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

edwin_m · 31 Jan 2020

mr_jrt said:
I still think the ideal is to enter Cambridge from the north and run down to Stansted on a widened 4 track route from the new junction down to Cambridge station, but as it's entering from the south, then I think joining the WAML would be madness given how congested it is, especially as you would have to cross the Shepreth branch to do so. I wonder if it will be grade separated with the Shepreth branch...

Can't comment on the first point but I agree on the second. But they probably haven't worked up the options yet so the map as published will keep them open. I think the most important thing will be grade separation at the existing Shepreth Branch Junction

RailUK Forums

work-traveller · 31 Jan 2020

al green said:
I had a letter from DfT this morning saying that TWAO for EWRL Western section Bicester-Bedford has been approved. There don’t appear to have been any significant changes although I haven’t seen the Inspector’s report. It said decision letter will be available shortly on their website, which presumably will also have the Inspectors report.

Decision will be formally published in the London Gazette on Tuesday. Shapps signed it earlier this week.

Ianno87 · 31 Jan 2020

mr_jrt said:
I still think the ideal is to enter Cambridge from the north and run down to Stansted on a widened 4 track route from the new junction down to Cambridge station, but as it's entering from the south, then I think joining the WAML would be madness given how congested it is, especially as you would have to cross the Shepreth branch to do so. I wonder if it will be grade separated with the Shepreth branch...

If the objective of approaching from the north is extra trains to Stansted, it's a bit pointless as the single track tunnel prevents any extra trains.

Ianno87 · 31 Jan 2020

rdlover777 said:
if i may ask, will ownership of the line be handed over to Network Rail upon completion/signing off fit for use?

Not necessarily. Look at HS1, Heathrow, East London Line, etc.

Maltazer · 31 Jan 2020

I wondered whether the fact that EW Rail would need to cross the A10 nearby might provide an opportunity to sort out Foxton at the same time, but it looks like that would mean moving the station and in the wrong direction (i.e. even further from the bulk of the housing).

mr_jrt · 31 Jan 2020

Ianno87 said:
If the objective of approaching from the north is extra trains to Stansted, it's a bit pointless as the single track tunnel prevents any extra trains.

Well, yes. But it might provide enough of an incentive to sort that farce out once and for all too as an independent project. Double track the tunnels and branch and extend to Braintree, but in the short term, terminate EWR at Bishops Stortford so passengers can hop onto the Standsted services there.

MarkyT · 31 Jan 2020

mr_jrt said:
Well, yes. But it might provide enough of an incentive to sort that farce out once and for all too as an independent project. Double track the tunnels and branch and extend to Braintree.

Or build a new line in from the main line around the north end of the runway. Much less disruptive.

Ianno87 · 31 Jan 2020

mr_jrt said:
Well, yes. But it might provide enough of an incentive to sort that farce out once and for all too as an independent project. Double track the tunnels and branch and extend to Braintree, but in the short term, terminate EWR at Bishops Stortford so passengers can hop onto the Standsted services there.

Stortford won't have the capacity either.

Plus aproaching Cambridge from the south keeps the option of sending the much, much more valuable Felixstowe freights via EWR - once the Newmarket single is sorted out of course.

camflyer · 31 Jan 2020

MarkyT said:
Or build a new line in from the main line around the north end of the runway. Much less disruptive.

Well, that's sure to upset the Stansted locals.

59CosG95 · 31 Jan 2020

Ianno87 said:
Stortford won't have the capacity either.

Plus aproaching Cambridge from the south keeps the option of sending the much, much more valuable Felixstowe freights via EWR - once the Newmarket single is sorted out of course.

If that's Felixstowe - Bristol, I see no reason why that can't happen. Felixstowe - WCML might too, as long as the rerouted freights in question are the ones that currently run via Stratford, not the ones routed via Peterborough (as the London ends of the GEML & WCML are bursting more than the ECML is around PBO!)

eastdyke · 31 Jan 2020

59CosG95 said:
If that's Felixstowe - Bristol, I see no reason why that can't happen. Felixstowe - WCML might too, as long as the rerouted freights in question are the ones that currently run via Stratford, not the ones routed via Peterborough (as the London ends of the GEML & WCML are bursting more than the ECML is around PBO!)

How do you propose to route at Bletchley?

59CosG95 · 31 Jan 2020

eastdyke said:
How do you propose to route at Bletchley?

Ahh yes, I forgot that there's no link to the northern WCML at present. I'm not even sure if there's a plan to link the Marston Vale line with the WCML towards MK...

eastdyke · 31 Jan 2020

59CosG95 said:
Ahh yes, I forgot that there's no link to the northern WCML at present. I'm not even sure if there's a plan to link the Marston Vale line with the WCML towards MK...

There is no plan. Quite apart from rail infrastructure, there is an Industrial/Commercial estate on the obvious line of any chord.
This is to the chagrin of those who would make use of Cambridge (or even Bedford) - MK.
There is extensive discussion up-thread.

Neen Sollars · 31 Jan 2020

mr_jrt said:
I still think the ideal is to enter Cambridge from the north and run down to Stansted on a widened 4 track route from the new junction down to Cambridge station, but as it's entering from the south, then I think joining the WAML would be madness given how congested it is, especially as you would have to cross the Shepreth branch to do so. I wonder if it will be grade separated with the Shepreth branch...

Say it quietly about entering Cambridge from the north or will be accused of being a loudmouth. Entering Cambs from the north was not one of the 5 options. But was asked to be given serious consideration by plebs like me and quite a few big wigs from the locality during the consultation. However my main consideration/hope was for the route to include stations at St Neots and Cambourne for growing communities to have a heavy rail transport solution. If Cambourne is also connected to North Cambs by a new autonomous bus system then so much the better. I have no idea about this ATB route but if it somehow connects with Camb North station so much the better. The route in to incorporate Cambs south stn looks a good plan, no need to remodel the Coldham`s junction, so trains can run to Ipswich via Newarket. So it looks like a change of train in Cambridge if want to go to Stanstead. Just the way it is.

DelW · 31 Jan 2020

eastdyke said:
There is no plan. Quite apart from rail infrastructure, there is an Industrial/Commercial estate on the obvious line of any chord.
This is to the chagrin of those who would make use of Cambridge (or even Bedford) - MK.
There is extensive discussion up-thread.

As you say, the discussion did conclude that a direct chord needed too much demolition to be at all likely.
But if we're only talking about freight, as 59CosG95 was, there is another possibility, bearing in mind that freights between EWR and WCML would be likely to have to await their paths anyway. That would be to put a turn back siding with run-round, on the EWR west of the flyover, roughly where Swanbourne siding is now.
So a freight from the east would run into that siding, the loco run round, then when ready, go back over the flyover, take the Down Bletchley line, then onto the Down Slow at Denbigh Hall South junction.
Similarly a train from the north would come off the WCML at Denbigh Hall South, take the Up Bletchley line to the same siding, run round, then when ready, head east via the flyover and Down Bletchley Chord line.
I'm assuming that the siding would only need to accommodate one train, but if traffic needed it, it could be possible to add a further track sharing the same run-round line.
Obviously it's not as good as a direct chord, but I'd assume it should only take 15 minutes or so to make the reversal and be ready to depart. It would probably need a shunter (person not loco) stationed there to uncouple and recouple the locos, and possibly to set and release handbrakes. Is that workable, or are there other problems that I haven't considered?

edwin_m · 31 Jan 2020

DelW said:
As you say, the discussion did conclude that a direct chord needed too much demolition to be at all likely.
But if we're only talking about freight, as 59CosG95 was, there is another possibility, bearing in mind that freights between EWR and WCML would be likely to have to await their paths anyway. That would be to put a turn back siding with run-round, on the EWR west of the flyover, roughly where Swanbourne siding is now.
So a freight from the east would run into that siding, the loco run round, then when ready, go back over the flyover, take the Down Bletchley line, then onto the Down Slow at Denbigh Hall South junction.
Similarly a train from the north would come off the WCML at Denbigh Hall South, take the Up Bletchley line to the same siding, run round, then when ready, head east via the flyover and Down Bletchley Chord line.
I'm assuming that the siding would only need to accommodate one train, but if traffic needed it, it could be possible to add a further track sharing the same run-round line.
Obviously it's not as good as a direct chord, but I'd assume it should only take 15 minutes or so to make the reversal and be ready to depart. It would probably need a shunter (person not loco) stationed there to uncouple and recouple the locos, and possibly to set and release handbrakes. Is that workable, or are there other problems that I haven't considered?

I think that would be feasible - presumably Swanbourne was reasonably level if they wanted to put a marshalling yard there, so less of an issue leaving wagons unattached.

However I'm not sure what problem it's trying to solve. Freight going to the Midlands can stay on the route via Peterborough, Leicester and Nuneaton without even a flat crossing of any of the north-south main lines and avoiding the single line through Newmarket (which is partly a single tunnel so difficult to double) and the passage through Cambridge. The route via Leicester will probably still have fewer passenger trains to get in the way as well. Any freight for the South West and South Wales can use EWR, but that will be much less.

Verulamius · 31 Jan 2020

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/the-project/central-section

The EWR website has now published a full set of accompanying documents relating to the route choice. There are too many to provide quotes from each.

This includes a further analysis of using the Northerly route in to Cambridge. The main reasons for the Southerly route are:

• Providing the opportunity to support growth
and development around the proposed
Cambridge South station
• Enabling EWR services to be extended
to Ipswich and east coast ports in future
without requiring a reversing move at
Cambridge station, which would incur a
considerable journey time penalty
• Upfront capital costs of an approach
from the south are estimated to be around
£0.6 billion lower than if EWR were to
approach Cambridge from the north
(at 2019 prices)
• There are a considerable number of
significant environmental features in the
area that a route into Cambridge from the
north would pass through. Approaching
Cambridge from the north could therefore
require a higher level of effort, complexity
and expense to mitigate potential
environmental impacts than route options
that approach Cambridge from the south

eastdyke · 31 Jan 2020

DelW said:
..... But if we're only talking about freight, as 59CosG95 was, there is another possibility, bearing in mind that freights between EWR and WCML would be likely to have to await their paths anyway. That would be to put a turn back siding with run-round, on the EWR west of the flyover, roughly where Swanbourne siding is now.
So a freight from the east would run into that siding, the loco run round, then when ready, go back over the flyover, take the Down Bletchley line, then onto the Down Slow at Denbigh Hall South junction.
Similarly a train from the north would come off the WCML at Denbigh Hall South, take the Up Bletchley line to the same siding, run round, then when ready, head east via the flyover and Down Bletchley Chord line.
I'm assuming that the siding would only need to accommodate one train, but if traffic needed it, it could be possible to add a further track sharing the same run-round line.
Obviously it's not as good as a direct chord, but I'd assume it should only take 15 minutes or so to make the reversal and be ready to depart. It would probably need a shunter (person not loco) stationed there to uncouple and recouple the locos, and possibly to set and release handbrakes. Is that workable, or are there other problems that I haven't considered?

It would work at the theoretical level. Not sure what railway land is retained there now, if any.
In practical terms this section will be the busiest on EWR, so pose a risk to performance and limit the ultimate capacity of the overall route.
And wouldn't a siding there be just to tempting to lay up the odd train waiting access to Calvert IMD?

eastdyke · 31 Jan 2020

edwin_m said:
..... However I'm not sure what problem it's trying to solve. Freight going to the Midlands can stay on the route via Peterborough, Leicester and Nuneaton without even a flat crossing of any of the north-south main lines and avoiding the single line through Newmarket (which is partly a single tunnel so difficult to double) and the passage through Cambridge. The route via Leicester will probably still have fewer passenger trains to get in the way as well. Any freight for the South West and South Wales can use EWR, but that will be much less.

Much of the route is currently at or near capacity. In particular, Soham-Ely, Ely, Ely North and on to Peterborough. Getting to Peterborough is going to need work in due course so any that can economically route EWR potentially defers expenditure on that work.
[Assuming that The Country continues to trade at sufficient levels to require all those freights]

D365 · 1 Feb 2020

Something that just occurred to me when perusing the EWR interactive map:

The Black Cat Roundabout is due to be converted (finally) into a proper three-tier interchange this decade, with an extension of the A421 to meet the A428 at Caxton Gibbet roundabout near Cambourne. I sincerely hope that the EWR and Highways England working groups are collaborating on this, in order so that the dual carriageway is built with provision for a railway overbridge or underbridge.

The Planner · 1 Feb 2020

DelW said:
I'm assuming that the siding would only need to accommodate one train, but if traffic needed it, it could be possible to add a further track sharing the same run-round line.
Obviously it's not as good as a direct chord, but I'd assume it should only take 15 minutes or so to make the reversal and be ready to depart. It would probably need a shunter (person not loco) stationed there to uncouple and recouple the locos, and possibly to set and release handbrakes. Is that workable, or are there other problems that I haven't considered?

We normally plan 20 for a run round, longer if its busy track. But you need to factor in the time to get to the siding, run round and to come back to the same point. Its probably getting near to a half hour penalty to do that. Which in terms of freight still wouldn't push it towards a new chord.

edwin_m said:
However I'm not sure what problem it's trying to solve. Freight going to the Midlands can stay on the route via Peterborough, Leicester and Nuneaton without even a flat crossing of any of the north-south main lines and avoiding the single line through Newmarket (which is partly a single tunnel so difficult to double) and the passage through Cambridge. The route via Leicester will probably still have fewer passenger trains to get in the way as well. Any freight for the South West and South Wales can use EWR, but that will be much less.

I suspect most of the E-W planned freight will be Intermodals to Southampton from the north, especially southbound as once you get past Tyseley you don't have a long enough loop until Banbury.

PTR 444 · 1 Feb 2020

Does anyone have any info as to which TOC will be running the east-west services and what the service pattern will be for Bedford - Cambridge?

Neen Sollars · 1 Feb 2020

Verulamius said:
https://eastwestrail.co.uk/the-project/central-section

The EWR website has now published a full set of accompanying documents relating to the route choice. There are too many to provide quotes from each.

This includes a further analysis of using the Northerly route in to Cambridge. The main reasons for the Southerly route are:

•• There are a considerable number of
significant environmental features in the
area that a route into Cambridge from the
north would pass through. Approaching
Cambridge from the north could therefore
require a higher level of effort, complexity
and expense to mitigate potential
environmental impacts than route options
that approach Cambridge from the south

Thank you for taking the trouble to post this information. It shows the northern approach was given serious consideration.

swt_passenger · 1 Feb 2020

PTR 444 said:
Does anyone have any info as to which TOC will be running the east-west services and what the service pattern will be for Bedford - Cambridge?

The last DfT suggestion was a new mini-TOC for the Western section phase 2. This conflicted with previous proposals, particularly Aylesbury to Milton Keynes which was generally expected to be an extension of a Marylebone train.

Oxford to Milton Keynes or Bedford was never publically allocated to a specific TOC either.

Hence there’s no likelihood of any firm info about a TOC for the Central section.

mr_jrt · 1 Feb 2020

Having read through their arguments against the northern route, it does feel a bit wishy-washey. Saying you had to approach from the south to serve Cambridge South, for example, is just wrong. Or that continuing to East Anglia would require a reversal. Well, yes...but no mention of opportunities for services being able to reach Stansted without one. You could just as easily extend other services from the south to East Anglia without needing any reversals, just an interchange at Cambridge South, Main, or North from EWR.

Ianno87 · 1 Feb 2020

mr_jrt said:
Having read through their arguments against the northern route, it does feel a bit wishy-washey. Saying you had to approach from the south to serve Cambridge South, for example, is just wrong. Or that continuing to East Anglia would require a reversal. Well, yes...but no mention of opportunities for services being able to reach Stansted without one. You could just as easily extend other services from the south to East Anglia without needing any reversals, just an interchange at Cambridge South, Main, or North from EWR.

Still doesn't solve the problem of where you physically put a northern approach to Cambridge, which is no doubt the driving issue here.

D365 · 1 Feb 2020

Ianno87 said:
Still doesn't solve the problem of where you physically put a northern approach to Cambridge, which is no doubt the driving issue here.

Exactly; I haven't seen an explanation that doesn't involve ripping up the guided busway. Let alone finding a route past Cambourne, over the A428, around Bar Hill and over/under the A14 (twice!).

eastdyke · 1 Feb 2020

I am still struggling with the predilection that EWR should 'serve Stansted'
EWR was first proposed by EWR Consortium in 1995, Authorities in East Anglia, as a way of travelling East-West (and v/v) without via London. To do that as efficiently as possible requires no reversals en-route and certainly no visit to an Airport.
The main flow to/from Stansted was, is and always will be from London and with longer trains. The majority of (the limited) paths and platforms are simply too valuable for that prime flow.
Sure a number of people will wish to use Stansted from the West but to do so they have already eschewed the choice of flying from Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, E Midlands, Birmingham etc. We cannot run trains from everywhere to everywhere else.
And at the end of the day many of those from the West who wish to use Stansted will have a more convenient way of doing that by rail than now

mr_jrt · 1 Feb 2020

The route they examined didn't rip up the guided busway and had the Cambourne station further north - it went around the city and joined the mainline north of Cambridge North. Personally, I still say divert the busway along the roads to the south so EWR can have a station for the science park directly, but regardless, you would need to solve the problem of Milton Road, so I can see the reasoning of leaving it as-is and routing the line to the north and having Cambridge North as the science park's station.

The reason for the focus on Stansted is simply I strongly suspect there is a lot more demand for the airport than for East Anglia. They haven't even managed to make the case for getting rid of the single line sections yet, whereas Stansted has a lot of growth potential, and that's before you even consider extending things to the GEML. Regardless of who originated the project, I wouldn't imagine EWR services running to East Anglia at all, so there wouldn't be any reversals! Any long route is rarely about end-to-end journeys - few travel from Bedford to Brighton, for example, and fewer still will travel from Reading to Shenfield once Crossrail opens. Stansted has the budget airlines and is an absolute PITA to get to for them unless you drive, as the rail line it sits on, the WAML, doesn't cross over any other lines between Cheshunt and Cambridge, it makes rail access poor unless you're coming from London via Royston or points north via Cambridge.

PTR 444 · 1 Feb 2020

If direct access to Stansted is so important, why can’t a south-facing chord be built where the chosen EWR route joins the WAML in the Shelford area?

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

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member