hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
considering the line revenue is likely to increase by £5m+ per annum with a proper link to MKC from this direction then that sounds like quite an acceptable payback period.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]
- Thread starter aylesbury2
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Nope.
£5m+? Who has calculated that number?
Don’t forget to add on the cost of actually building the curve, as well as the land cost. The Ipswich
Chord was £60m five years ago, so with land it’s lookign like well over £100m at outturn prices.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
In the real world there is so much more to consider than simple relocation when dealing with business premises. I will happily admit that my experience may be atypical ( do you have experience of the process to call on?) but I dealt with business and residential relocation in relation to a motorway construction. Honestly, the residential properties were a doddle to sort out. There was a great deal of emotive comment, immense sadness, unhappiness and hot air in relation to residential properties but the actual process was straight forward. Business premises ( many of the sort we are talking about here being light industrial units, small warehouses, vehicle repair sites etc) were a nightmare. There wasnt the emotion but there was straight forward commercial reality.
When I was on the other side of the fence we used every trick we could think of to get a higher figure for the business being moved. Reputational impact, goodwill loss, higher rent, utilities and rates on the new premises, loss of trade, impact on customer access, publicity, proposed premises not suitable, premises too far away from core market, HGV access not good enough, insufficient parking, no public transport, too close to residential properties considering emissions, to far for our workers to travel, replacement equipment because that installed couldn't be moved. Sometimes it was compensation for loss of the business as the move would kill the company off. Anything to run the clock and the bill.
It would be no different here.
On the railway side there is the need to replace the depot, equipment and associated sidings and the engineers stabling sidings. Where are they going to go? How much do you think a modern electrified depot and equipment ( especially fueling and drainage/enviro systems to capture spillages) that meets current regulations is going to cost? The TOC depot serves the trains on the Marston Vale and is slated to maintain the LNWR 319's. They have to stable somewhere and it wont be in the carriage sidings on the WCML as they are full every evening and weekend. It wont be Northampton as that is full and it wont be Camden as that will be lost to HS2 and is full in any event. So where are they goign to go
As for the engineers stabling, where are the new sidings going to go? The new sidings have to work operationally, be accessible 24/7 and not impose excessive transit times on the machines getting to site as that reduces working time and increases all kinds of costs. Of course buying the land for these locations is going to add to your bill as is planning permission. On the engineering sidings side Blethcley has stabling capacity for large machines or for multiple machines and for basic maintenance work to be undertaken and for stoneblower replenishment. There is a full sized grinding train in there today. You have to replicate that facility. If you suggest using a TOC depot that means legal agreements and more cost and operational headaches. Operational headaches or excessive transit times lead to missed shifts and speed restrictions and delayed trains and unhappy customers.
Obviously none of this is insurmountable but it is expensive and far more difficult than posters here will ever accept.
I happen to agree. My point is that constructing said link is not as easy or cheap as suggested here.
Lets have a look at the route & I am assuming a target for the other portal to be in the fields along side the Marston Vale line between Fenny Stratford and Bow Brickhill. I have no idea what the subsurface geology is like in this area so cant comment on the practicalities of boring the thing!
The WCML is in a deep but shallow sided cutting at Standing Way so there is probably space to excavate your tunnel mouth. Above it is a small industrial estate. Your tunnel will have to quite steep at this point to go under the A5 junction, pass under or close to Stadium MK and it's surrounding estate (I assume you will want to miss the Mt Farm lake) under Fenny Stratford (with lots of residential houses to protect including mine) under the canal and the River Ouzel, under the A5 again, under the Marston Vale line ( because it is on an embankment at this point) and out into the fields ( use the massive tree to the south of the railway line as shown on google maps as a target) with a nice embankment to connect the existing line to the tunnel. phew. I think the curve might be easier and cheaper!
PS I am against your tunnel idea for one simple reason: It doesn't improve my journey to work
PPS I also have a feeling the target area for the MV tunnel end may be earmarked for residential development
Last edited:
eastdyke
Established Member
Looking forward, I think one of the biggest challenges will be to link those 1 million homes to work, services, education and leisure within each area of development, ie the first/last 'mile'.
This will be especially true for Bedford, MK, Northampton, Oxford and of course, as always, Cambridge.
Up-thread it was suggested that @richieb1971 might consider getting a job with DfT or NR to influence change, it might be that local politics would be another option. There is much to be done in and around Bedford to accommodate the new developments. Development will affect everybody who currently uses Bedford.
Larger 'new' developments at Calvert, Sandy and perhaps Bassingbourn should, in theory at least, benefit from the initial planning blank sheet.
As to the discussion around Bletchley, I have the view that work on the EWR western section phase 2 would have been better de-scoped to exclude The Vale.
I know that it is perhaps important for the headline project to include 'Bedford' but for 1tph the work, expenditure (and controversy) appears out of proportion.
The options report for the Central Section says that further (but unspecified) work in The Vale will be needed to run a full EWR service. But spending lots of money as part of Western Section sort of commits EWR to using that route. It just might not be the best thing to do when options for Bedford have been fully explored.
This will be especially true for Bedford, MK, Northampton, Oxford and of course, as always, Cambridge.
Up-thread it was suggested that @richieb1971 might consider getting a job with DfT or NR to influence change, it might be that local politics would be another option. There is much to be done in and around Bedford to accommodate the new developments. Development will affect everybody who currently uses Bedford.
Larger 'new' developments at Calvert, Sandy and perhaps Bassingbourn should, in theory at least, benefit from the initial planning blank sheet.
As to the discussion around Bletchley, I have the view that work on the EWR western section phase 2 would have been better de-scoped to exclude The Vale.
I know that it is perhaps important for the headline project to include 'Bedford' but for 1tph the work, expenditure (and controversy) appears out of proportion.
The options report for the Central Section says that further (but unspecified) work in The Vale will be needed to run a full EWR service. But spending lots of money as part of Western Section sort of commits EWR to using that route. It just might not be the best thing to do when options for Bedford have been fully explored.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
but is there an affordable option other than via the Marston Vale line?
eastdyke
Established Member
Ah - Bacon Factory Chord, on budget and on time! As I recall substantial civils, retaining walls, embankments and bridge works on former commercial/industrial land in the Gipping Valley.
A good job well done.
eastdyke
Established Member
I don't know, I haven't looked. Did anybody look?
The Vale option seems to me have been the line on the map (literally) without consideration of what might be needed for the Central section and a full EWR service.
Of course it's the cheapest option to connect Bedford as part of Western section.
My point is that it might not be the best option for a complete EWR.
FWIW I have seen, perhaps rather unrealistic, service proposals muted for a complete EWR that would require a good chunk of four-tracking in The Vale or other measures for trains to overtake
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I suspect the decision is a compromise driven by what funding is available and what the political appetite is for upsetting lots of well off voters in Bucks, Beds, Cambs and Herts!
FWIW I have seen, perhaps rather unrealistic, service proposals muted for a complete EWR that would require a good chunk of four-tracking in The Vale or other measures for trains to overtake
On the post E-W rail Vale we are only looking at :
- 1 Marston Vale all pots stopper
- 1 Oxford - Bedford limited stop service ( Bletchley, Woburn Sands, Ridgmont, Bedford)
- Freight as required
eastdyke
Established Member
Que? I am talking 2050 and beyond not for the token introductory service to include Bedford in the Western Section. We are spending an awful lot of money for that token service and will have to spend a whole pile more to run the services envisaged post East and Central section completions.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Even so what will be the impact? Surely one or two extra trains per hour along a double track railway. There are many more intensively worked sections of double track than that.
In any event the "western" section is mainly about MK > Oxford/Aylesbury connectivity.
Richard Ingram
Member
The Todmorden Curve was £10m 4 years ago, although that was much shorter, and was reinstating a previously lifted line. The Ipswich Chord also included 4 bridges and 2 embankments. My guess is a price between these two (plus inflation). Whether it's worth it is a different question. My feeling is to concentrate in getting the through line laid, at least to give some not-via-London services, then add in junction improvements at a later date as demand is tested.
I think option A would be best, cheapest, quickest, and from what others are saying here, most likely to get money from housing developments. Hopefully they could also use the money from the Wixams development for Bedford South Station. I don't think Cambourne needs heavy rail, especially as it is getting the A428 and A14 upgrades nearby. I think trying to get East-West Rail and Oxford Cambridge Expressway projects to serve the same communities runs the risk of one of them being cut as unnecessary. Routes C and D use the ECML, and wouldn't that introduce pathing difficulties on a busy line, especially with the freight they hope to move this way?
I know its not ideal for Milton Keynes or Bedford now, but maybe that can be fixed with chords at a later date. Maybe once everything is up and running we could have 1tph Oxford-Cambridge, and add in 1tph each Oxford-MK, MK-Bedford Central-Cambridge(possibly the current Marston Vale service extended), giving 2 routes per hour Oxford to Cambridge, one of which is slower and requires a change at Bletchley.
As someone who would love the central section built, going to Oxford is not the main reason, just being able to get to Bletchley without going via London would be useful. and if the service could be extended to Didcot or Reading, that would open up a whole area of the country.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
On a point of detail I don't think HS2 affects Camden. It goes underground in the area of the Downside Shed, which was out of use for many years and has now gone.
I agree supporting the Marston Vale from somewhere like Camden would be difficult, especially if it is still using 230s that can't exceed 60mph. But it's to be expected the Marston Vale would transfer from LNW to whoever runs EWR, who might have a depot somewhere more easily accessible.
However I agreed with your basic premise that the curve would be difficult and costly, with the added problem that trains using it would miss Bletchley so worsen connections towards Oxford and London.
eastdyke
Established Member
With the very greatest of respect you seem to be in denial of the main justification for EWR, that being to support the economy of this country as an efficient facilitator of the movement of people within and beyond the 'CaMkOx' Arc.
The impact will include the need to run many more trains than 'one or two extra per hour'.
Which is exactly why I believe the works in The Vale as part of the Western section phase 2 are included only to tag Bedford in the project headline. A proper design can only be concluded with further clarity of what will happen at Bedford and with a much better understanding of likely EWR services in the future.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The 230s are going to live at Bletchley depot. All three of them together are only about 100m long, so this isn't going to need lots of space even if you lost some of it to the chord under discussion. TBH, you could probably even stack them all up in platform 6 if you wanted to, given that there is now security on site at all times as an anti-suicide measure so vandalism would be unlikely.
zn1
Member
- Joined
- 3 Sep 2011
- Messages
- 435
why not just use wolverton for servicing and maintenance, plenty of space, easy access for tankers to enable fuelling, shed space for servicing etc IF BY WAS TO CLOSE permanently
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The current carriage siding land is no use for the chord anyway, look at a map. The curve would be too steep if it was built there. It would have to go across the industrial estate.
It'd take out some of the lines on the old depot site to the north of the Marston Vale line, but those are now (I believe) disused other than the 230s going in the shed, and they don't *have* to go in the shed.
It'd take out some of the lines on the old depot site to the north of the Marston Vale line, but those are now (I believe) disused other than the 230s going in the shed, and they don't *have* to go in the shed.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
How many do you think will be needed?
Much of the work on the Vale is about facilitation. It is about closing crossings, building bridges, sorting out signalling etc to allow easy introduction of the full service. I agree with your final point but that doesn't mean we shouldn't crack on with what we do know now.
you are not going to lose SOME of the depot you are going to lose ALL of the depot. That depot is slated support both the 230's and the 319's. Where are you going to put them?
You also over look the loss of stabling for engineering machinery. I know most people don't consider these machines important but they are now more than ever.
I agree, but that isnt going to happen overnight and doesn't fix the LNWR 319 issues nor does it fix the engineering train stabling issues.
there is a complicated shunt needed to access the site and it isnt going to be easy to get the kind of access required for depot operations. There is also only a long single none electrified access line and several un gated crossings along the route. Much (All?) of the site is scheduled for redevleopment.
no one is talking about the carriage sidings next to the WCML. The depot is slated to look after the LNWR 319 fleet
Because of where Tesco, Saxon Street and the existing bridges are you are going to have to destroy all of the depot because your curve would go straight through the approach lines and the engineering train stabling sidings, run along the side of the current embankment and join the WMCL somewhere near the Watling Street bridge.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There aren't exactly loads of them. I'm sure somewhere else could be found, e.g. perhaps one of the Birmingham sites.
I know you don't want to lose the line as it is, but it's a basket case. Running it to MKC instead would substantially increase usage. You might even start to get local commuting from ever-expanding Woburn Sands and other places along the way for those working in CMK who would never use a bus or in the case of the other villages don't even have one.
For engineering trains, you could always use one of the sidings at the old Stewartby brickworks/virtual quarry.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I agree entirely - Direct trains to MK would make my life much easier and improve the line no end. However, they can be offered for a fraction of the price, today, by reversing at Bletchley.
I think somewhere like Woburn Sands will benefit terrifically from the new services, even with the change.
Scheduled for redevelopment, not 24/7 accessible and not ideal operationally. ( They have been looked at before when the Forders VQ closed and off and on since.)
eastdyke
Established Member
I don't at this time have a fixed view. But I am thinking more like the following than your rather modest service. I have omitted the services that operate only west and north of Bletchley. SDG makes no mention of the Vale stopper
.Steer Davies Gleave (SDG) in their Transport Infrastructure Assessment: Final Report November 2017 for the National Infrastructure Commission wrote this:
https://www.nic.org.uk/wp-content/u...-mile-Strategy-Assessment-Report-SDG-2017.pdf
Page 40 on:
Since when in this country did we spend money on infrastructure doing something before it is needed? There will be plenty of time when we have a better idea of what we are doing for the Central Section
I remain of the view that money spent in The Vale without a clearer understanding of the longer term is money potentially wasted.
I was at a talk by Peter Austin in December 2017 https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-progress-and-updates.99892/page-45#post-3224662
I don't have his exact words, but in my notes I wrote: "North from MK into Bedford is expensive, and is less likely. Marston Vale line is a real challenge will have some improvement. Current work is to extend 2 stations and closing level crossings. Not much to speed up. Close to M1, Amazon warehouse. Plans to add a car park and bus stop"
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
What's happened to the proposal for an MK South West Parkway at Newton Longville?
If they really are proposing 6tph through the Marston Vale that has to mean closure of intermediate stations other than Woburn Sands/Ridgmont. No way would a stopping service fit as well as that. You can look at the CLC line between Liverpool and Manchester to see the most you can (unreliably and unpunctually) squeeze into a double-track line with a lot of stations.
Is there a proposal for a large New Town at Calvert? It's in the middle of nowhere (particularly if going on the Oxford rather than Aylesbury line), so surprised it's even getting a station let alone being served by the fasts in preference to Bicester.
If they really are proposing 6tph through the Marston Vale that has to mean closure of intermediate stations other than Woburn Sands/Ridgmont. No way would a stopping service fit as well as that. You can look at the CLC line between Liverpool and Manchester to see the most you can (unreliably and unpunctually) squeeze into a double-track line with a lot of stations.
Is there a proposal for a large New Town at Calvert? It's in the middle of nowhere (particularly if going on the Oxford rather than Aylesbury line), so surprised it's even getting a station let alone being served by the fasts in preference to Bicester.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
I doubt they know we exist
I remain skeptical about the Bedford > Cambridge section and I suggest 6 trains an hour in each direction is "aspirational"! it makes no mention of any freight, any none E-W services and no local services. it is a long way off in any event. I am focused on getting the section to MK opened. If the Vale section was left alone pending further decisions I wouldn't complain but i doubt that would be acceptable politically.
agreed - however we still need to close crossings and extend platforms and move signals etc to facilitate the first stage of Oxford > Bedford
eastdyke
Established Member
Who knows?
The location and extent of development will be contentious and is full of caveats, ifs, buts and mights.
The report I linked above from SDG for the National Infrastructure Commission has a table of indicative developments of new dwellings within the Arc. My technology does not permit a copy of the table, the following are included (part quote only):
From table 3.3 at page 19:
[Note that the figures are for dwellings not people]
I suppose that any development of MK SW towards Aylesbury could be served by EW rail if someone were to provide the funding. It would make for an MK 'South Parkway' with appropriate infrastructure.
Last edited:
Yes - I don't really see the immense problem. Yes, true, it's slower, but how many £m is that delay caused by reversing really worth? Also, worth mentioning that surely a local service heading around the suggested chord surely couldn't call at Bletchley at all any more, which might well cause just a little bit of upset.
Also - Milton Keynes is a highly decentralised city - I don't think it's going to shock residents too much to learn that if they want to get a fast Cambridge train without changing they need to drive to a station quite near IKEA instead of to MK Central (...which will still have Oxford trains, and local trains to Bletchley where you can change - if well timed the reversing Marston Vale train might be ideal, following the fast train up the Bedford line afterwards).
I think similar logic applies in Bedford - it seems to me that some very heavy engineering projects and potentially wildly unpopular changes to MML services are being suggested to avoid a short delay caused by reversing at Bedford Midland to get to the original route out to the east (now that the rowing lake threat is gone I can't see why this isn't viable, other than a diversion to take a slightly different route into Sandy itself).
leytongabriel
Member
- Joined
- 27 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 590
Yes With a network of fast roads. Bletchley renamed as Milton Keynes South? Half-serious suggestion.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The original concept for MK actually involved no station in CMK (if that had been in the original plan the centre may perhaps have been placed either side of the railway instead of on one side of it) and Wolverton renamed to MK North and Bletchley to MK South.
However, these days this would be very unpopular with locals (as the "old towns" like their identity) and would be of questionable benefit anyway, as everyone knows where they are, they just don't tend to want to use them primarily because of the slower services to London.
More faster services from Bletchley to London (as a minimum adding Bletchley stops into all the services that presently run Leighton-Euston only) would be required to make it more popular - which may not be a bad idea given that the car park is mostly nearly empty while MKC fills up! Those additional services would also make needing to change there for Bedford still unpopular but a bit less so - at present the connections can be very poor, particularly given the chronic unreliability of the Southern service, which would only be solved by putting an extra pair of units and crew into the circuit to extend the layovers (which might only be possible at the MKC end because of platform utilisation at East Croydon).
richieb1971
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,981
A north east curve at Bletchley would only serve any benefits to me if 1 train per hour came from Cambridge to MKC. Before the central section is built it serves little purpose. Looking at the map, i'd not go under the flyover before turning. Just turn north before it. Judging by the amount of cars parked on what would be the west part of the line, its not really cutting that much off.
I'm not saying its worth it. As for train storage. Look at all those wasted rails!! When I was a kid there were class 310 EMU's galore stacked up on the hill, which would be furthest right in the picture. I think about 8 units were parked there at a time. Bletchley certainly isn't short of space to park trains.
I'm not saying its worth it. As for train storage. Look at all those wasted rails!! When I was a kid there were class 310 EMU's galore stacked up on the hill, which would be furthest right in the picture. I think about 8 units were parked there at a time. Bletchley certainly isn't short of space to park trains.
Attachments
DarloRich
Veteran Member
No one is suggesting turning north AFTER the flyover!
I suspect your curve is too tight and your route doesn't take into account the embankment or the topographical levels. I suggest you would have to build a shallower radius curve and run alongside the embankment all the way to the WCML bridge over Watling Street. I think the route would be through the depot shed, the white roofed building and the two gray roofed buildings
You have also managed to destroy the depot, the engineering trains sidings and the freight sidings. Where do you propose to move them to? I wish the real world was as simple as drawing a line on the map ( plus i wish i knew how to do that!)
This morning there are two 319 units sat on those "wasted rails" along with 2 of the class 230 units in front of the depot. Soon Blethcley will, apparently, be home to the entire LNWR 319 fleet and the 3 Class 230's.
it is worth noting units are much more intensively worked than in the 1980's so i would hope none were parked up during the day. One wonders where they are all going to go at night mind.........................
- Status