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

Dunnyrail · 18 Jul 2018

Non Multi said:
2023? This is the UK, you'll be lucky to see Bicester - Bletchley operational by 2023.

I undertand that, I am talking about the system being able to deliver an important project before we have all croaked!

RailUK Forums

hooverboy · 18 Jul 2018

Dunnyrail said:
I undertand that, I am talking about the system being able to deliver an important project before we have all croaked!

the chinese can do it in 9 days!......just a thought.Health+ safety couldn't even compile a risk assessment in that time, let alone release it and expect it to be completed,filled in and returned.
(my point being that chinese stuff will probably crumble to bits in 10 years, but ours will not even be off the drawing board in the same timeframe)

yes safety is nice, but you can cotton-wool wrap everything and get precisely nowhere due to excessive rules and cost

a_c_skinner · 18 Jul 2018

It always staggers me that on the modest number of occasions when the cost-benefit analysis stacks up, you know, essential to the nation, bound to pay us back, excellent idea etc. that it then takes ages and ages to even start building let alone finish it. This is of course OT because it applies to all rail projects, not just E-W rail.

I'm 63 so any project people now talk about (even the 769s apparently) I'll not live to see.

richieb1971 · 18 Jul 2018

If we are to assume it will be finished at some point, what is the most likely route it will take east of Bedford in your opinion?

If it misses Bedford completely then you could go east before Lidlington, perhaps put a summer stop near Center Parcs and put a station near the A6 and pick up the A421 somewhere along the route. I heard some mumblings earlier in the thread about leaving the Vale line before or around Lidlington.

Then you have the option of going East from Kempston Hardwick, crossing the MML and having a parkway station near the A6.

If Bedford is on the through route you have 2 more options of going through Midland station or using the old alignment.

I'm assuming Network rail still own this land in highlighted green - It was sidings until the early 80's but trees have grown. All that could be a car park for EWR as its close enough to the original triangle formation that existed prior the closing of the old St Johns. Or the land on the other side of the current St johns station which is a car park can be swapped for the land highlighted in green. The current car park could be made a lot bigger as well since its adjacent to NR land. I'm going to assume most people think the EWR will diverge long before Bedford, but this land is sitting doing nothing for 35 years.

edwin_m · 18 Jul 2018

Andyjs247 said:
Well that would be sensible. Except that there is not now going to be passive provision for electrification. Certain structures which would require rebuilding are not now being done and will present a barrier to future electrification. It makes no sense; particularly since it is actually costing more.

The definition of passive provision is to make it easier to include some future enhancement as long as it doesn't involve spending significant extra money now. So if there's no reason to re-build the bridge except for possible future electrification, a passive provision strategy doesn't re-build the bridge. If a bridge needs re-building anyway, it will cost virtually nothing extra (except in very unusual circumstances) to provide electrification clearance and that will be done under passive provision.

DarloRich · 19 Jul 2018

Dunnyrail said:
Thanks so much, I will take that as an appology and move on.

it wasn't an apology.

Dunnyrail said:
At least my initial words have re-opened the dabate here and happily teased out some good/bad ideas and some that hopefully will be used if and when this important project moves forwards.

No they haven't. None of the discussion here will form even the smallest part of any decision making process

Dunnyrail said:
It terms of 100mph capability, I do accept the need for as many miles as is possible. But this will always need to be considered between cost and time gained. There will be places Bletchley-Bedford that this will be tricky, just as there is not 100mph running all the way from the Junction from Chiltern to Oxford. But I must say again what a superb job Chiltern have made of that piece of Railway and just shows what can be done with a will and the right attitude to get things done.

I think you ought to look into how the Evergreen project was funded and delivered. It is clear you have no idea.

Dunnyrail said:
With the right Piloitical will and some serious push, I still see no reason why Oxford / Ayles - Cam could not be done by 2023. But it will take a step change in the way things are done now and I accept that, also accepting that how things are done now (with the exception of how Chiltern have approached things) is not the best or even right way.

No it couldn't. What "step change" do you think could deliver this project in the time you suggest? What did "Chiltern" do differently to other projects?

Andyjs247 · 19 Jul 2018

[deleted]

Andyjs247 · 19 Jul 2018

edwin_m said:
The definition of passive provision is to make it easier to include some future enhancement as long as it doesn't involve spending significant extra money now. So if there's no reason to re-build the bridge except for possible future electrification, a passive provision strategy doesn't re-build the bridge. If a bridge needs re-building anyway, it will cost virtually nothing extra (except in very unusual circumstances) to provide electrification clearance and that will be done under passive provision.

The route is being gauge cleared for W10/W12 anyway. What I don’t really understand is why this does not seem to include the necessary preparation for electrification. How is gauge clearance for freight and container traffic being achieved without clearance for electrification?

Plans had already been drawn up to replace several structures. Not doing so has meant a fresh round of consultations, environmental assessments etc and additional cost and delays.

£1 bn of funding was announced for East West Rail last year, enough to complete the project, with electrification, and maybe also rebuild Oxford station too.

Bletchleyite · 19 Jul 2018

Re Bedford I'd suggest reversing in Midland is probably the way to go for what will be relatively short (80m perhaps?) DMU/EMU passenger trains - it is the main station for Bedford and better located than the original St John's (though both of them suffer the typical Midland Railway thing of building miles from the town centre). It's not like it's a high speed line we're building, it's a bit of a "Bummelzug" really.

You could easily get a couple more bays in on the car park, if that caused a lack of spaces double or triple-stack the car park.

edwin_m · 19 Jul 2018

Andyjs247 said:
The route is being gauge cleared for W10/W12 anyway. What I don’t really understand is why this does not seem to include the necessary preparation for electrification. How is gauge clearance for freight and container traffic being achieved without clearance for electrification?

Plans had already been drawn up to replace several structures. Not doing so has meant a fresh round of consultations, environmental assessments etc and additional cost and delays.

W10/W12 involves creating extra clearance in the upper corners where containers extend beyond the traditional curved roof profile. Electrification involves increasing the clearance directly above the train and for a shorter distance either side of the centreline to make room for the pantograph. So an overbridge made of a horizontal girder span may already have the clearance for W10/W12 but not for electrification, and if the intention is to provide W10/W12 but only passive provision for electrification then it would not be re-built.

I can't see why deciding not to do part of the intended work would involve massive extra expense on EIA and consultation, unless the part that was dropped was a mitigation of a specific problem. So deletion of noise barriers or balancing ponds would be difficult but I don't see how this would apply to deletion of a bridge re-build - unless perhaps the bridge in question was a hazard to the highway?

DarloRich · 19 Jul 2018

hooverboy said:
the chinese can do it in 9 days!......just a thought.Health+ safety couldn't even compile a risk assessment in that time, let alone release it and expect it to be completed,filled in and returned.
(my point being that chinese stuff will probably crumble to bits in 10 years, but ours will not even be off the drawing board in the same timeframe)

yes safety is nice, but you can cotton-wool wrap everything and get precisely nowhere due to excessive rules and cost

oh dear. This post is detached from reality and typical of many on this board. You seem to be suggesting the reason there are not trains running on this line is 'elf and safety gone mad.

it has been explained to you and other posters time and time and time and time again why things take as long as they take. You aren't interested though. The reasons for the delay here are obvious. It isnt elf and safety gone mad.

Andyjs247 · 19 Jul 2018

edwin_m said:
W10/W12 involves creating extra clearance in the upper corners where containers extend beyond the traditional curved roof profile. Electrification involves increasing the clearance directly above the train and for a shorter distance either side of the centreline to make room for the pantograph. So an overbridge made of a horizontal girder span may already have the clearance for W10/W12 but not for electrification, and if the intention is to provide W10/W12 but only passive provision for electrification then it would not be re-built.

The bridge nearest to me is not now being rebuilt. It is a fairly standard arch. I see that if it had a flat profile you might be able to fit big boxes but not electrification.

This is not the case here. I’m not sure of other locations but I suspect they are also arches with a curved profile. The structures date from 1850 when the line was built.

The point remains that it must be relatively trivial to provide clearance for electrification at the same time as clearance for W10/W12 - in fact I’m fairly sure I have seen it expressed as “W10/W12 + Electrification” gauge.

DarloRich · 19 Jul 2018

Andyjs247 said:
The point remains that it must be relatively trivial to provide clearance for electrification at the same time as clearance for W10/W12 - in fact I’m fairly sure I have seen it expressed as “W10/W12 + Electrification” gauge.

Trivial in the grand scheme of things but when up against a budget it is easy to push the issue off and make it someone else problem. Silly as that may be that is the reality of public funding.

edwin_m · 19 Jul 2018

Andyjs247 said:
The bridge nearest to me is not now being rebuilt. It is a fairly standard arch. I see that if it had a flat profile you might be able to fit big boxes but not electrification.

This is not the case here. I’m not sure of other locations but I suspect they are also arches with a curved profile. The structures date from 1850 when the line was built.

The point remains that it must be relatively trivial to provide clearance for electrification at the same time as clearance for W10/W12 - in fact I’m fairly sure I have seen it expressed as “W10/W12 + Electrification” gauge.

If they are providing W10/W12 then the bridge you mention must be compatible with that gauge, perhaps with some modification that is less than re-building it. Without access to the details of the bridge and the decision making process, it's impossible to say any more.

I agree if the bridge is being re-built it would be easy to provide clearances for all needs. But if the existing bridge can cater for all the actual requirements of the project, and electrification is not a requirement, then it will not be re-built.

swt_passenger · 20 Jul 2018

Just had a scan through page 1 of this thread for a reminder that there are always people who complain about lack of progress, and then completely ignore all the perfectly clear explanations.

For some reason this EWR thread suffers a lot from this...

richieb1971 · 20 Jul 2018

Just asking what grip stage this is in. Thanks

swt_passenger · 20 Jul 2018

Publicly available info, (ie the June 18 EDP update), says Grip 3 was complete in Jul 17, and Grip 4 will complete Dec 19.

bspahh · 24 Jul 2018

a_c_skinner said:
Back completely on topic where are we with the plans for Bletchley, Bedford and the Eastern section?

The latest summary that I have seen was a Strategic Transport Forum meeting on June 22nd from http://www.englandseconomicheartland.com/Pages/strategic-transport-forum.aspx (its a partnership of councils and local enterprise partnerships in and around the East-West route).

Item 4b on the Agenda is an update on Strategic Rail priorities. http://www.englandseconomicheartlan... 4b Strategic Rail Priorities (PDF 171KB).pdf On East West Rail it says:

Western Section

6.1. Good progress continues to be made with the Western Section. A further round of consultation as part of the preparation for the Transport and Works Act (TWA) has recently concluded, which the Strategic Transport Forum provided a strategic response to.

6.2. The consultation identified a number of issues where there is a need to find a solution. The East West Rail core team, on behalf of the East West Rail (EWR) Consortium, are working closely with the Department for Transport, Network Rail and the shadow East West Railway company to respond to these issues.

6.3. Whilst work on the TWA Order continues, the primary mechanism for delivering the Western Section will be the use of permitted development rights.

6.4. The EWR Consortium continues to work closely with the Department for Transport, Network Rail and the shadow East West Rail Limited on taking forward the Secretary of State’s initiative to speed up delivery of the Western Section and reduce its cost. The work associated with the what is referred to as the Secretary of State’s ‘cost challenge’ is extensive and on-going.

6.5. A key issue has been the need to press hard the EWR Consortium’s position that delivery of the link to Aylesbury and delivery of the initial improvements to the Bletchley to Bedford section remain integral to the scope of the Western Section.

6.6. The 2017 Autumn Budget confirmed that funding is available to deliver phase two of the western secion (Bicester to Bedford, and Milton Keynes to Princes Risborough), with the intention that services will be running in 2023 and the project to be complete by 2024.

6.7. In addition the 2017 Autumn Budget confirmed funding for an Oxfordshire Rail Corridor study. This will consider current and future rail growth across the area and establish opportunities for more services, routes and stations (such as Cowley).

Central Section

6.8. The 2017 Autumn Budget confirmed the establishment of the East West Rail Company as the vehicle charged with accelerating delivering of the overall East West Rail project. England’s Economic Heartland supports the Secretary of State’s initiative and continues to work closely with the new Company in support of its objective.

6.9. Also announced in the 2017 Budget, was a £5 million funding commitment from government towards delivery of proposals for Cambridge South station. Government is also commissioning Network Rail to report by summer 2018 on rail growth in Cambridgeshire up to 2043, and the enhancements needed for the increased demand. This work is supported by England’s Economic Heartland as being required in order to support and accommodate the future growth of the area.

snowball · 27 Jul 2018

From the London Gazette dated Friday:

https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/3068489

The Transport and Works Act 1992

The Transport and Works (Applications and Objections Procedure) (England and Wales) Rules 2006

Proposed Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order

NOTICE OF APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER

Network Rail Infrastructure Limited (“Network Rail”) of 1 Eversholt Street, London, NW1 2DN, is applying to the Secretary of State for Transport under section 6 of the Transport and Works Act 1992, for the above-mentioned order under section 1 of that Act.

The draft order makes provision for the construction, operation and maintenance of a railway between Bicester and Bedford; Milton Keynes and Aylesbury to facilitate the operation of new passenger services between Oxford and Milton Keynes and Aylesbury.

The draft order will authorise the reinstatement of the partially disused Bicester-to-Bletchley-to-Bedford and Aylesbury-to-Claydon Junction routes, together with the construction of a new station at Winslow, platforms at Bletchley and Aylesbury Vale Parkway; and platform extensions at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont Stations. It is known as East West Rail Western Section Phase 2 (EWR2).

Works are proposed to be undertaken in the County of Oxfordshire (in the District of Cherwell), the County of Buckinghamshire (in the District of Aylesbury Vale) and in the County of Bedfordshire (in the District of Bedford, the District of Central Bedfordshire and the District of Milton Keynes).

The Order includes provisions for –

• the compulsory acquisition of land for the proposed works and ancillary purposes, including worksites; the acquisition of rights over specified land; provisions for the temporary use of land in connection with the authorised project; and the extinction and creation of private rights; and

• the operation and use of the railway; temporary and permanent stopping up of highways; closure of road level crossings; replacement and closure of footpath level crossings; provisions relating to streets, powers to carry out protective works to buildings on specified land; and powers to survey and investigate land.

This application is made subject to an environmental impact assessment.

The application contains a statement that a direction for deemed planning permission is being applied for.

Further information about the proposals can also be obtained by telephoning Network Rail’s national helpline on 0345 11 41 41.

Any objections to, or other representations about, the proposals should be sent to the Secretary of State for Transport c/o Transport and Works Act Orders Unit, General Counsel's Office, Department for Transport, Zone 1/18, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 4DR, email [email protected].

An objection or representation MUST (i) be received by the Secretary of State on or before 7 September 2018, (ii) be made in writing (whether sent by post or email), (iii) state the grounds of the objection or other representation, (iv) indicate who is making the objection or representation, and (v) give an address to which correspondence relating to the objection or representation may be sent. (If you are sending your objection or other representation by e-mail, please provide a postal address and state "Network Rail East West Rail TWA Order" in the subject of the email.)

The Secretary of State may make complete copies of the objections and other representations public, including any personal information in them, and will copy them to the applicant for the Order.

Winckworth Sherwood LLP, Solicitors and Parliamentary Agents, Minerva House, 5 Montague Close, London SE1 9BB, on behalf of Network Rail Infrastructure Limited.

Date 27 July 2018

absolutelymilk · 27 Jul 2018

https://www.networkrailmediacentre....phase-2?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Network Rail submits final proposals for East West Rail phase 2
For the first time in over 50 years passengers could soon travel directly between Oxford and Bedford, and Milton Keynes and Aylesbury, unlocking the region’s housing potential and transforming the lives of residents for generations to come as the East West Rail project moves a step closer today (27 July).

A ‘mothballed’ section of the railway between Bletchley and Claydon Junction could be brought back to life, with plans for major signalling and track upgrades set to connect communities and businesses along the route and beyond, creating new opportunities for jobs, housing and economic growth for the future.

Work could begin as early as next year if Network Rail plans submitted to the Secretary of State for Transport to construct phase 2 of the project between Bicester and Bedford are approved.

The East West Rail project is being built progressively in phases, and once complete will create a world class rail link connecting Oxford, Bicester, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge, connecting communities and businesses to create more jobs, more economic growth, and more sustainable housing.

With phase 1 between Oxford and Bicester already complete, phase 2 proposes major track and signalling upgrades between Bicester, Bedford, Aylesbury and Milton Keynes, including the reinstatement of a ‘mothballed’ section of railway between Bletchley and Claydon Junction.

The proposed works will see major improvements to local travel, with the phased introduction of new rail journeys between:
• Oxford and Milton Keynes, with trains stopping at Oxford Parkway, Bicester, Winslow and Bletchley
• Oxford and Bedford, with trains stopping at Oxford Parkway, Bicester, Winslow, Bletchley, Woburn Sands and Ridgmont
• Milton Keynes and Aylesbury, with trains stopping at Bletchley, Winslow and Aylesbury Vale Parkway
Construction of phase 2 is subject to permission through a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO), which if granted by government could allow major works to begin as soon as 2019.

alexx · 27 Jul 2018

Great news that the application has (finally) been made.

Re: next steps, I found a guide to TWAO here: https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/273359/twa-orders-summary-guide-2013.pdf. From my brief skimming through, I believe that if an objection to the application has been lodged during the objection period, the Secretary of State has 28 days (or longer if extended) from the end of the objection period to decide whether a public enquiry or hearing should be carried out. If there's only a few objections, they can be handled individually. Hopefully there have been enough consultations to avoid the majority of objections.

Also, I understand that Bicester - Claydon will be closing (even more so than it already is) shortly for some work. Assume that's something related to EWR phase 2 and HS2 under existing HS2 legislation?

Last (but not least), I'm placing a bet that within two weeks there'll be a picture of a Bicester councillor or two standing in front of the level crossing at London Road complaining that nothing's being done about that. Bonus points if the representative for Launton gets to mention the missed opportunity to replace the railway bridge into the village.

Bald Rick · 27 Jul 2018

alexx said:
Great news that the application has (finally) been made.

Re: next steps, I found a guide to TWAO here: https://assets.publishing.service.g...file/273359/twa-orders-summary-guide-2013.pdf. From my brief skimming through, I believe that if an objection to the application has been lodged during the objection period, the Secretary of State has 28 days (or longer if extended) from the end of the objection period to decide whether a public enquiry or hearing should be carried out. If there's only a few objections, they can be handled individually. Hopefully there have been enough consultations to avoid the majority of objections.

Also, I understand that Bicester - Claydon will be closing (even more so than it already is) shortly for some work. Assume that's something related to EWR phase 2 and HS2 under existing HS2 legislation?

Last (but not least), I'm placing a bet that within two weeks there'll be a picture of a Bicester councillor or two standing in front of the level crossing at London Road complaining that nothing's being done about that. Bonus points if the representative for Launton gets to mention the missed opportunity to replace the railway bridge into the village.

For anyone who thinks the process takes too long, please read every word of all the documents that form part of the TWA order application. When you’ve done that, answer two questions:

1) how long do you think it is reasonable to take to complete all the activity necessary to produce the information that is provided in the documents, and,
2) what information included in the documents do you feel it is unecessary to produce and why?

swt_passenger · 28 Jul 2018

The EWR western section phase 2 application details are at the bottom of this page:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/our-railway-upgrade-plan/key-projects/east-west-rail/western-section/

snowball · 28 Jul 2018

swt_passenger said:
T
The EWR western section phase 2 application details are at the bottom of this page:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/our-railway-upgrade-plan/key-projects/east-west-rail/western-section/

Anone else had difficulty downloaing documents from there? It seems the worst user interface I've seen in years and keeps seeming to crash for me.

richieb1971 · 28 Jul 2018

snowball said:
Anone else had difficulty downloaing documents from there? It seems the worst user interface I've seen in years and keeps seeming to crash for me.

I can't seem to view the documents outside of a browser. You get an embedded form of PDF which you can view full screen by the click of a button. If your using a small screen I can imagine its a tough navigation method.

snowball · 28 Jul 2018

I'm using Firefox on a laptop, not a phone. I've managed to look at the documents schedule but it's not letting me see any plans or the text of the draft order. Neither the "preview" option nor the "download" option are working reliably for me.

What I'd mainly like to know is if there's been any change in the proposals concerning level crossings since this time last year, when there was only one example of a new road bridge being proposed to replace an LC.

richieb1971 · 28 Jul 2018

snowball said:
I'm using Firefox on a laptop, not a phone. I've managed to look at the documents schedule but it's not letting me see any plans or the text of the draft order. Neither the "preview" option nor the "download" option are working reliably for me.

What I'd mainly like to know is if there's been any change in the proposals concerning level crossings since this time last year, when there was only one example of a new road bridge being proposed to replace an LC.

Too many formatting errors by copying and pasting.

What crossing are important to you?

richieb1971 · 28 Jul 2018

I can't see the crayon drawing anywhere, care to snip it in here please?

edit -

Is it this one -

snowball · 28 Jul 2018

richieb1971 said:
Too many formatting errors by copying and pasting.

I didn't copy or paste anything. I just clicked on things and it either gave messages about network errors or failed to respond.

What crossing are important to you?

None are important to me. I'm just generally interested.

snowball · 29 Jul 2018

I've now managed to download the text of the draft order (it won't let me download any more documents at present). New bridges over the line are on the following roads. I'm ignoring footbridges over the line and a few bridges taking roads over watercourses.

work no. 5, a diversion of the A4221

work no. 11, a diversion of Station Road (Launton to Poundon road)

14, private access north of Marsh Gibbon

18, realignment of Queen Catherine Road (Steeple Claydon to Middle Claydon road)

23, reconstruction of existing bridge (Sandhill Road, west of Verney Junction)

24, Littleworth Farm access

30, Salden Lane (1.5 miles W of Newton Longville)

32A, temporary access bridge over Water Eaton Road, Bletchley

33, realignment of Woodley's Farm access road, Woburn Sands

37, realignment of Marston Road, Lidlington

39, realignment of Manor Road, Kempston Hardwick

42, a farm access road over the Aylesbury-Claydon Junction line.

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

Member

RailUK Forums

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member