Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
There's plenty of room to add capacity on the car park and potentially in the depot area. The main thing it needs is a platform on the up fast.
It was, but I was sure that @Bald Rick or @ChiefPlanner had noted that it would be relaid as single track. Forgive me if I've misunderstood/misremembered.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.
There was a discussion you took part in back in August 2019 to do with areas of single track, but it looks like it was specifically to do with the route towards Fenny Stratford, which includes a number of single track road overbridges. But the main WCML flyover was built as a double track route towards the WCML, and remains so today.It was, but I was sure that @Bald Rick or @ChiefPlanner had noted that it would be relaid as single track. Forgive me if I've misunderstood/misremembered.
Many thanksThere was a discussion you took part in back in August 2019 to do with areas of single track, but it looks like it was specifically to do with the route towards Fenny Stratford, which includes a number of single track road overbridges. But the main WCML flyover was built as a double track route towards the WCML, and remains so today.
There's plenty of room to add capacity on the car park and potentially in the depot area. The main thing it needs is a platform on the up fast.
I'm sure a Bedford North station would make a lot of sense by keeping commuter road traffic away from the town centre, but as mentioned, if platform occupancy is your only concern then a central turnback siding solves that easily enough, surely?
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?
You are missing some points here, first all of the Town Councillors in St.Neots are already salivating about the possibility of the long planned Transport Interchange at South St.Neots. For this to occur a Junction will be required on the new bit of the A428 in the Little Barford aree, together with a massive Oark and Ride Car Park. Currently not planned but you can bet the Councillors that are also District and County ones will be pressing very hard for that now.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.
The straight line is a bit of a diversion (no pun intended) as it goes through the centre of Bedford which was never going to happen. Your start point needs to be either north or south of Bedford, and once north is chosen the straight line falls much closer to Cambourne.incidentally if you draw a straight line between Bedford and Cambridge you pretty well come into a line that follows the old original route much of which could have been used as seen below, serving Cambourne is a near irrelevance as the Combined Mayors ‘Cam’ Electric dedicated Bus Road will be serving that and possibly St.Neots as well if it ever gets built.
View attachment 73472
What's to stop Thameslink being looped round to Cambridge (via Cambourne), once the sensible thing is done and EWR is electrified?
Or would that be a massive overprovision of capacity
What's Town Councillors wanting sliproads off the proposed expressway for the station got anything to do with it being an idea that has very little usefulness for St Neots as access via the existing road network would be shorter and easier to use than slip roads off a road designed to give the town a wide berth?You are missing some points here, first all of the Town Councillors in St.Neots are already salivating about the possibility of the long planned Transport Interchange at South St.Neots. For this to occur a Junction will be required on the new bit of the A428 in the Little Barford aree, together with a massive Oark and Ride Car Park.
As I clearly said, it was the dead option of Sandy North, not Tempsford, that was possibly going to close Sandy station. Your concerns are ill-founded and exist only because you keep deciding that people said things they didn't.My concerns go back to the serious proposals not a year gone by when as you said about Sandy potential closure for a new moved Station at Tempsford
As well as the key word being if, so what if it interchanges with the tram/metro/whatever at Cambourne?serving Cambourne is a near irrelevance as the Combined Mayors ‘Cam’ Electric dedicated Bus Road will be serving that and possibly St.Neots as well if it ever gets built.
Has any type of passive provision been made for this eventuality - or perhaps to put it another way has any construction taken place since closure to preclude re-building/re-opening?Ultimately some sort of stations at Clapham-Oakley, Sharnbrook and Irchester will be opened/reopened, I'll be my life on it - though I'll probably be gone by then anyway.
https://www.networkrailmediacentre....tween-oxford-and-bletchley-given-the-go-ahead
CGI projections of the next phase.
The lack of OHLE in those rendered images is really jarring in the current environmental situation. The ban on petrol/diesel cars has been bought forward to 2035 (and hybrid cars will now be banned too!), and yet we're planning to open up a railway route (which, for all intents and purposes, should be considered brand new) without any form of provision for electrification.
P.S. The less I hear about hydrogen, when it comes to rolling stock options for EWR, the better.
Yes, seen nothing recently. A fleet of standard size, limited by Bedford P1A presumably.11 x 3 car “self propelled” MUs, according to Rail magazine quoted in this thread. No wiring is planned.
I believe that the cancellation of electrification was done by Grayling in his paranoia about electrification after massive cost uplifts during GW electrification out of Paddington. I recently read somewhere that Ox-Cam may now be revisiting electrification since the government are beginning to take climate change (or at least low carbon economy) seriously.11 x 3 car “self propelled” MUs, according to Rail magazine quoted in this thread. No wiring is planned.
I believe that the cancellation of electrification was done by Grayling in his paranoia about electrification after massive cost uplifts during GW electrification out of Paddington. I recently read somewhere that Ox-Cam may now be revisiting electrification since the government are beginning to take climate change (or at least low carbon economy) seriously.
Is passive provision being made during the build for future electrification ?
Certainly Bicester to Bletchley ( and presumably Bedford) was to have passive provision yes. But i5 is infinitely cheaper to carry out Electrification on a closed route than it is once open to traffic
It's quite pathetic. As frankly, are 3 car units. They will be completely packed from the beginning.
How is using dated 30+-year-old "bins" with their unreliable heating/cooling going to look as a way to launch a new railway route? Flirts should be thoroughly reliable by the time EWR reaches Cambridge and capable of coping with any gaps in the wires.Another tick in favour of electrification; plenty of PRM-compliant Class 321s will soon be available to get electric services rolling.
Exactly my thoughts, that's a key point that Mr Grayling seemed to have missed during his previous tenure. No amount of bi-mode wibble is going to get away from the fact that the government is going to look a bit foolish authorising the purchase of further diesel or hybrid trains in light of the new legislation for road-based passenger vehicles.
Another tick in favour of electrification; plenty of PRM-compliant Class 321s will soon be available to get electric services rolling.
How is using dated 30+-year-old "bins" with their unreliable heating/cooling going to look as a way to launch a new railway route? Flirts should be thoroughly reliable by the time EWR reaches Cambridge and capable of coping with any gaps in the wires.
How is using dated 30+-year-old "bins" with their unreliable heating/cooling going to look as a way to launch a new railway route? Flirts should be thoroughly reliable by the time EWR reaches Cambridge and capable of coping with any gaps in the wires.
It is the ability to divert 750m container trains to and from Southampton that makes the case for electrification. Batteries just won't hack it.
Not sure anyone has finished scratching their heads about how they get them to work at Oxford with the existing layout yet. It benefits them more in the up direction than the down, plenty of loops to dive in and out of in the down direction currently.It is the ability to divert 750m container trains to and from Southampton that makes the case for electrification. Batteries just won't hack it.