• 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]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Jorge Da Silva

Established Member
Joined
4 Apr 2018
Messages
2,591
Location
Cleethorpes, North East Lincolnshire
https://www.railjournal.com/fleet/east-west-railway-company-to-launch-rolling-stock-procurement/

Any thoughts?

East West Railway Company to launch rolling stock procurement\

BRITAIN’s East West Railway Company (EWR Co) has confirmed it intends to begin a formal rolling stock procurement process later this year, following the conclusion of a rolling stock market engagement exercise which commenced in November 2018.


EWR Co lodged a prior information notice (PIN) on July 5, which is expected to feature in the Official Journal of the European Union this week.

“Reactions to our approach from the rolling stock market have been extremely positive,” says EWR Co chief executive, Mr Simon Blanchflower. “We’ve taken a purposeful approach to procurement, using this engagement period to effectively de-risk the project by working with the market to understand what’s available to meet our entry into service requirements, before defining our specifications.”

The PIN has requested that interested parties refrain from further interactions with EWR Co until the formal process begins.

The East West Rail project will link Oxford, Bicester, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. Phase 1 between Oxford and Bicester has been completed, while phase 2 proposes reopening the lines from Bicester and Aylesbury Vale Parkway to Bletchley as well as major track and signalling upgrades between Bletchley and Bedford, and Milton Keynes.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
Is there a specification for the rolling stock? Or is producing a specification part of the procurement process?
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
There doesn't seem to be much choice at the moment other than 195s?
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
I hope whomever is choosing said procurement knows that platform 1a at Bedford only has room for 2 carriages. Any train longer than this will bottleneck Bedford Midland because the Thameslink terminators require P1 and P2 to put post rush hour trains into the sidings at Bedford and these can only be accessed from P1/P2. At the moment there are Thameslink terminators in either of those platforms almost 100% of the time (not both of course, but at least one of them).

I read in another thread (MML Electrification) that Jowett Sidings was to increase its 12 car sidings to 6 sidings (currently 4).

I really wish somebody in the official scheme of things could tell us how BDM will be planned for the future. IE. Abelio trains, THL, EWR and Marston Vale diagrams and what the BDM platform layout will look like in 2025.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
Bedford Midland will get a pretty major rebuild as part of EWR. 2-car trains are not applicable - if that's all the demand they get, there's no point bothering.

Is there enough time before 2025 to plan and execute a rebuild of Bedford Station? That seems like a fairly major undertaking.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
It'll have been planned as part of EWR! Probably doesn't require a rebuild of the whole thing, but as I said 2-car trains will be pointless.

So the plans aren't public then, is that the case? But we can expect that EWR (the company) will have reasonably detailed plans for what to do at Bedford?

I guess I just expected that at least some amount of those plans would be public by now if that were the case (things like planning applications for example).
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
Well, unless it actually does intend on running 2-car DMUs it is inconceivable that it wouldn't have such plans, really?

No that seems a sensible assumption - I'm more curious about the lack of public domain information that anything. Not that I know anything about these things, I freely admit my ignorance. But for a project of that size, even if they've planned for a bare minimum of work, my instinct is that there should be more information available than there is. Obviously I'm wrong, but I'd like to know why I'm wrong.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
It's not the biggest project in the world, TBH. Needs a new station building, then you demolish the current one and extend platform 1a through it. Don't even have to connect it to the slow lines north of the station if you want to really cut costs. Can't imagine it'd take that long either.
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
Please note I am the only person at the moment arguing the case for provisions for Thameslink terminators to go elsewhere.
It seems to me that the allowance of terminating trains to hold 2 platforms at any given time should be addressed in some way. So far though my concerns have not been addressed.

It seems to me that the projects will go ahead to tick boxes and the consequences will be addressed at a later date whilst passengers will feel the absolute full effects. Which is not fair to high paying passengers. Bedfordians have suffered enough as it is.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Are E-W Rail going to take over the Marston Vale shuttle? Or will that still be LNER?

And, if 2-car is too little, then E-W Rail would be running longer trains than Chiltern out of Aylesbury!
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
So the plans aren't public then, is that the case? But we can expect that EWR (the company) will have reasonably detailed plans for what to do at Bedford?

I guess I just expected that at least some amount of those plans would be public by now if that were the case (things like planning applications for example).
Much of this thread is about the small matter that they haven’t decided on a route through Bedford yet, surely it depends on exactly how they intend to head towards and cross the ECML in a future phase. Previous discussions have included the possibility of another separate station...
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,267
Are E-W Rail going to take over the Marston Vale shuttle? Or will that still be LNER?

And, if 2-car is too little, then E-W Rail would be running longer trains than Chiltern out of Aylesbury!
It hasn’t been formally decided. One of the DfT statements within the last couple of years did propose a new ‘mini Toc’ to run all the EWR services. Which came as something of a surprise, because previous consultations by the EWR consortium had at least the Milton Keynes <> Aylesbury service as an extension of a Chiltern Marylebone service...

I assume your “LNER” is a typo for LNR by the way...
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
They definitely need some Thameslink options - sending at least one to Kettering or Corby might be useful operationally, and for some local journeys. But otherwise, stabling and platforming for sure.

Leaving the absurdity of this now being diesel and 90mph scoped, I always understood that 350-type 4 car MUs would be most appropriate.
 

Xenophon PCDGS

Veteran Member
Joined
17 Apr 2011
Messages
32,269
Location
A semi-rural part of north-west England
It's not the biggest project in the world, TBH. Needs a new station building, then you demolish the current one and extend platform 1a through it. Don't even have to connect it to the slow lines north of the station if you want to really cut costs. Can't imagine it'd take that long either.

Based upon expected operational requirements for services, how much will be expected to be cost-budgeted for the station rebuild and associated ancilliary works?
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
Are E-W Rail going to take over the Marston Vale shuttle? Or will that still be LNER?

And, if 2-car is too little, then E-W Rail would be running longer trains than Chiltern out of Aylesbury!

Maybe Chiltern should order some more stock and then give some of their 2 car 165s or 168s to E-W Rail
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
And, if 2-car is too little, then E-W Rail would be running longer trains than Chiltern out of Aylesbury!

Chiltern aren't running 2-car all day, it's only 2-car at quiet times. And in any case, it's rather different to build a new railway on the basis of a 2-car DMU once or twice an hour compared with keeping an existing one like that. You'd not build[1] the Conwy Valley now, for instance, nor would you likely build Little Kimble station. But as it's already there...

[1] Er, well :)
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
My opinion is that bdm is suitable enough for purpose. It's got 4 platforms and for the amount of traffic it's good enough. What isn't good enough is that Bedford has no loops north or south of the station and that Thameslink block at least 2 of the platforms most of the day. Even at 3am your likely to find at least one parked in a platform.

Build in some loops at the new wixams station or build some bays north of Bedford near bromham. Bedford has no provisions for terminating trains, it's built as a through station.
 

hooverboy

On Moderation
Joined
12 Oct 2017
Messages
1,372
They definitely need some Thameslink options - sending at least one to Kettering or Corby might be useful operationally, and for some local journeys. But otherwise, stabling and platforming for sure.

Leaving the absurdity of this now being diesel and 90mph scoped, I always understood that 350-type 4 car MUs would be most appropriate.
diesel and 90mph scoped is still sufficient for EWR

what isn't sufficient is the lack of vision to get major transport and commercial hubs PROPERLY connected.
hence my aversion to bletchley,bedford parkway being interchange points.
 

Andyjs247

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2011
Messages
707
Location
North Oxfordshire
I don’t think Chiltern are in a position to offload any of their 2-car 165s or 168s. What would they replace them with given their franchise only runs to 2021?

My understanding is EWR is to get 3-car trains rather than 4-car as had been envisaged before the descoping. Platforms at Winslow etc will now be 4-car rather than 8- but at the same time I doubt 3-car trains will be sufficient to cope with the mass expansion in house building planned across the region. The trains will be popular - Bicester Village saw 50% increase in usage over last year driven largely by commuting to/from Oxford.
 

Mikey C

Established Member
Joined
11 Feb 2013
Messages
6,830
I don’t think Chiltern are in a position to offload any of their 2-car 165s or 168s. What would they replace them with given their franchise only runs to 2021?

My understanding is EWR is to get 3-car trains rather than 4-car as had been envisaged before the descoping. Platforms at Winslow etc will now be 4-car rather than 8- but at the same time I doubt 3-car trains will be sufficient to cope with the mass expansion in house building planned across the region. The trains will be popular - Bicester Village saw 50% increase in usage over last year driven largely by commuting to/from Oxford.

As with so many franchises, the timing of the franchise date (and the complete impasse in new awards) prevents this, but Chiltern do need more stock urgently so in an ideal world they'd get the new longer DMUs and E-W rail could start with their shorter ones and build the service up. As a new and non London service, I doubt it will be rammed from day one

The Chiltern Oxford situation is slightly different, Oxford Parkway has attracted many London commuters, and the impaired Paddington service caused by the various electrification delays will also have encouraged this switch
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
diesel and 90mph scoped is still sufficient for EWR

what isn't sufficient is the lack of vision to get major transport and commercial hubs PROPERLY connected.
hence my aversion to bletchley,bedford parkway being interchange points.
It's supposed to be a new 'inter city' spine among other things - with potential for long distance services heading onto the WCML and MML. A small difference perhaps, but I'd expect at least 100 or 110mph, especially given how straight it is, and with few stations.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
It sounds like no one is sure how much planning or decision making has been done regarding Bedford station.
Is there any reliable, definitive, public domain information available at all? I have searched, but there's just news articles, press releases and "aspirational statements".

I should say that I have an interest as my family is from Bedford and I regularly travel there from Nottingham.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,540
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
My opinion is that bdm is suitable enough for purpose.

What it needs is a platform on the down fast, which it doesn't presently have. This causes an undue time penalty for stopping IC services there southbound.

Anyway, who said 1A was only a 2-car platform? I've just looked on Google Maps and it will take at least 4x20m (there is helpfully an EMU in 1 to use as a comparison) and I reckon it might be possible to do a short extension without moving any track (so perhaps allowing 4x23m). So actually there is no issue. The platform length issues are at several Marston Vale local stations, which presumably will, pending any electrification, continue to be served by the 230s.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top