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

hooverboy · 11 Nov 2019

Gathursty said:
Does anyone else get the feeling like EW Rail is not going to happen?

Not really.

I think it's going to happen alright, but will be about 5 years behind schedule and about triple the original budget.

I think it's pretty fair to say the progress so far is "glacial"; even by EW rails own website (eastwestrail.org.uk),the frequency of updates is somewhat lacking, and the site is not easy to navigate

It would be a good idea on their part to have some kind of regularly amended (maybe monthly) visual roadmap/progressometer on the homepage, so it makes for easy viewing as to how far advanced/on schedule the process is.

RailUK Forums

Gathursty · 11 Nov 2019

The replies to my question only seem to confirm my suspicion that in a couple of months, the money and the political will for EW will die. At least you have the Oxford Chiltern branch and new Vivarail 230s for the Marston Vale Line out of the effort.

Kimi · 11 Nov 2019

FYI The website has a new annual report on it this week, dated 24 Oct and then a blog by the new rolling stock head. https://eastwestrail.co.uk/latest-news

To be honest, I am not convinced of the need to acquire (put out to tender) rolling stock so early, it just makes the cost upfront higher. In 5 years time, when it is needed, we don't know today what cascades will have happened! Another teams salaries paid too soon..

Rolling stock so early rarely makes sense: at this stage we do not also know how progress on the p-way will be.

Bad examples procuring too soon:

IEP - had to pay extra to adjust when more bi mode was needed, paying rentals to not use because delivery was before track ready
Thameslink - pretty sure some stock didn't get used when it was supposed to
Cross rail - various sites being paid to store
HS2 - rolling stock already tendering process started but opening 10 year and more away

Sure, it is also possible to procure too late, but east west rail is not rocket science different to any existing line, is it

Mikey C · 11 Nov 2019

Kimi said:
FYI The website has a new annual report on it this week, dated 24 Oct and then a blog by the new rolling stock head. https://eastwestrail.co.uk/latest-news

To be honest, I am not convinced of the need to acquire (put out to tender) rolling stock so early, it just makes the cost upfront higher. In 5 years time, when it is needed, we don't know today what cascades will have happened! Another teams salaries paid too soon..

Rolling stock so early rarely makes sense: at this stage we do not also know how progress on the p-way will be.

Bad examples procuring too soon:

IEP - had to pay extra to adjust when more bi mode was needed, paying rentals to not use because delivery was before track ready

Thameslink - pretty sure some stock didn't get used when it was supposed to

Cross rail - various sites being paid to store

HS2 - rolling stock already tendering process started but opening 10 year and more away

Sure, it is also possible to procure too late, but east west rail is not rocket science different to any existing line, is it

On the other hand as much of the recent new stock has been horrendously late, you wouldn't want to leave it too late! To take a recent example, the GOBLIN electrification programme was a shambles, but despite the lateness the new 710s were even later...

I imagine the East West rolling stock requirement will be heavily influenced by what happens with the next Chiltern Franchise. If Chiltern orders some new DMUs (or hybrids or battery or whatever) then it might make sense to either use cascaded stock from them or add to Chiltern's order.

Bald Rick · 11 Nov 2019

Kimi said:
Thameslink - pretty sure some stock didn't get used when it was supposed to

All new TL stock was pressed into service as soon as possible, and still is.

Bald Rick · 11 Nov 2019

Gathursty said:
The replies to my question only seem to confirm my suspicion that in a couple of months, the money and the political will for EW will die. At least you have the Oxford Chiltern branch and new Vivarail 230s for the Marston Vale Line out of the effort.

I would be very, very surprised if Bicester to Bedford was halted at this stage.

In my opinion Bedford to Cambridge is more of a mountain to climb, as it is essentially new railway on new alignment, and will face all the issues HS2 has faced, albeit on a smaller scale.

bspahh · 11 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
In my opinion Bedford to Cambridge is more of a mountain to climb, as it is essentially new railway on new alignment, and will face all the issues HS2 has faced, albeit on a smaller scale.

I can see two scenarios where the Bedford to Cambridge section gets built.

The first is that the local economy booms, requiring loads more houses, and there is cash available to fund the railway as well. The second is that the economy crashes, and infrastructure projects get funding as Roosevelt-style pump priming.

jfowkes · 11 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
In my opinion Bedford to Cambridge is more of a mountain to climb, as it is essentially new railway on new alignment, and will face all the issues HS2 has faced, albeit on a smaller scale.

Not quite all the issues that HS2 has faced, I think. It will hopefully be more popular with the public at large, being a reinstatement of an existing railway (doesn't matter that it's entirely new, in terms of perception), not serving London, and being a non-high-speed line.

swt_passenger · 12 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
I would be very, very surprised if Bicester to Bedford was halted at this stage...

Unless they draw stumps while they redesign it to provide for Milton Keynes to Bedford direct services, which AFAICS has never been formally proposed, yet gets asked for in these forums every few months...

Bald Rick · 12 Nov 2019

jfowkes said:
Not quite all the issues that HS2 has faced, I think. It will hopefully be more popular with the public at large, being a reinstatement of an existing railway (doesn't matter that it's entirely new, in terms of perception), not serving London, and being a non-high-speed line.

You’re quite right that it doesn’t matter that it’s entirely new. To Mr & Mrs Bedfordshire, it’s still a building site at the bottom the garden, that will become a railway with trains whizzing past. And, importantly, the enabler of hundreds of thousands of homes in the rolling fields nearby, which is not something HS2 has to contend with.

stut · 12 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
You’re quite right that it doesn’t matter that it’s entirely new. To Mr & Mrs Bedfordshire, it’s still a building site at the bottom the garden, that will become a railway with trains whizzing past. And, importantly, the enabler of hundreds of thousands of homes in the rolling fields nearby, which is not something HS2 has to contend with.

And that's it - the hundreds of thousands of homes, many of which are necessary, of course, are being extremely poorly planned, and forced through in particularly underhand ways:

https://www.biggleswadetoday.co.uk/...-after-inspectors-list-100-concerns-1-9133070

“Our letter expresses some very serious concerns about the soundness of the Local Plan,” the inspectors explained to CBC.

“We did not reach a final conclusion on what should happen next because we wanted to hear about the council’s position on the M1/A6 link road."

While much of the new infrastructure has been welcomed, it's also been used as a reason to justify the new house building, in a bizarre piece of circular logic. (A consultation poll asked two signification questions - do you want more houses, and do you want more facilities in your town. The answer to the first was overwhelmingly no, and the second was a majority yes. As a result, the council claimed that, because the only way to fund new facilities was through funding from developers, the local area was in favour of more houses and the plan should go ahead.)

ashkeba · 12 Nov 2019

I think EWR will happen but late with outdated dirty diesels that are too slow and too small to encourage growth in passenger numbers because it doesn't have enough national political support.

fenman35 · 12 Nov 2019

well is the road also being scrapped?

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/labour-likely-scrap-oxford-cambridge-17235823

Labour are expected to scrap plans for the Oxford to Cambridge expressway in their upcoming manifesto, focusing instead on creating a new direct rail line and an A428 upgrade.

The policy is likely to be well received in Oxfordshire, where environmental group Campaign to Protect Rural England have been vocal in their criticisms of the proposed route, which would pass through protected green belt land.

Bletchleyite · 12 Nov 2019

fenman35 said:
well is the road also being scrapped?

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/labour-likely-scrap-oxford-cambridge-17235823

Not if, as is likely, the Tories are elected.

MarkRedon · 12 Nov 2019

stut said:
And that's it - the hundreds of thousands of homes, many of which are necessary, of course, are being extremely poorly planned, and forced through in particularly underhand ways:

https://www.biggleswadetoday.co.uk/...-after-inspectors-list-100-concerns-1-9133070

While much of the new infrastructure has been welcomed, it's also been used as a reason to justify the new house building, in a bizarre piece of circular logic. (A consultation poll asked two signification questions - do you want more houses, and do you want more facilities in your town. The answer to the first was overwhelmingly no, and the second was a majority yes. As a result, the council claimed that, because the only way to fund new facilities was through funding from developers, the local area was in favour of more houses and the plan should go ahead.)

Central Bedfordshire has to do more or less what it is told by the Government.

East West Rail is the only committed major new rail project in England without a primary emphasis on London. Why is it in this favoured position? Because of the strategic aims of government. Government knows it must facilitate the building of new houses, that the primary unmet demand for them is in the south-east, and that it must create or favour centres outside the M25. The primary justification for East West Rail is therefore that it will support the building of 1 million new homes. How do I know that? Look at the website of the National Infrastructure Commission:

"In Partnering for Prosperity: a new deal for the Cambridge – Milton Keynes – Oxford Arc the Commission identifies opportunities to create well-designed, well-connected new communities and deliver one million new homes and jobs in the area by 2050, while respecting the natural environment and without making changes to existing Green Belt protections. Doing so would help create vibrant new towns, including the first new towns in the UK for 50 years."

https://www.nic.org.uk/our-work/growth-arc/

According to press reports today, it seems likely that the railway will go ahead under a Labour government, although the corresponding road expressway will be canned. I have no doubt that even Bedford to Cambridge will eventually be built, although doubtless much later than Cambridge mayor James Palmer would wish!

Kimi · 12 Nov 2019

Bald Rick said:
All new TL stock was pressed into service as soon as possible, and still is.

Hmm, but service running through London is reduced - and full service pushed out - so there must still be spare stock?

JonathanH · 12 Nov 2019

Kimi said:
Hmm, but service running through London is reduced - and full service pushed out - so there must still be spare stock?

Not if the diagrams for operating the current service are less efficient than the ones if the full service through London were running.

Bald Rick · 12 Nov 2019

Kimi said:
Hmm, but service running through London is reduced - and full service pushed out - so there must still be spare stock?

No, just about the whole fleet is out. Don’t forget that the ‘missing’ services are largely all still running, but just terminating either side, with long turnarounds (20 mins in some cases) rather than a 9 minute core transit.

coppercapped · 13 Nov 2019

I am, admittedly peripherally, involved with planning in my local community and I am of the opinion that the planning process works quite well. It is not perfect, but it is a legal method of protecting the interests of the 'weak' against the 'strong'.

The democratic process is designed to ensure that the concerns of all who are likely to be affected by a planning proposal are considered properly - that these people are not simply ignored and their genuine concerns are not treated as irrelevant. We recently opposed a proposal by a developer to put multi-storey accommodation blocks in a low rise residential area. Despite two attempts by the developers who had the initial support of the local Council's planning department we got the Appeal made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developer dismissed.

Finally the developers have accepted our arguments and we will now get a sympathetic development that we all hope will win some awards. In the process I have learned much about the constraints that our local Council faces - and one of the biggest ones is that it has to allow some 700 additional houses to be built each year in its area. And also meet all the other requirements, social, political and legal, placed on it.

Those that complain about slow progress simply do not understand the issues and also show remarkable arrogance in their would-be treatment of their fellow citizens.

The biggest lesson I have learnt is - don't just bitch, take part. If you don't take part, you /will/ be ignored.

DarloRich · 13 Nov 2019

coppercapped said:
I am, admittedly peripherally, involved with planning in my local community and I am of the opinion that the planning process works quite well. It is not perfect, but it is a legal method of protecting the interests of the 'weak' against the 'strong'.

The democratic process is designed to ensure that the concerns of all who are likely to be affected by a planning proposal are considered properly - that these people are not simply ignored and their genuine concerns are not treated as irrelevant. We recently opposed a proposal by a developer to put multi-storey accommodation blocks in a low rise residential area. Despite two attempts by the developers who had the initial support of the local Council's planning department we got the Appeal made to the Planning Inspectorate by the developer dismissed.

Finally the developers have accepted our arguments and we will now get a sympathetic development that we all hope will win some awards. In the process I have learned much about the constraints that our local Council faces - and one of the biggest ones is that it has to allow some 700 additional houses to be built each year in its area. And also meet all the other requirements, social, political and legal, placed on it.

Those that complain about slow progress simply do not understand the issues and also show remarkable arrogance in their would-be treatment of their fellow citizens.

The biggest lesson I have learnt is - don't just bitch, take part. If you don't take part, you /will/ be ignored.

Very sensible.

The process takes a long time. It takes a long time because people ( that is regular, boring, normal, little people like you and me) get listened to and their views treated with the same weight as massive corporations or experts. Imagine how long that takes and how many people that impacts for a brand new 50 mile long railway line.

edwin_m · 13 Nov 2019

Someone made the point further back that the problem is obtaining the funding rather than the planning process itself, and I agree with that. At each stage of development a public project will have to wait for someone to agree the next one, and this can take long enough that something has changed in the meantime and the results of the previous work are no longer valid. There are also situations (Castlefield Corridor is probably one of them) where the government just sits on a TWAO, probably because they don't want to spend the money and they don't want to get the blame for stopping the project either.

I can't help thinking that there should be some means where a scheme is agreed in principle quite early in the process, and as long as its costs and benefits stay within defined limits it can then proceed automatically through the stages of development unless the relevant level of government specifically stops it. This would result in fewer schemes being taken forward, but those that are being much more likely to be completed in a sensible timeframe.

DarloRich · 13 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
I can't help thinking that there should be some means where a scheme is agreed in principle quite early in the process, and as long as its costs and benefits stay within defined limits it can then proceed automatically through the stages of development unless the relevant level of government specifically stops it. This would result in fewer schemes being taken forward, but those that are being much more likely to be completed in a sensible timeframe.

You are, essentially, describing the MAKE IT SO process is set out above.

BTW the GRIP process is designed to do what you suggest but with a series of stages and checkpoints to ensure the scheme is worth/remains worth investing in and is delivering what it said it would. The biggest issue is that the decision to invest in infrastructure is a government decision and government decisions are political and take time

Weekender · 13 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
Very sensible.

The process takes a long time. It takes a long time because people ( that is regular, boring, normal, little people like you and me) get listened to and their views treated with the same weight as massive corporations or experts. Imagine how long that takes and how many people that impacts for a brand new 50 mile long railway line.

Taking this into account why can’t they announce realistic completion dates from the start?
The east-west website talks of Phase 2 trains running late 2023. We all know that in 3 years time they will announce a 2 to 3 year delay.

petersi · 13 Nov 2019

how they can put a start for trains when the Secretary of State has yet to finalise the go ahead is just strange.
the web site at the very least should be updated as there is no chance of construction starting this year.
My guess no trains before 2025 at the earliest before any construction or commissioning delays.

edwin_m · 13 Nov 2019

DarloRich said:
You are, essentially, describing the MAKE IT SO process is set out above.

BTW the GRIP process is designed to do what you suggest but with a series of stages and checkpoints to ensure the scheme is worth/remains worth investing in and is delivering what it said it would. The biggest issue is that the decision to invest in infrastructure is a government decision and government decisions are political and take time

No I'm not. The crucial difference is that each of those gates and checkpoints currently needs an active decision to go ahead, and usually a wait while that decision is made and the funding found for the next stage. I propose that there would be a presumption for the scheme to go ahead at each stage, and that the funding for both development and construction would be earmarked at an early stage. The checkpoints would simply be to confirm that the costs and benefits remained within the agreed parameters, and if so it would automatically proceed unless the person in charge of the relevant part of government actively intervened (and took the blame) to stop it.

The Planner · 13 Nov 2019

Weekender said:
Taking this into account why can’t they announce realistic completion dates from the start?
The east-west website talks of Phase 2 trains running late 2023. We all know that in 3 years time they will announce a 2 to 3 year delay.

Why? The plan is to start replacing elements of Bletchley viaduct next year.

Weekender · 13 Nov 2019

The Planner said:
Why? The plan is to start replacing elements of Bletchley viaduct next year.

I just feel it’s better to be honest from the start. Even the 4 mile section from Oxford Parkway to Oxford was a year late.

Andyjs247 · 13 Nov 2019

petersi said:
how they can put a start for trains when the Secretary of State has yet to finalise the go ahead is just strange.
the web site at the very least should be updated as there is no chance of construction starting this year.
My guess no trains before 2025 at the earliest before any construction or commissioning delays.

The start date was always based on an assumed date for consent being received from the SoS. The assumption was Autumn 2019 for consent - which now looks likely to be missed especially given the upcoming election. Perhaps I am optimistic but personally I don’t think a long delay should be assumed.

petersi · 13 Nov 2019

Andyjs247 said:
The start date was always based on an assumed date for consent being received from the SoS. The assumption was Autumn 2019 for consent - which now looks likely to be missed especially given the upcoming election. Perhaps I am optimistic but personally I don’t think a long delay should be assumed.

Let’s hope for a quicker decision than the castlefield corridor?

Bald Rick · 13 Nov 2019

edwin_m said:
No I'm not. The crucial difference is that each of those gates and checkpoints currently needs an active decision to go ahead, and usually a wait while that decision is made and the funding found for the next stage. I propose that there would be a presumption for the scheme to go ahead at each stage, and that the funding for both development and construction would be earmarked at an early stage. The checkpoints would simply be to confirm that the costs and benefits remained within the agreed parameters, and if so it would automatically proceed unless the person in charge of the relevant part of government actively intervened (and took the blame) to stop it.

The issue is that the costs for, say, the design and implementation stage are essentially unknown at the start of the process. It’s pretty much impossible to do a reliable estimate (even to +/-50%) until feasibility is done. For government to commit construction funding at an early stage, when realistically you don’t know what you are committing to in terms of costs or outputs, is not a good use of public funds.

Similarly - and this is an issue affecting several projects right now - is that Government is bound to operate in spending review periods. It can not commit to funding any project beyond the Spending review period except in special circumstances - usually for big landmark projects taking 5 years or more (Crossrail, aircraft carriers, that sort of thing). Even Thameslink was held up by the spending review, just as HS2 is now. And on top of that!right now, we have election uncertainty and Br**it uncertainty which means the government is unwilling to commit anything on anything!

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

On Moderation

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member