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

Julia said:

On the contrary, Cambridge-A1 counts are low because it's absolutely gridlocked every peak

Click to expand...

Busy: certainly. Congestion: sure, its that bad now. Gridlocked: that's a level or two above what we have.

The Design Manual for Roads and Bridges has the figure for a road of this nature to be congested to be 22,000 - which is the same as the 2017 traffic flow between St Neots and Caxton Gibbet. The road is congested. But the new A14 is going to have design year (15 years after opening) values that overtop the DMRB congestion figures for that standard of road by some way (and opening year traffic that nearly reaches those figures), so clearly they are not set where the road is atrocious - looking it's what the USA considers "LOS D" (level of service, with A basically empty) on a system that goes up to F.

Highways England reckon that if they don't bypass it with their new dual carriageway, it would have another 5000 vehicles a day by 2038 - an extra 22% on 2017. That wouldn't be possible with gridlock now.

The A31 near Wimborne sees around 30k on a similar single carriageway trunk road - though that does gridlock on summer Saturdays. The 27k figure for an unupgraded A428 in 2038 is below that. Latent demand on the road is sated by the road.

There is huge latent demand for some sort of alternative, given that the council are approving lots of employment development in Cambridge and housing everywhere else.

Click to expand...

That's not latent demand. Latent is existing, but not manifest. That is induced demand - brought about by infrastructure improvements. These developments are being approved on the assumption that road and railway will be built.

They want to develop the arc - and the railway is a key plank in that development. But, the railway, on the current traffic demand projected ahead can't really justify being more than the non-London lines interurban lines in East Anglia are - diesel, not overly frequent or fast, and run by short trains. My point is that E-W Rail (in the form it wants to take, and more so in the form we're discussing it taking: electric, etc) needs the development as there's not enough demand without it.

si404 said:

Highways England reckon that if they don't bypass it with their new dual carriageway, it would have another 5000 vehicles a day by 2038 - an extra 22% on 2017. That wouldn't be possible with gridlock now.

Click to expand...

Seems rather low. Although Highways England think the current route from Oxford to Cambridge is via the M4, M25 and M11!

[QUOTE="si404, post: 4289456, member: 18587”]They want to develop the arc - and the railway is a key plank in that development. But, the railway, on the current traffic demand projected ahead can't really justify being more than the non-London lines interurban lines in East Anglia are - diesel, not overly frequent or fast, and run by short trains. My point is that E-W Rail (in the form it wants to take, and more so in the form we're discussing it taking: electric, etc) needs the development as there's not enough demand without it.[/QUOTE]
They are developing the arc - now.

In the last year, Bicester Village saw a 50% increase in usage and Oxford 20% increase on the back of a 2tph train service. Meanwhile demand at Marylebone was flat.

I have questioned whether the actual growth in demand we have seen is in line with those expectations. Well it is rather in excess and frankly the prospect of 2- and 3-car diesel powered trains isn’t going to cut it.

Oxfordshire is going to get at least another 100,000 houses - this is largely allocated by 2031. But the Expressway and EWR could see that expanded to 300,000 houses in Oxfordshire and 1million across the arc as a whole by 2050. While we might well question and disagree with the final numbers, the direction of rapid expansion is nevertheless clear.
[QUOTE="si404, post: 4289456, member: 18587”]It’s not really an island, is it? For starters the Chiltern line (which it is arguably closely linked with, especially Oxford-Bedford) is diesel with no electrification plans beyond the 'no diesels in London' policy. But also the pre-existing eastern section (Cambridge-Norwich/Ipswich) is unelectrified, save for Cambridge-Ely.
[/quote]Phase 1 from Oxford to Bicester was planned for electrification with necessary gauge clearance, signalling immunisations etc already done. If there was any common sense it would be getting wires to link with GW electrification from Didcot to Oxford, and to HS2 and the WCML at Bletchley if not from day 1 then very soon after. It should form part of a rolling electrification program along with the Chiltern lines. There is no better time to put up the wires than when there is unfettered access to the site - as there will be when the mothballed route is restored. Phase 1 opened on time and on budget- a rather rare example of joined up thinking that shows what can be done.

Technically, as the line was never closed just mothballed, it still has powers under its original railway enabling act to reopen the line as double track within the original limits of deviation.

Not sure why NR keep going down the TWA when technically they don't need to!

reddragon said:

Technically, as the line was never closed just mothballed, it still has powers under its original railway enabling act to reopen the line as double track within the original limits of deviation.

Not sure why NR keep going down the TWA when technically they don't need to!

Click to expand...

Because they wish to close level crossings and close or divert various roads and footpaths outside the limits of the railway, as has been explained in this thread often.

swt_passenger said:

Because they wish to close level crossings and close or divert various roads and footpaths outside the limits of the railway, as has been explained in this thread often.

Click to expand...

Yes, but that does not stop them doing ANY work at all, just the work outside of the original powers / line of deviation. Plenty the could get on with util that is granted!

reddragon said:

Yes, but that does not stop them doing ANY work at all, just the work outside of the original powers / line of deviation. Plenty the could get on with util that is granted!

Click to expand...

They are doing at least some work on the existing railway, wasn’t the Bletchley viaduct mentioned only a few days ago? I feel we’re going round in circles...

reddragon said:

Yes, but that does not stop them doing ANY work at all, just the work outside of the original powers / line of deviation. Plenty the could get on with util that is granted!

Click to expand...

Two parts of the original line were built outside of the route authorised by the original legislation* and no authorisation at all was found for one stretch near Claydon Junction.

There is extra risk in doing what you suggest.

*Oxford to Bletchley Junction Railway Act 1846

swt_passenger said:

They are doing at least some work on the existing railway, wasn’t the Bletchley viaduct mentioned only a few days ago? I feel we’re going round in circles...

Click to expand...

if the MV platforms,linespeed and crossings were sorted first you could potentially have a sub 30 minute end to end service with the right rolling stock.
something like a 158 with st johns,milbrook,ridgemont,woburn,fenny and bletchley could easily to 2tph with 75/90mph linespeed
forecast capacity for fenny,woburn and ridgemont from EWR says they intend to put in larger platforms there in any case.
I think the plan is for 120m,which would be a 4 car*23m with a bit of wiggle room for adverse weather etc.

It's meant to be done anyway as part of the EWR upgrade,so why not roll it forward and get a couple of extra years improvement for present users?

bletchley viaduct is not as yet,the existing railway..so we'd expect civils to be taking a year or so to complete in the meantime.

can't do a great deal about st johns and the entrance to bletchley until the scope is agreed,but the rest of the line is pretty flat and pretty straight.
As for stops, I'm sure kempston/aspley guise and one or two others could be restricted to peak hours only without too much hassle

eastdyke said:

Two parts of the original line were built outside of the route authorised by the original legislation* and no authorisation at all was found for one stretch near Claydon Junction.

There is extra risk in doing what you suggest.

*Oxford to Bletchley Junction Railway Act 1846

Click to expand...

The curve (as it was when built) from the Great Central from Aylesbury to the East West Rail at Claydon LNE Jn was built during World War 2 hardly likely to be of major importance to get 'planning consent' during such a period.

Class 170101 said:

The curve (as it was when built) from the Great Central from Aylesbury to the East West Rail at Claydon LNE Jn was built during World War 2 hardly likely to be of major importance to get 'planning consent' during such a period.

Click to expand...

Quite. I am not sure how that helps the current project though?

reddragon said:

Technically, as the line was never closed just mothballed, it still has powers under its original railway enabling act to reopen the line as double track within the original limits of deviation.

Not sure why NR keep going down the TWA when technically they don't need to!

Click to expand...

goodness me. The number of crossings to be moved/closed makes such a suggestion pointless.

I am fairly certain EWR have had legal advice on the options available to them.

hooverboy said:

if the MV platforms,linespeed and crossings were sorted first you could potentially have a sub 30 minute end to end service with the right rolling stock.
something like a 158 with st johns,milbrook,ridgemont,woburn,fenny and bletchley could easily to 2tph with 75/90mph linespeed
forecast capacity for fenny,woburn and ridgemont from EWR says they intend to put in larger platforms there in any case.
I think the plan is for 120m,which would be a 4 car*23m with a bit of wiggle room for adverse weather etc.

It's meant to be done anyway as part of the EWR upgrade,so why not roll it forward and get a couple of extra years improvement for present users?

bletchley viaduct is not as yet,the existing railway..so we'd expect civils to be taking a year or so to complete in the meantime.

can't do a great deal about st johns and the entrance to bletchley until the scope is agreed,but the rest of the line is pretty flat and pretty straight.
As for stops, I'm sure kempston/aspley guise and one or two others could be restricted to peak hours only without too much hassle

Click to expand...

this is completely silly. Firstly the stop start nature of the line preclude much higher speed running. If you wanted to do that you would need the E-W proposed stopping pattern of Bedford > Ridgmont > Woburn > Bletchley and I doubt you would get sub 30 minutes even then.

Class 170101 said:

The curve (as it was when built) from the Great Central from Aylesbury to the East West Rail at Claydon LNE Jn was built during World War 2 hardly likely to be of major importance to get 'planning consent' during such a period.

Click to expand...

Isn’t that part of the problem? Having been built under emergency wartime powers, there would be no problem with keeping a railway there if it was still open, but there are no legal powers to restore, upgrade or change it.

It’s a moot point anyway as we don’t want the line restored as it was - slow and infrequent - the whole idea is to upgrade it to modern standards.

DarloRich said:

goodness me. The number of crossings to be moved/closed makes such a suggestion pointless.

I am fairly certain EWR have had legal advice on the options available to them.

Click to expand...

Indeed many lesson learnt from not having TWAO'd other projects and relied on numerous DCOs (and then had issues outside scope arise) or item by item planning permission (e.g the example of Steventon for the later).
TWAO gives much more flexibility to deliver when you are spade ready.

Would there be any value in re-opening the branch line off Winslow to Buckingham? It is only 4ish miles and it could be used as a shuttle to and from MK, Winslow (A shuttle should achieve 3tph) or Oxford. Also as extended peak-time extended services from Marylebone to Aylesbury.

Moreover it could be the stimulus for future extensions to Brackley and Banbury.

thatapanydude said:

Would there be any value in re-opening the branch line off Winslow to Buckingham? It is only 4ish miles and it could be used as a shuttle to and from MK, Winslow (A shuttle should achieve 3tph) or Oxford. Also as extended peak-time extended services from Marylebone to Aylesbury.

Moreover it could be the stimulus for future extensions to Brackley and Banbury.

Click to expand...

insert crying face here. It isnt neccessary to undo everything Beeching or others did. TBH i would put Brackley higher up the importance scale but only a few microns above 0.

DarloRich said:

this is completely silly. Firstly the stop start nature of the line preclude much higher speed running. If you wanted to do that you would need the E-W proposed stopping pattern of Bedford > Ridgmont > Woburn > Bletchley and I doubt you would get sub 30 minutes even then.

Click to expand...

What is needed is metro-style operation - driver release (or the old SWT rule removing the requirement for guards to step out before releasing), electrification and stock with wide doors and standbacks for fast boarding and alighting to get the station stops down from the present minute or so to under 30 or even 20 seconds. Top speed is relevant, but not as relevant as getting rid of the old branch-line "we'll do it when we get round to it" culture which in my view is wasting several minutes per run.

Level boarding using suitable stock (hey Stadler, you listening?) would help further to speed things up.

This applies to almost any local diesel line with lots of stops - the time wasted on the CLC line stoppers is astronomical, to use another example. Can you imagine Merseyrail with Pacers? Ormskirk-Liverpool would take well over 45 minutes rather than the present 35 ish, which itself is too slow and needs speeding up. (It was 28 in the late 70s!)

Class 170101 said:

The curve (as it was when built) from the Great Central from Aylesbury to the East West Rail at Claydon LNE Jn was built during World War 2 hardly likely to be of major importance to get 'planning consent' during such a period.

Click to expand...

AIUI that curve didn’t have consent as you said because of WW2. However it is now being rebuilt on a different alignment as part of the HS2 works - the necessary authorisations are provided by the HS2 hybrid bill. Elsewhere there are a couple of locations where the track was built in a different place to that authorised by the original Act of Parliament and these are being addressed by the EWR2 TWAO.

eastdyke said:

Quite. I am not sure how that helps the current project though?

Click to expand...

Andyjs247 said:

Elsewhere there are a couple of locations where the track was built in a different place to that authorised by the original Act of Parliament and these are being addressed by the EWR2 TWAO.

Click to expand...

Probably doesn't hence the issues now and the requirement for TWAO or the HS2 Hybrid Bill.

Andyjs247 said:

AIUI that curve didn’t have consent as you said because of WW2. However it is now being rebuilt on a different alignment as part of the HS2 works - the necessary authorisations are provided by the HS2 hybrid bill.

Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that said route was being re-aligned as part of these projects.

thatapanydude said:

Would there be any value in re-opening the branch line off Winslow to Buckingham? It is only 4ish miles and it could be used as a shuttle to and from MK, Winslow (A shuttle should achieve 3tph) or Oxford. Also as extended peak-time extended services from Marylebone to Aylesbury.

Moreover it could be the stimulus for future extensions to Brackley and Banbury.

Click to expand...

COUGH ReopentheGreatCentralthroughthebackdoor COUGH

si404 said:

It's not really an island, is it? For starters the Chiltern line (which it is arguably closely linked with, especially Oxford-Bedford) is diesel with no electrification plans beyond the 'no diesels in London' policy. But also the pre-existing eastern section (Cambridge-Norwich/Ipswich) is unelectrified, save for Cambridge-Ely.

It's also worth noting that when the Oxford electrification is finished, it would still end at Oxford, with nothing north of there (Bicester, Banbury, Evesham) wired.

If we do a systematic electrification program, I'd imagine E-W would have used diesels to begin with, with the aim to electrify when they get life expired. Stock will be a driver (and if they then get hand-me-down bi-modes that will push it back later) of where the electrification team(s) are located. It's going to be low down the priority list - similar to Ely-Norwich or Cambridge-Ipswich.

Click to expand...

It is, & will be, an island if it's not electrified.

Electric at; Oxford, Bletchley, Bedford, Sandy & Cambridge.
So apart from the Chiltern line at Bicester, every line it touches is already electric now.


Chiltern will get electrified, even if it's done in stages; London end + Snow Hill lines, then the rest in the middle is infill. So Oxford-Bletchley will be electrified, either as part of Chiltern or E-W, whichever is doing the work first.

I could see the Oxford electrification being extended to Banbury, as it's going to be daft pulling into Oxford on electric to then leave on diesel for the ~20miles to Banbury. (for the GWR services to Banbury)

Bletchley and Bedford are almost completely grade separated. Would you consider the line from Peterborough to Birmingham via Leicester and Nuneaton an island because all three of PBO/NUN/BHM are electrified? Physical connections have far less relevance that operational ones, and with the service pattern unlikely to call for the wires elsewhere, it's not nearly as much of an island as something like the North Downs Line or Marshlink...

option said:

It is, & will be, an island if it's not electrified.

Click to expand...

Only in the same way that the Americas are an island - it will be directly linked to, and form part of, a large network of unelectrified lines. OK, you need reversals due a lack of north-facing curves, unless going to Marylebone, but, you can go a long way without touching wires. It's not so much an island, but a continent!

So apart from the Chiltern line at Bicester, every line it touches is already electric now.

Click to expand...

Ignoring that Oxford is not electrified now (and I don't think north of Bedford yet is either, though that at least is under-construction, rather than under-review), you forget the Cotswolds line and Oxford-Banbury line at Oxford (the latter presumably going to be sharing the north-facing, unelectrified, bays at Oxford with the Marylebone service via E-W Rail when Didcot-Oxford gets wired and the long-term service pattern is restored*) and London-Aylesbury lines at Aylesbury.

Also note, while it would travel under the wires for a little bit, that the service at Cambridge is pencilled to continue on to Norwich and Ipswich - which also unelectrified (albeit actual islands of a small area of diesel operation surrounded by electrified track).

We're not looking at a high percentage of running under the wires (between Reading/Chippenham and Oxford, Bletchley and MK, S of Cambridge to Ely, Stowmarket and Manningtree, and at Norwich) even with a more sprawling service pattern that has Bristol to Great Yarmouth, etc. There's little reason to electrify it based on the surrounding network!

*GW service to Banbury is about every two hours, and only gets south of Oxford because of:
1) The ORCATS raid super-fast 1tpd service coming soon - done with bi-modes of which GWR has plenty of.
2) Didcot-Oxford not being wired yet so the local service is Paddington-Didcot and Didcot-Banbury rather than the pre-electrification/post-Oxford electrification service pattern of Paddington-Oxford and Oxford-Banbury.
You wouldn't wire for either of these as there's so little that would be gained from it. Oxford-Banbury would need to be done as part of something bigger involving the line north of Banbury and getting XC involved.

DarloRich said:

insert crying face here. It isnt neccessary to undo everything Beeching or others did. TBH i would put Brackley higher up the importance scale but only a few microns above 0.

Click to expand...

Wow - you put Brackley and Buckingham as 0 on the importance scale, that's far higher than they deserve.....

For the benefit of those who *don't* know the area - both Buckingham and Brackley have populations of about 13,000 - so they're small towns. Buckingham already has a decent connection to MK and Oxford with the X5. Brackley has a regular bus to Banbury and its closest stations are Kings Sutton and Banbury.

Neither are even vaguely viable as reopenings, not least because the main 'pulls' for each of those places, Milton Keynes, Bicester and Oxford wouldn't be served by reinstating Buckingham or Brackley onto the rail network.

A0wen said:

Neither are even vaguely viable as reopenings, not least because the main 'pulls' for each of those places, Milton Keynes, Bicester and Oxford wouldn't be served by reinstating Buckingham or Brackley onto the rail network.

Click to expand...

It looks like a Buckingham reconnection could serve Milton Keynes because they junction faced that way but it would be use paths on East-West Rail and more serious the West Coast Main Line which may cost more than a town of 13,000 would generate in passenger revenue. A bus link to Winslow station ("Buckingham Parkway"?) is probably enough at first.

ashkeba said:

It looks like a Buckingham reconnection could serve Milton Keynes because they junction faced that way but it would be use paths on East-West Rail and more serious the West Coast Main Line which may cost more than a town of 13,000 would generate in passenger revenue. A bus link to Winslow station ("Buckingham Parkway"?) is probably enough at first.

Click to expand...

Why would anybody want to use it?
In addition to the X5 (as informed by @A0wen above), the X60 (Arriva) also serves Buckingham-MK Central in around 30 mins, twice per hour.

eastdyke said:

Why would anybody want to use it?
In addition to the X5 (as informed by @A0wen above), the X60 (Arriva) also serves Buckingham-MK Central in around 30 mins, twice per hour.

Click to expand...

And the X5 serves the entire route half hourly, so let's pack up and go home, shall we?

ashkeba said:

It looks like a Buckingham reconnection could serve Milton Keynes because they junction faced that way but it would be use paths on East-West Rail and more serious the West Coast Main Line which may cost more than a town of 13,000 would generate in passenger revenue. A bus link to Winslow station ("Buckingham Parkway"?) is probably enough at first.

Click to expand...

Would probably make more sense to divert the bus via Bletchley (not the X5, the other one). I can see that happening.

Buckingham would make sense as part of a Cambridge-style 'MK Metro'. Either with Winslow as the end of the line that gets into MK a different way, or with Buckingham at the end and half-hourly service from somewhere N/NE of MK to a much larger Buckingham via a much larger Winslow (both are likely to happen - especially Winslow).

I think, however the initial plan is a quality walking, cycle and bus route between Buckingham and Winslow. That said, they've built a cycle/walking path alongside the A413 already, seemingly for the station, so perhaps that's it.

---

Brackley would be fairly cheap if built at the same time as HS2 (which it would run alongside). Again, the town would need to be much enlarged (though probably will be anyway) to justify it. You'd probably need to add some curves at Calvert to give it MK/Oxford service rather than Aylesbury service, however, and that would make a relatively cheap (though still not that cheap) scheme much more expensive.

Isn't 10,000 the threshold for re-openings being viable or at least up for discussion? A four mile, single track stretch and simple platform station can't be that terrible, surely. Borders spring to mind.

A shuttle from Buckingham > Winslow > Bletchley > MKC or it being an extension cross-Bletchley of the Marston, might be enough... 1tph.