East West Mainline interchanges

[Nottingham59]

Bicester's 32k (2011 census)

So about the size of Banbury (44k), or Witney (27k), or Malvern (30k) then. A medium sized town then, if you like. Can anyone point me to the traffic forecasts that were used to justify the BCR figures in the EWR business case?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Winslow, I agree, but it will become the railhead for Buckingham.

Will be interesting to see if that takes hold, as they'd presently use MKC or Bletchley, or sometimes Bicester North (my friend tends to use Bletchley).

 

[A0wen]

Will be interesting to see if that takes hold, as they'd presently use MKC or Bletchley, or sometimes Bicester North (my friend tends to use Bletchley).

If it has plentiful parking that is cheaper the Bletchley or the rip off that is CMK, then it may do rather well.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If it has plentiful parking that is cheaper the Bletchley or the rip off that is CMK, then it may do rather well.

Indeed so, for EWR destinations at least.

You might well get people going from Buckingham to Oxford driving to Winslow and taking EWR instead of driving all the way, or using the X5 (which must have lost passengers to car after being downgraded to regular buses in "school bus" livery from the previous very nice coaches).

 

[sammorris]

Commuting yes - but commuting tends to be shorter distance. I don't for a minute imagine there are trainloads of commuters wanting to travel from Bedford to Manchester on a daily basis for example. In fact the numbers heading to Leicester from Bedford when there used to be a direct service were insignificant. The average commute distance (in 2019) was ~ 20 miles https://www.sme-news.co.uk/new-survey-reveals-large-regional-differences-in-workers-commuting-experience/#:~:text=According to respondents, the average,over 42 miles a day.

So Oxford to MK at ~40 miles is on the higher than average side, Bedford to MK at about 20 miles is pretty much on the average.

True, very long distance commuting is a minority pursuit, mainly very senior management who can afford to spend a fortune on season tickets. But the point I was making is it's not only about connecting East Anglia to Central/Western/Southern England - it's about these other uses too, even if they don't feature in the brochure.

 

[Bletchleyite]

True, very long distance commuting is a minority pursuit, mainly very senior management who can afford to spend a fortune on season tickets. But the point I was making is it's not only about connecting East Anglia to Central/Western/Southern England - it's about these other uses too, even if they don't feature in the brochure.

True, but people will travel further if only doing it two days a week. And MK is one of the cheaper places in the South East to live, while Bicester is getting expensive and Oxford outrageous.

 

[A0wen]

True, very long distance commuting is a minority pursuit, mainly very senior management who can afford to spend a fortune on season tickets. But the point I was making is it's not only about connecting East Anglia to Central/Western/Southern England - it's about these other uses too, even if they don't feature in the brochure.

But most of those "other uses" which get touted e.g. connecting Oxford to the East Midlands or East Anglia to the North West are already covered by existing flows, or are impractical e.g. freight from Felixstowe . That's why it's unimportant to EWR, because it's not about "replicating" existing services. And in the case of the freight example it would mean sending it via Cambridge where Newmarket is gauge restricted and Cambridge is already busy. As Bald Rick's pointed out the solution for many of the freight challenges from Felixstowe is to sort out Ely.

 

[cle]

Well it's helpful to see what the definition of it is, helpfully Network Rail have this statement:

"How the East West Rail project will make travel across Britain easier​

The East West Rail scheme will re-establish a rail link between Cambridge and Oxford to improve connections between East Anglia and central, southern and western England."

East West Rail - Network Rail

The East West Rail scheme will re-establish a rail link between Cambridge and Oxford, making travel across Britain easier.

www.networkrail.co.uk

So actually use cases like East Anglia to North West England *aren't* part of EWR's rationale.

And that statement will have been the one which in turn informs the benefits case for the project etc.

Surely Cambridge to Manchester is "travel across Britain" ? So this proves the point - this statement is so broad - if this is the hill we are dying on for the project's official purpose.

The sub-heading is admittedly more specific (it excludes the north), but that could imply even more quirky journeys than Cambridge-Manchester or Oxford-Nottingham which could become fairly common pairings, if made easier.

I have to say, East Anglia to Southern and Western England is already better (from Cambridge anyway) via Thameslink - and then imminent Crossrail at Farringdon out west. But good to have options. Oxford is 'western' (its connections are in any case) - and if EWR ever gets to Reading or west of Didcot, even better connections there. I do hope there are some extensions at the western end. I'm less convinced by the Ipswich and Norwich demand.

To be fair that brochure will be partly a PR exercise. If you read the route scoping report for the central section, there was a huge emphasis on potential for commuting for example, because it's key to viability, and I think there was a fair bit of thought given to the potential for connections for onward travel.

But, I agree fundamentally about the MK-Bedford curve idea - although not because I think the reasons for wanting it are silly, it's just that it seems to me that it's not really necessary, if you can squeeze a reversal at Bletchley into the timetable.

Yep. And I agree that for now, Cambridge to MKC should be via a reversal, if it can be platformed and pathed. Bletchley will have the platforms to layover until a WCML service passes, to follow it into the bay. Or up to Northampton. But maybe only 1tph will work (and be sufficient - hopefully connecting into the Manchester and Birmingham services well enough) - Only if that is not possible would we see a study into an additional running line.

And if 1tph can get to MKC, there will be 1tph terminating at Bletchley (presumably low level too), and then 2tph onwards to Oxford. If there is a max of 6tph from Cambridge onto EWR, it'll be interesting to see what else comes. Could well be a Bedford shuttle at this rate - or take over the Marston slows.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And if 1tph can get to MKC, there will be 1tph terminating at Bletchley (presumably low level too), and then 2tph onwards to Oxford. If there is a max of 6tph from Cambridge onto EWR, it'll be interesting to see what else comes. Could well be a Bedford shuttle at this rate - or take over the Marston slows.

The "5 stations" proposal does involve spreading the Marston Vale stops among the three Cambridge-Bletchley services instead of running the hourly service as at present. All would call at Ridgmont and Woburn Sands, being the busiest two.

 

[hooverboy]

The "5 stations" proposal does involve spreading the Marston Vale stops among the three Cambridge-Bletchley services instead of running the hourly service as at present. All would call at Ridgmont and Woburn Sands, being the busiest two.

I just don't see the all station stoppers retaining an hourly service.
Given the present footfall there is no need.
It could easily be pared back to peak times+ 1 lunchtime service without that many complaints.

End-to end is most definitely required ona amore frequent basis,and with far greater reliability than present.The current 230 service is abysmal.The trains themselves are ok for a cottage industry branch line,but not for a primarily commuter connection,which is what EWR will be.
Pretty much all the infrastructure of the line needs to be upgraded to provide the above purpose.

 

[hooverboy]

I just don't see the all station stoppers retaining an hourly service.
Given the present footfall there is no need.
It could easily be pared back to peak times+ 1 lunchtime service without that many complaints.

End-to end is most definitely required ona amore frequent basis,and with far greater reliability than present.The current 230 service is abysmal.The trains themselves are ok for a cottage industry branch line,but not for a primarily commuter connection,which is what EWR will be.
Pretty much all the infrastructure of the line needs to be upgraded to provide the above purpose.

I would add that when EWR does start these services, then WMT's interest in the line will be non-existent,and far more reliable rolling stock+ supporting kit like adequate platforms and signalling, is going to be desperately needed, not very profitable and nobody will want to foot the bill.However in order to provide a viable service, someone is going to have to take that bull by the horns and deal with it.
No chance EWR is going to accept being strangled by a broken down underground train clogging up their nice shiny newly marketed panacea for cross country travel.They will cough up and/or sue for damages.

 

[A0wen]

I just don't see the all station stoppers retaining an hourly service.
Given the present footfall there is no need.
It could easily be pared back to peak times+ 1 lunchtime service without that many complaints.

BIB - you'll have Bletchleyite and Darlo Rich after you making comments like that....

 

[cle]

EWR should run/own the local Marston service - even if that is through skip stopping (any local/intra demand like school traffic? not sure!) - or an hourly stopper.

I've never hated the idea of sending one on to Corby - the quadding allows it. And it could be a back-up plan to reclaim/redirect a MML frequency if ever needed. And there is our mythical Bedford-Leicester+Nottingham/Leeds for EWR connections.

Imagine seeing Corby up on the boards at Oxford. But connecting Corby/Ket/Wlg to Bletchley might be useful. The latter would need calls on a redirected service so no loss there.

 

[hooverboy]

EWR should run/own the local Marston service - even if that is through skip stopping (any local/intra demand like school traffic? not sure!) - or an hourly stopper.

I've never hated the idea of sending one on to Corby - the quadding allows it. And it could be a back-up plan to reclaim/redirect a MML frequency if ever needed. And there is our mythical Bedford-Leicester+Nottingham/Leeds for EWR connections.

Imagine seeing Corby up on the boards at Oxford. But connecting Corby/Ket/Wlg to Bletchley might be useful. The latter would need calls on a redirected service so no loss there.

Quadding of MML allows it, but the corby extension probably would have made sense if they had built two platforms.
not really feasible with two EMR connects to london in between.


Again another de-scoped shortcut.

 

[hooverboy]

Quadding of MML allows it, but the corby extension probably would have made sense if they had built two platforms.
not really feasible with two EMR connects to london in between.


Again another de-scoped shortcut.

I wouldn't disagee with EMR running all the services on the marston line though,stoppers included.
The problem is with the present stations there is very limited scope in what stock can be run, hence the 230's.

The max was(and probably still is) a 2 car 150, there are still a lot of stations there requiring mods to accomodate anything like modern rolling stock lengths, even a 2 car 156/158 /turbostar is off limits at some locations.

 

[A0wen]

I wouldn't disagee with EMR running all the services on the marston line though,stoppers included.
The problem is with the present stations there is very limited scope in what stock can be run, hence the 230's.

The max was(and probably still is) a 2 car 150, there are still a lot of stations there requiring mods to accomodate anything like modern rolling stock lengths, even a 2 car 156/158 /turbostar is off limits at some locations.

The OP said EWR not EMR.

 

[richieb1971]

Since Cambridge, Bedford and Oxford have room for 12 car trains (I think), if the numbers of passengers increase will this affect the stations with new platforms?

For example, how long are Winslows and Bletchley high tier platforms and how many cars does it scope to accomodate?

The reason I ask is because if the uptake becomes much larger over time there will be requirements to potentially lengthen platforms so trains can stop at all the stations. I have to assume the new stations on the central section will be the same as those on the Western section.

 

[swt_passenger]

Winslow and Bletchley high level are both about 100m length which suggests they’re planned around 4 x 23m units.

(Then a further dive into the drawings found Winslow has an “operational length” of 106m.)

 

[William3000]

EWR isn't about making it cheaper to do random Origin/Destination pairs, nor is it about enhancing North West - East Anglia connections for people who make 1 trip every 4-6 weeks.

It’s about unlocking growth and restoring connections between otherwise unconnected towns

The planning headway for trains on the fast lines at Bletchley is 3 minutes. A single line cannot have trains following in convoy so will be naturally less efficient. If you were to add a 5th track, you would set the slow lines up such that you had a reversible centre line, a la East Croydon rather than as a separate line for EWR.

The problem is you've not listened to what other people have been telling you.

The UK doesn't hold trains in loops very often because the UK public won't take the train if it does. The UK is physically much smaller than Japan, so things like long dwells in trains have a much greater impact on the competitiveness of trains against other modes.

It's feasible to do it from Oxford, it isn't from Bedford. That's a compromise of what we have, what people want, how much money there is to pay for it, and whatever else might be considered.

Mainland Japan if you take off Hokkaido and including Kyushi which is connected by rail despite being an island is about 285,000 square km, compared to mainland Great Britain (excluding NI), which is about 210,000 square km, albeit Great Britain is connected by rail to Eurasia. Notwithstanding that Japan is slightly bigger than Great Britain but not much bigger, albeit it is much more densely populated.

 

[DarloRich]

BIB - you'll have Bletchleyite and Darlo Rich after you making comments like that....

As long as it runs when I want to use it I have no problem with the service provision

 

[zwk500]

It’s about unlocking growth and restoring connections between otherwise unconnected towns

Correct, but specific towns.

Mainland Japan if you take off Hokkaido and including Kyushi which is connected by rail despite being an island is about 285,000 square km, compared to mainland Great Britain (excluding NI), which is about 210,000 square km, albeit Great Britain is connected by rail to Eurasia. Notwithstanding that Japan is slightly bigger than Great Britain but not much bigger, albeit it is much more densely populated.

Rail is linear not area based. Honshu on its own is more than 800miles in length and has onwards connections at both ends. Lands end to John o groats is 650miles in a straight line and the UK doesn't have many travel corridors above the 400miles between London and the Scottish central belt.

 

[edwin_m]

Japan's population is concentrated along the coast with much of the inland being mountainous and sparsely populated, so there are very heavy flows of people along a roughly linear corridor.

Britain is a bit different, at least in the parts of it that are relevant to EWR and its connecting services. Much of the inland area is densely populated and polycentric, so communication between cities is more of a mesh than a line.

 

[Bald Rick]

Japan's population is concentrated along the coast with much of the inland being mountainous and sparsely populated, so there are very heavy flows of people along a roughly linear corridor.

And the ‘inter city’ motorway network in Japan makes rail relatively more attractive: largely two lane dual carriageway, and largely tolled.

 

[BrianW]

True, but people will travel further if only doing it two days a week. And MK is one of the cheaper places in the South East to live, while Bicester is getting expensive and Oxford outrageous.

I thought 'the plan'/ expectation was that developers would build thousands of 'desirable residences' in Ecotowns around stations on EWR mostly commuting to Oxford, Bicester, MK (Bletchley being MK South), Bedford, St Neots, Cambridge- a kind of linear/ polynucleic city within regional parks, golf courses, maybe a GB LA. Thus taking pressure off Oxford (and other?) Green Belt and roads. Could still happen, tho' with lower 'commuting'. 'Section 106s/ Community Infrastructure Levy to 'finance' cyclepaths to stations ...