atlantic tunnel, anyone?

70014IronDuke · 17 Jan 2018

Andyjs247 said:
We are where we are I suppose and I am pleased at one level that this project is firming up and still progressing towards completion.

The cynic in me wonders how much has actually been “saved” by these latest changes. They appear significant cuts on top of electrification being binned.
...

This post wins you a full-scholarship on City University's 12-month journalism course. Or should do. Perhaps someone at Modern Railways will be asking these questions for a future article.

70014IronDuke · 17 Jan 2018

jimm said:
....
There doesn't seem to be any suggestion so far that the core Oxford-Bletchley rail axis will not still be built as a 100mph double-track route - creating the equivalent down to Aylesbury, for 1tph in each direction, plus presumably a bit of freight to Calvert, always looked a bit of a gold-plated solution.

Am I the only one to think that MK/Bedford - Aylesbury - [Wycombe] demand will quickly jump to 2 TPH? At least if speeds are decent. I realise it doesn't need to be double tracked for 1 TPH, but it will surely need a passing loop between Calvert and the Vale if it needs to go to two.

The Planner · 17 Jan 2018

richieb1971 said:
By road thats 35 miles. Is 35 miles a long distance between freight loops?

A fair few runs of 35 miles or more on current Intermodal routes that I can think of.

mr_jrt · 17 Jan 2018

70014IronDuke said:
What brilliant idea! Why hasn't anyone thought of that before?
<does a bit of googling> Oh, they have.
Like Weimar Germany in 1921.
Hungary in 1946.
Yugoslavia in the 1980s.
Zimbabwe in 2000s.
Hmmm.
Do I detect a pattern emerging here? Mthinks this might need a bit more research.

Nice strawman.

Perhaps consider we already do this, except the new money seems to be dissapearring into entities with large amounts of wealth, and thus not stimulating the economy as intended. If you want to stimulate the economy you put money in the hand of the people who will go out and spend it (i.e. the poor), not the person who will stick it in an investment vehicle (i.e. the rich). We seem to keep putting money into the rich's hands for some reason. Given the quantitative easing devalues the existing currency it's a double whammy for the poor given the way we do it here - they see no benefit from the QE and what little money they already have becomes less valuable.

DynamicSpirit · 17 Jan 2018

muddythefish said:
The difference being that those countries swallowed the cost and completed projects to full specification whereas the UK cuts back in the face of rising costs resulting in an inferior outcome that is not up to the job. Infrastructure in this country is woeful and has been so for decades, and it won't be improved by penny pinching.

Do you have any evidence that other countries complete projects without cutting back, to a greater extent than the UK?

I don't have any statistics either way, but I strongly suspect that you have no evidence for your assertion, and that in fact, the UK is not at all atypical in de-scoping projects that turn out to be more expensive than expected/it becomes harder than expected to raise the money. Certainly, I remember when I was in the US, transport projects far more modest than East-West rail seemed to be regularly being postponed/cut back. If you want a good example, look at the BART San Jose extension, a very sensible project to extend the San Francisco/Bay Area metro rail into San Jose where it would connect Amtrak and Caltrain rail routes. Would have been completed long ago on the original plans. Instead, what is now being built is a shorter extension that terminates much less usefully on the outskirts of San Jose, without connecting to any other rail services (although plans are being worked on to get the line properly into San Jose).

As another example from the same part of the World, you might wonder what happened to Barack Obama's plans for a high speed San Francisco-Los Angeles rail route.

I really don't think there are any grounds for making out that the UK is unusual as far as what happens to major infrastructure projects is concerned.

LNW-GW Joint · 17 Jan 2018

muddythefish said:
It's all rather pathetic that supposedly one of the richest countries in the world refuses to invest in its rail infrastructure properly. In the past year, we've had cancellation and cutting back of key electrification schemes and now a reopened rail line linking two of the fastest growing cities in the country is being scaled back through short term thinking and cost cutting expediency. Still, at least the £7bn expressway isn't suffering the same fate......

Don't forget Network Rail blew £1.5 billion on GW overspend.
Doesn't help the funding of other projects, or trust in its delivery capability.
That's also the real world.

cle · 17 Jan 2018

70014IronDuke said:
Am I the only one to think that MK/Bedford - Aylesbury - [Wycombe] demand will quickly jump to 2 TPH? At least if speeds are decent. I realise it doesn't need to be double tracked for 1 TPH, but it will surely need a passing loop between Calvert and the Vale if it needs to go to two.

I don't really see the demand, but I'd love to be wrong. Could Quainton Road be a potential loop (bridges/space all there and aligned) - and maybe if ever the need, a ready-made two platform station...

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

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member