One thing that intrigues me on the preferred route selection map is that the scope of the Cambridge end of the route continues south of the Cambridge-Hitchin line and explicitly includes the WAML south of Great Shelford. I'm wondering if some radical ideas are being considered, such as taking EWR underneath both the A10 at Harston and the Cambridge-Hitchin line, and then having it join the WAML, perhaps even with a triangle to allow trains to both Cambridge and Stansted. What counts against that is increasing train flows over the two level crossings in Shelford, but it's interesting that this hasn't been ruled out.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]
- Thread starter aylesbury2
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think you meant to say "London via Bishops Stortford".
Like Crossrail not committing to go to Reading until someone else had paid for remodeling and electrification, I suspect this may be an unwillingness by EWR to take on the challenge of increasing capacity at Stansted to and from the north.
coppercapped
Established Member
I agree, using EWR to reach Stansted from, say, Bletchley or Bedford by rail involves going round two long sides of a triangle. It doesn't really make sense.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
Anyway, as you point out, the good burghers of Milton Keynes/Bletchley have a choice between three airports: Birmingham (by rail), Heathrow (by rail via London or by road) and Luton (most likely by road). What does Stansted offer that will generate significant traffic flows that a combination of these three don't?
Similarly Luton airport is easily reachable from Bedford by rail, and much closer than Stansted. In many cases the closer one lives (or works) to an airport car or taxi becomes more attractive than public transport. People living in the area between Bedford and Stansted will most likely drive, or be driven, and those that take the round-about train will still be able to change at Cambridge.
I also can't see a case for direct trains off the East-West railway to Stansted.
A big reason not to have E-W rail go to Stansted is that the Cambridge services to Stansted are better coming from East Anglian destinations like Peterborough and Norwich (the current ones) than Bedford and Bletchley that already have trains to airports.
...because then it misses all three Cambridge stations.
But it can be built in addition to the chord serving Cambridge.
I'm also quite interested in what Bedford will look like. I would imagine that whilst it would be nice to have segregated tracks, I suspect the plan will be for the EWR services to slot into the paths left vacant by the terminating Thameslink services, so a flat junction north of the new platforms and south of the Bromham Road bridge will suffice. Worst case, I hope the new bridge is easy to add a new span to if needed...
I can't imagine the business case stacking up for not serving Cambridge with every service, TBH. Every service that would use such a chord would waste capacity on the EWR route as a whole, and unless the airport services were in addition to the planned ones, it would effectively reduce provision to Cambridge, increasing total journey times as the services would be less frequent.
What "roads to the south"? That's called the A14 and is, in effect, Motorway standard.
Not to mention taking the busway away from serving the huge housing development at Northstowe.
Well Stansted does have the attraction of many, many more Ryanair flights.
Oh, hang on.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I think that will be about right. If EWR uses the easternmost platforms (probably extended 1A and a new one) it doesn't touch Thameslink which will continue to terminate in the existing 2 to 4. So the only services conflicting with EWR on the flat junction will be the 2TPH of southbound Corby electrics and freight in both directions. There are houses/gardens right up to the railway boundary just north of Bromham Road so I can't see that bit being widened.
I wonder if a third track might just fit on the slow side. That could be useful with a bit of bidirectional on some or all.
There's still the little issue of Bromham Road...
The bridge could be reconstructed. Even if three lines was impractical, bi-di on the up and down slow with a couple of extra crossovers in the junctions for parallelism would still be useful for flexibility to weave various movement combinations past each other. It will probably be around 800m or so between the tips of the closest points of the two junctions at a guess. Add distance for clearance points, overlaps etc and it will be around normal 4-aspect signal spacing.
eastdyke
Established Member
Can't seem to find the picture I saw the other night, but the reconstruction appears to have cut the piers off at the bottom of the arches and extended them up to square it off with a new flat deck. So still two pairs of two tracks through it, and no flexibility to move the existing tracks closer due to the central pier. I'm not sure how suitable the eastern abutment would be for use as a pier, so I suspect that would need reconstruction for any widening as well. There's already a load of complaints from cyclists due to the new curvature of the "hump" to clear the raised railway, so I can't see making the hump even more severe going down well...and that's coming from someone who wants to see 6 tracks under the bridge!
Dunnyrail
Member
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 138
The logic of entering Cambridge from the North misses the important point about the new Station that has been pretty well approved South of the existing Cambridge Main Station to serve the big hospital there. For some time now the combined Mayor or Peterborough and Cambridge has been pressing for it to be built and have 4 Platforms to accommodate the Ox-Cam line. However the recent announcement of the Northern Route being chosen is one of the worst case scenarios for both the residents of St.Neots that use train and the environment as any Station will likely be South of Little Barford Power Station. Perhaps near Tempsford (the announcement intimated as much) with currently no planned slip Roads from the new dual carriageway A428 from Black Cat to Caxton. One can foresee such a scenario having an interchange between ECML and Ox-Cam at wherever the ECML is crossed and the possibility of the existing St.Neots Station being closed, just as some 4000 Houses have been completed within walking distance of the existing St.Neots Station. To say nothing of the Loves Farm Estate already built with circa 1200 Houses with some 80 more recently approved and all the residents in the Priory area of St.Neots within comfortable walking distance of the existing Station.
But why would it need that when it would presumably have decent access off the A1 or existing A428 (depending on where it is)?
And I'm not sure how a lack of junction for the station on the road designed to avoid St Neots as much as possible is a bad thing for St Neots - even if it did exist, it would be of very little use for the town!
The possibility doesn't exist, anymore than if they went with Wixams/Bedford South meaning that Bedford station would close. The only existing station that was at risk from the routes done was Sandy if a Sandy North station was built, which it won't be.
richieb1971
Established Member
- Joined
- 28 Jan 2013
- Messages
- 1,978
So a few things.
Stansted is ok if i'm dropping off someone or picking someone up, but since i'm the only driver in my family I always use the train when I fly. Its awkward getting to Stansted as even by road your encouraged to triangulate from Bedford through Cambridge. If you try direct you end up going through lots of fields on B roads. Its also annoying that trains go to Stansted from much further north, but not from Bedford.
How does the ECML play a part in EWR? If a station is going in at Tempsford that either means it will run parallel, run along it or pass it on the East west axis.
Why does anyone want 6 tracks north of Bedford? There are only 4 going south and that is busier. I've said it before so I'll say it again, THL need some sidings a bit further up north. I don't understand why Thameslink have some god given right to hold trains in the station. It was alright back in the day when you were seeing one in there, maybe 2 if one just arrived and another was leaving, but quite often these days there is 2 in the station at one time and sometimes a 3rd depending on what is coming out of the sidings.
I am guessing EWR are only mandated to join the towns and cities at this stage, with zero provision for triangulating junctions anywhere it crosses the London main lines. Of course Bletchley already has connectivity to the north, Bedford also has connectivity to the north but has possibilities at Oakley or wherever that junction ends up being. The ECML has opportunities as well, since the Tempsford station is being built from the ground up and there is flat fields all around there.
Stansted is ok if i'm dropping off someone or picking someone up, but since i'm the only driver in my family I always use the train when I fly. Its awkward getting to Stansted as even by road your encouraged to triangulate from Bedford through Cambridge. If you try direct you end up going through lots of fields on B roads. Its also annoying that trains go to Stansted from much further north, but not from Bedford.
How does the ECML play a part in EWR? If a station is going in at Tempsford that either means it will run parallel, run along it or pass it on the East west axis.
Why does anyone want 6 tracks north of Bedford? There are only 4 going south and that is busier. I've said it before so I'll say it again, THL need some sidings a bit further up north. I don't understand why Thameslink have some god given right to hold trains in the station. It was alright back in the day when you were seeing one in there, maybe 2 if one just arrived and another was leaving, but quite often these days there is 2 in the station at one time and sometimes a 3rd depending on what is coming out of the sidings.
I am guessing EWR are only mandated to join the towns and cities at this stage, with zero provision for triangulating junctions anywhere it crosses the London main lines. Of course Bletchley already has connectivity to the north, Bedford also has connectivity to the north but has possibilities at Oakley or wherever that junction ends up being. The ECML has opportunities as well, since the Tempsford station is being built from the ground up and there is flat fields all around there.
hooverboy
On Moderation
- Joined
- 12 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 1,372
quite. 4 tracks north of bedford is quite sufficent, 2 are heavily under-used as is.
A diversion off the slows north of bromham road toward wyboston/st neots is perfectly fine.
What needs sorting desperately is bedford station overall and the EWR approach from the south.
As things stand thameslink trains do create a bottleneck on the platforms if one is subject to delay. With platforms 1-3 blocked that only leaves 1 operational mainline platform and a up fast bypass,
so 2 additional "run through" platforms are required in place of platform 1A, to cater for EMR electrics and EWR.
I'd suggest(crayons out)
platform 1/2 thameslink terminators
platform 3/4 EMR electrics /EWR.....or reserve freight pass/ thameslink if required.
Platform 5/6 EMR electrics/EMR mainline..provides passing loop for faster services to overtake this way
edwin_m
Veteran Member
By extending platform 1 to become a through platform and putting a new platform to the east, there would be five platforms to share between EWR, Thameslink and the southbound Corby electrics. Looking at the existing layout I think they could all be accessible to Thameslink except possibly the new one, but it would better to keep EWR to the eastern side to reduce conflicts. Adding new platforms on the Fast side involves either moving the existing to the east (considerably more cost and disruption as otherwise current platforms would be largely unaffected) or taking land on the west side and probably reducing the speed for non-stopping trains due to less than ideal radii and geometry. Possibly an extra north end connection could be added to give southbound Corby trains quicker access into (the current) platform 3.
eastdyke
Established Member
There was always risk to both cost and programme around work on the Flyover.
I noticed that the emphasis seemed to be more towards rebuild when preliminary work was done in the Christmas period.
Thanks for the link.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Re the planning application, the compound etc referred to in the latter few sentences is already set up and working so I assume this is already underway.
Does this mean that the flyover can be double tracked now?
work-traveller
Member
- Joined
- 18 May 2012
- Messages
- 411
Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester To Bedford Improvements) Order
The above order has been approved and published in the London Gazette.
Transport Acts
DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992
The Secretary of State for Transport gives notice under section 14(1)(b), (2A) (3A) and (3AA) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (“the Act”) that he has determined under section 13(1) of the Act to make with modifications the Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester To Bedford Improvements) Order (“the Order”).
The Order was applied for by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, (“Network Rail”) of 1 Eversholt Street, London NW1 2DN. It will authorise the construction, operation and maintenance of a railway between Bicester and Bedford, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury, to facilitate the operation of new passenger services between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Bedford. Copies of the Order, once made, may be obtained from the Stationery Office or through booksellers.
The Secretary of State has, pursuant to section 14(1)(a) of the Act, given notice of his determination by way of a decision letter dated 29 January 2020, copies of which may be obtained from the Transport Infrastructure Planning Unit, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 4DR. That letter gives the reasons for the determination and the considerations upon which it is based; information about the public participation process; and information regarding the right to challenge the validity of the determination and the procedures for doing so.
The Secretary of State confirms that, before making this determination, he considered the environmental statement provided by the applicant and all objections and other representations relating to it, and that he otherwise complied with the obligations referred to in section 14(3A) of the Act. For the purposes of section 14(3AA), he confirms that the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy any major adverse environmental effects are those secured by the planning conditions at Annex 1 of the decision letter.
Susan Anderson, Head of the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Unit, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 4DR
The above order has been approved and published in the London Gazette.
Transport Acts
DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT
TRANSPORT AND WORKS ACT 1992
The Secretary of State for Transport gives notice under section 14(1)(b), (2A) (3A) and (3AA) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 (“the Act”) that he has determined under section 13(1) of the Act to make with modifications the Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester To Bedford Improvements) Order (“the Order”).
The Order was applied for by Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, (“Network Rail”) of 1 Eversholt Street, London NW1 2DN. It will authorise the construction, operation and maintenance of a railway between Bicester and Bedford, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury, to facilitate the operation of new passenger services between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Aylesbury and Bedford. Copies of the Order, once made, may be obtained from the Stationery Office or through booksellers.
The Secretary of State has, pursuant to section 14(1)(a) of the Act, given notice of his determination by way of a decision letter dated 29 January 2020, copies of which may be obtained from the Transport Infrastructure Planning Unit, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London, SW1P 4DR. That letter gives the reasons for the determination and the considerations upon which it is based; information about the public participation process; and information regarding the right to challenge the validity of the determination and the procedures for doing so.
The Secretary of State confirms that, before making this determination, he considered the environmental statement provided by the applicant and all objections and other representations relating to it, and that he otherwise complied with the obligations referred to in section 14(3A) of the Act. For the purposes of section 14(3AA), he confirms that the main measures to avoid, reduce and, if possible, remedy any major adverse environmental effects are those secured by the planning conditions at Annex 1 of the decision letter.
Susan Anderson, Head of the Transport Infrastructure and Planning Unit, Department for Transport, Great Minster House, 33 Horseferry Road, London SW1P 4DR
Midnight Sun
Member
- Joined
- 16 Sep 2018
- Messages
- 310
It is already double tracked as you can see in this cabride https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VDe8x0n6TP4
On Bedford, I know Thameslink to Corby has been debunked by many as being wasteful in paths, fresh air and stock... but might extending 1-2 Thameslink trains per hour move the needle a bit on Bedford platform capacity, even to Wellingborough?
Or a new northern Bedford station designed just to turn Thameslink services? Either way, it'll need a decent rethink, and that is without enabling direct MKC services, which are long primsed and would be very useful. Currently it would just be Oxford-MKC and Oxford-Bedford (Cambridge) - in addition to the Aylesbury, but I could really see demand for both increasing.
Or a new northern Bedford station designed just to turn Thameslink services? Either way, it'll need a decent rethink, and that is without enabling direct MKC services, which are long primsed and would be very useful. Currently it would just be Oxford-MKC and Oxford-Bedford (Cambridge) - in addition to the Aylesbury, but I could really see demand for both increasing.
- Status