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

swt_passenger · 11 Jul 2019

jfowkes said:
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.

As I implied earlier, there cannot really be any plans, until the decision is made about the intended route. The consultation that was being discussed here back in the spring was aimed at deciding the broad direction of the central section, ie how to cross the MML. Until that’s done how can any detailed work start - it’ll probably be some years before they get to TWA application stage, that’s when detail starts to appear in public. IIRC the route consultation only closed in March.

RailUK Forums

edwin_m · 11 Jul 2019

swt_passenger said:
As I implied earlier, there cannot really be any plans, until the decision is made about the intended route. The consultation that was being discussed here back in the spring was aimed at deciding the broad direction of the central section, ie how to cross the MML. Until that’s done how can any detailed work start - it’ll probably be some years before they get to TWA application stage, that’s when detail starts to appear in public. IIRC the route consultation only closed in March.

Agreed. If the decision is that the eastward continuation of EWR doesn't go through Midland, or doesn't happen at all, then any money spent in the area is wasted. I've also checked the mapping and I agree a short extension of 1A looks possible to accommodate a 3-car unit.

I don't think there is room for an Up Fast platform unless the current platform 3 track is removed (in which case the island can be widened out to the UF, but it would need some other measure to restore equivalent terminating capacity) or there is a realignment outside the railway boundary.

Bletchleyite · 11 Jul 2019

edwin_m said:
I don't think there is room for an Up Fast platform unless the current platform 3 track is removed (in which case the island can be widened out to the UF, but it would need some other measure to restore equivalent terminating capacity) or there is a realignment outside the railway boundary.

I think if I was proposing a full rebuild, I'd probably suggest bulldozing the building and making 1A a full length platform, and putting the ticket office facilities etc on a widened footbridge. Then you could extend the island out to the UF.

Bald Rick · 11 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
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.

Presumably you mean Up Fast; the down fast platform was built around 20 years ago (managed by a very good friend). And, obviously, you can’t build a platform on the Jp Fsdt with the current configuration.

jfowkes · 11 Jul 2019

It all seems a bit risk prone. If the current station building doesn't need moving then that removes a lot of work, but in the event that it does: is there sufficient time to plan the work, consult on it, incorporate the results of said consolation, hire contractors and do the work before the targeted start of EWR operations?

edwin_m · 11 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I think if I was proposing a full rebuild, I'd probably suggest bulldozing the building and making 1A a full length platform, and putting the ticket office facilities etc on a widened footbridge. Then you could extend the island out to the UF.

However that only restores the three Slow line platforms that are there now, with no separate platform for EWR. The only capacity benefit is that southbound stopping trains twice per hour don't have to cross over and back and use one of those three platforms. But anything more ambitous would most likely need land acquisition to the north and east. Hence why I consider turnbacks further north beyond the built-up area may be a better bet.

jfowkes said:
It all seems a bit risk prone. If the current station building doesn't need moving then that removes a lot of work, but in the event that it does: is there sufficient time to plan the work, consult on it, incorporate the results of said consolation, hire contractors and do the work before the targeted start of EWR operations?

Whatever needs doing at Bedford would be done in parallel with building a brand new railway most of the way to Cambridge. I doubt the station works would be on the critical path!

Bletchleyite · 11 Jul 2019

edwin_m said:
However that only restores the three Slow line platforms that are there now, with no separate platform for EWR. The only capacity benefit is that southbound stopping trains twice per hour don't have to cross over and back and use one of those three platforms. But anything more ambitous would most likely need land acquisition to the north and east. Hence why I consider turnbacks further north beyond the built-up area may be a better bet.

That does assume that EWR doesn't increase demand for more ICs to stop. I still think it would be logical to stop most or all of them at Bedford for connectivity post HS2 and from Thameslink.

EWR may of course not serve Midland at all. But if it does, it does appear to me that you could easily get a couple more 4 x 24m platforms onto the present car park (having made 1A a through platform and extended 3 out onto the Up Fast), replacing the lost capacity by building a multi-storey car park instead of the present surface-only parking. And I suspect 4 x 24m is going to be a "sweet spot" train length for EWR.

CyrusWuff · 11 Jul 2019

edwin_m said:
Agreed. If the decision is that the eastward continuation of EWR doesn't go through Midland, or doesn't happen at all, then any money spent in the area is wasted. I've also checked the mapping and I agree a short extension of 1A looks possible to accommodate a 3-car unit.

Looking at the Timetable Planning Rules and Sectional Appendix, the operational length of the erstwhile Platform 1a is given as 81 metres. This is sufficient for a three car 23m DMU or a four car Class 230 (as those have 18 metre vehicles).

jfowkes · 12 Jul 2019

edwin_m said:
Whatever needs doing at Bedford would be done in parallel with building a brand new railway most of the way to Cambridge. I doubt the station works would be on the critical path!

I think I've been assuming that this is all just the Oxford - Bedford section. Getting the Cambridge section built and opened for 2025 seems extremely ambitious.

edwin_m · 12 Jul 2019

jfowkes said:
I think I've been assuming that this is all just the Oxford - Bedford section. Getting the Cambridge section built and opened for 2025 seems extremely ambitious.

It makes sense to consider Oxford-Bedford but also to bear in mind the longer term situation. For Oxford-Bedford I would expect the existing platform 1A to be sufficient, assuming it can hold whatever length trains EWR runs, as seems likely from discussion on here. This will probably still be relevant with an extension to Cambridge even if it doesn't go through Midland, as there will most likely still be a terminating train from the west that could provide some level of connectivity to Midland and connections between EWR and the MML northwards (in particular).

Any more radical upgrade of Bedford needs to await a decision on EWR routeing to the east, otherwise it risks either being overkill or having to be done again a few years later.

70014IronDuke · 12 Jul 2019

edwin_m said:
... Any more radical upgrade of Bedford needs to await a decision on EWR routeing to the east, otherwise it risks either being overkill or having to be done again a few years later.

The entire history of Bedford Midland has been exactly this since the MR board decided c 1862 or so to have the London extension divert immediately to the south of the station - arguably hampering Bedford's economic development (because planners did not want to stop expresses there due to the inordinate time penalty) and leading to a series of low-cost 'solutions' which have eventually ended up as high-cost, long-term problems.

I say again the most effective way to cut this Gordion Knott is to abandon faffing around with the present site, with all its imponderables regarding EW rail, and build a new parkway station somewhere around the Clapham-Oakley area. This should have the capacity to terminate and turn Thameslink trains while keeping any freight delays to a minimum.

This would a) free up platform space at the present Bedford MR station by avoiding the need to turn (most) trains there
b) avoid any rebuild of the present station - and the massive passenger disruption any such work would cause
c) significantly improve transport connectivity to north Bedfordshire and cut commuting road traffic into Bedford.

Arguably this should have been done in the 1990s.

Bedford MR would still not be ideal - up expresses would still have the time penalty of having to cross to the platform track (sorry, not sure which platform it is any more) but that would be a small price to pay for such a solution that would bring such positive connectivity iprovements regardless of when or if EW rail comes to fruition.

Bletchleyite · 12 Jul 2019

70014IronDuke said:
Bedford MR would still not be ideal - up expresses would still have the time penalty of having to cross to the platform track (sorry, not sure which platform it is any more) but that would be a small price to pay for such a solution that would bring such positive connectivity iprovements regardless of when or if EW rail comes to fruition.

If the termination of Thameslink services there was removed, there would be no need for the platform 3 track as a terminus, and so building the island platform out across that track to meet the Up Fast would be a reasonably quick job.

70014IronDuke · 12 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
If the termination of Thameslink services there was removed, there would be no need for the platform 3 track as a terminus, and so building the island platform out across that track to meet the Up Fast would be a reasonably quick job.

Well, that's another bonus, but one that could be delayed to a time it could be justified (if ever).

Obviously extending TL services something like 2 - 3 miles would involve higher running costs, but I wonder if the cost of building the new station, along with track and signally costs, would actually be cheaper than those same costs associated with (another) rebuilding of Bedford MR to accommodate future needs. And I strongly suspect any such rebuilding would end up with a compromise that would need yet more work 30 years into the future.

si404 · 12 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
Chiltern aren't running 2-car all day, it's only 2-car at quiet times.

'quiet'. OK there are some 3-car trains that run those routes, and a few longer peak trains, but the average train heading south from Aylesbury will be shorter than the average train heading north if they do 3-car E-W Rail.

Jorge Da Silva · 12 Jul 2019

More detail

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/tender-set-to-be-issued-for-east-west-rail-rolling-stock

The East West Railway Company (EWR Co) has confirmed its intention to begin a formal rolling stock procurement process in August.

RAIL can reveal that an Invitation to Tender (ITT) will be issued to supply 11 three-car self-propelled units for services due to commence in 2024 between Oxford, Bedford, Aylesbury and Milton Keynes.

It follows the conclusion of a rolling stock market engagement exercise that had been under way since November 2018, which involved workshops and meetings with manufacturers, suppliers and rolling stock operating companies (ROSCOs) from across the market.

EWR Co Chief Executive Simon Blanchflower said: “Reactions from the rolling stock market have been extremely positive. 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. Thank you to anyone who has engaged with this process so far - your input has been invaluable.”

EWR Co was established in 2017 to oversee and accelerate the delivery of the East West Rail scheme to restore a direct rail link between Oxford and Cambridge (closed as a through route in 1967).

The line is being reopened in stages, with services running from Oxford to Bedford, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury from 2024, and along the full route to Cambridge some three to four years later.

mr_jrt · 12 Jul 2019

Would it be possible to remove the existing down fast platform, move over the track, then squeeze in a new island platform between it and the up fast? With any extension of 1a That would give you three long islands, ideally one for EWR, one for Thameslink (who could then have a central turnback north of the platform), and one for the fasts. Obviously, you could have one for EWR and three for Thameslink instead, if you so desired, but you get the idea. I suspect if stopping everything at Bedford for interchange became acceptable, then any curvature issues for the fast lines might end up moot.

70014IronDuke · 12 Jul 2019

mr_jrt said:
.... I suspect if stopping everything at Bedford for interchange became acceptable, then any curvature issues for the fast lines might end up moot.

It won't and it isn't needed. Even if EW Rail is a roaring success, that won't be based on huge passenger flows changing at Bedford. Of course, there will be some, but not enough IMO to justify stopping everything, not even if HS2 becomes the main artery to Derby, Notts and Sheffield.

Mikey C · 12 Jul 2019

The line is being reopened in stages, with services running from Oxford to Bedford, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury from 2024, and along the full route to Cambridge some three to four years later.

2024 seems really slow for reinstalling and rebuilding an existing line, whereas 2027/8 seems really optimistic for what will be a partially new line with no route chosen yet

Bletchleyite · 12 Jul 2019

Mikey C said:
The line is being reopened in stages, with services running from Oxford to Bedford, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury from 2024, and along the full route to Cambridge some three to four years later.

2024 seems really slow for reinstalling and rebuilding an existing line, whereas 2027/8 seems really optimistic for what will be a partially new line with no route chosen yet

It's basically a ground-up rebuild. The work involved is near enough the same as reinstating a wholly closed and lifted line - a bit like the Oxford to Bicester rebuild, which was basically putting in a new line where an existing railway had just happened to be. Indeed, the existing railway probably increased the cost as they had to remove it first! Or maybe comparable with Metrolinking Oldham.

The thing that gets me is the idea of using DMUs in 2024. That it isn't being wired is nothing short of a disgrace.

cle · 12 Jul 2019

Agreed on the wires. Not so on the alignment, it does make 'shovel-ready' much easier. But yes no track, signalling or anything else are being re-used.

Perhaps an Aylesbury Vale Parkway just outside of Bedford would be good. Four platforms for Thameslink trains (maybe even secure for stabling) - no fast platforms, and all trains terminate there. I still think 1tph TL to Kettering or Corby wouldn't hurt - and sending 1 of the 2 Corbys north instead, even if terminating at Leicester.

And then Bedford is a through station, with better options for EWR.

Xenophon PCDGS · 12 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
The thing that gets me is the idea of using DMUs in 2024. That it isn't being wired is nothing short of a disgrace.

The Lewis Carroll entity that I call "The Grayling" is most averse to electrification and most probably has his home residence lit by the use of gas mantles.. :rolleyes:

MarkRedon · 12 Jul 2019

Xenophon PCDGS said:
The Lewis Carroll entity that I call "The Grayling" is most averse to electrification and most probably has his home residence lit by the use of gas mantles..

Perhaps that's it, Paul: hydrogen powered trains? But a new diesel-only line in the 2020's, I sincerely hope not.

67018 · 12 Jul 2019

si404 said:
'quiet'. OK there are some 3-car trains that run those routes, and a few longer peak trains, but the average train heading south from Aylesbury will be shorter than the average train heading north if they do 3-car E-W Rail.

It’s not the case that Chiltern only run 2-car trains at quiet times. There are still some 2-car leaving Marylebone in the weekday evening peak. And they are not uncommon at other times, often being uncomfortably full. But that’s due to lack of stock, not by design.

Xenophon PCDGS said:
The Lewis Carroll entity that I call "The Grayling" is most averse to electrification and most probably has his home residence lit by the use of gas mantles..

Isn’t it equally the case that the industry has not demonstrated an ability to deliver electrification anywhere near on time or within budget, and so the government are reluctant to pour more money into the same black hole?

If getting this line open means diesel trains, bring them on - if it’s electrification or nothing we’ll probably get nothing.

Bletchleyite · 12 Jul 2019

I suppose given that it's fairly closely linked with the Chiltern line, it would perhaps make sense to electrify it in a package with that set of routes - which absolutely does need doing. There'll come a point in the not too distant future when all diesel vehicles - road or rail - are outright banned from central London, for instance.

edwin_m · 12 Jul 2019

mr_jrt said:
Would it be possible to remove the existing down fast platform, move over the track, then squeeze in a new island platform between it and the up fast? With any extension of 1a That would give you three long islands, ideally one for EWR, one for Thameslink (who could then have a central turnback north of the platform), and one for the fasts. Obviously, you could have one for EWR and three for Thameslink instead, if you so desired, but you get the idea. I suspect if stopping everything at Bedford for interchange became acceptable, then any curvature issues for the fast lines might end up moot.

Looks to me like the re-alignment of the Down Fast to achieve this would drastically reduce the speed for non-stopping trains, and probably also go outside the boundary and need re-building of the bridges at either end.

hooverboy · 12 Jul 2019

edwin_m said:
Looks to me like the re-alignment of the Down Fast to achieve this would drastically reduce the speed for non-stopping trains, and probably also go outside the boundary and need re-building of the bridges at either end.

for bedford it would probably make platform 4 into an island(creating platform 5), so stoppers would take the points and come in on the rear side of the present platform(where the substation is), leaving faster trains a place to bypass as required through present P4.

I think do-able as the present curvature of the line restricts the speed of the trains going through anyway(I think it's 80mph). for a stopper they are approaching at perhaps 40mph in any case it's not going to cause a problem.
the new P5 would be about 200m Long so could cope with a 5 car 22x/18x without much issue...could handle an 8 car 360 no problem too.

platform 1a definitiely needs knocking through to make a new one capable of holding/dispatching a train of reasonable length( ie 8 or 12 car) all the way through.

Ianno87 · 12 Jul 2019

mr_jrt said:
Would it be possible to remove the existing down fast platform, move over the track, then squeeze in a new island platform between it and the up fast?

The Fasts are on quite a graceful, canted bend through the station. Any Slueing of the Down Fast would likely kill the line speed through the station, unless you took a fair chunk of land/Bedford to do it.

cle · 12 Jul 2019

Bletchleyite said:
I suppose given that it's fairly closely linked with the Chiltern line, it would perhaps make sense to electrify it in a package with that set of routes - which absolutely does need doing. There'll come a point in the not too distant future when all diesel vehicles - road or rail - are outright banned from central London, for instance.

Electrifying Chiltern would be such a game changer in terms of capacity and journey times. Hilly AF too.

And it would meet wires at Oxford by then (and hopefully the curve at Didcot) to enable services to the West. Plus Bletchley and Bedford of course.

The Aylesbury routes I could see being left off, however. There isn't much north of AVP and no stations so the diesel penalties are low. That said, now that Aylesbury is a shuttle, below there could be wired for sure. Not quite certain how that plays with the LUL 4th rail though.

InTheEastMids · 12 Jul 2019

hooverboy said:
I think do-able as the present curvature of the line restricts the speed of the trains going through anyway(I think it's 80mph).

I think it's 125mph Southbound and 105 northbound (due to the platform) so an 80mph restriction would be unacceptable for journey times.

DarloRich · 12 Jul 2019

Shall we worry about Bedford station when we have a route for the cambridge section all agreed?

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

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

On Moderation

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member