Wixams station speculation, including whether it will be on the EWR, MML, or both lines

[richieb1971]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-progress-and-updates-not-speculation.99892

I can't see Wixams happening without EWR.

The MML would need splitting between fast and slows for a bay platform which would require a huge investment and disruption to services.

EWR is becoming a political nightmare east of Bedford.

 

[edwin_m]

I can't see wixams happening without ewr. The Mml would need splitting between fast and slows for a bay platform which would require a huge investment and disruption to services.

EWR is becoming a political nightmare east if Bedford.

Why does Wixams need a bay platform? Won't it just be a stop on a through Thameslink service?

 

[Aictos]

Why does Wixams need a bay platform? Won't it just be a stop on a through Thameslink service?

All that is needed is to slew the slow lines to one side as they did when they built Luton Airport Parkway IIRC? With side platforms and a island platform meaning the station could be served even if the Fasts are closed or the Slows are closed as is the case for the other stations on the MML.

 

[richieb1971]

Why does Wixams need a bay platform? Won't it just be a stop on a through Thameslink service?

Because the 2 slows and fasts are right next to each other. I meant an island platform my terminology was wrong. You would have to separate the slows from the fasts. All that area of the line is 20 feet higher than the surrounding area so you would need to import a lot of earth or build a bridge as well. You could potentially use the cement factory sidings as its pre existing. And with ewr going underneath that is a big massive project.
What is the likely hood of EWR east of Bedford being delivered on time with this political nimby interference going on?

 

[edwin_m]

Because the 2 slows and fasts are right next to each other. I meant an island platform my terminology was wrong. You would have to separate the slows from the fasts. All that area of the line is 20 feet higher than the surrounding area so you would need to import a lot of earth or build a bridge as well. You could potentially use the cement factory sidings as its pre existing. And with ewr going underneath that is a big massive project.
What is the likely hood of EWR east of Bedford being delivered on time with this political nimby interference going on?

Yes an island platform would be needed, probably very similar to Luton Airport Parkway. I may have lost track of the details but I thought EWR was now missing Wixams, following the existing route to Midland.

 

[Bald Rick]

What is the likely hood of EWR east of Bedford being delivered on time with this political nimby interference going on?

That depends when you mean by on time.

 

[hooverboy]

Yes an island platform would be needed, probably very similar to Luton Airport Parkway. I may have lost track of the details but I thought EWR was now missing Wixams, following the existing route to Midland.

I think wixams was outside the scope of the bedford to cambridge bit,even though that route had sort of been chosen.
The fact that route E has been nominated instead of bedford south has presumably thrown a spanner in the works somewhere, that is despite bedford council also wanting the route going through bedford midland in the first place.

To be honest the approach to bedford from marston vale did need a rethink,going via st johns is not an appropriate entry into midland station,it is desperately slow, so better to have elstow/wixams constructed and feed in passenger services from there onto the MML. It can serve as a holding loop for passenger services,freight could still conceivably use the existing route as an avoiding line.

 

[edwin_m]

I think wixams was outside the scope of the bedford to cambridge bit,even though that route had sort of been chosen.
The fact that route E has been nominated instead of bedford south has presumably thrown a spanner in the works somewhere, that is despite bedford council also wanting the route going through bedford midland in the first place.

To be honest the approach to bedford from marston vale did need a rethink,going via st johns is not an appropriate entry into midland station,it is desperately slow, so better to have elstow/wixams constructed and feed in passenger services from there onto the MML. It can serve as a holding loop for passenger services,freight could still conceivably use the existing route as an avoiding line.

Joining EWR onto the MML at Wixams would be very difficult. A connection across between the two would pass through an area of former brick pits and existing or planned housing, and the probably need for a flying junction would require works far more complex than just an island platform. It would also close Kempston Hardwick, probably Stewartby and perhaps even Millbrook stations, unless this part of the old line was left on a loop. That might be a good rationalisation in principle but would attract opposition.

The current route into Bedford includes some slow curves, but these have less impact because every EWR train is likely to stop there. With appropriate re-modelling of Midland, EWR wouldn't touch the tracks used by Thameslink, making the station operationally much easier.

 

[Aictos]

At the moment, you can close either the Slows or the Fasts and still run a service using the various junctions to switch where needed and as so, you don't really need rail replacement except in times of a total line blockade but my fears of Wixams being built is all the above is put at risk because if the slow lines for example are closed and services are diverted to use the fast lines then you have no choice but to book rail replacement services whereas if it was done as a 4 platform design you wouldn't have any issues.

 

[DaveN]

You are right. It is why GTR favoured a 4 platform station but obviously that's more expensive which is why they are going for 2 platforms. It will have to be the slows as that's what the existing services use.

 

[edwin_m]

You are right. It is why GTR favoured a 4 platform station but obviously that's more expensive which is why they are going for 2 platforms. It will have to be the slows as that's what the existing services use.

If it is slow only then it can be an island platform, in which case only the Up Slow would need diverting. A four-platform station would have to divert both Slows for a platform in the middle, or the Up Slow and Down Fast for a two-island arrangement. The Down Fast would need diverting over a longer distance to avoid a restriction that would extend journey time for non-stopping trains.