East West Mainline interchanges

[edwin_m]

But a 30 Box train needs one driver at a time as where as by road it requires 30 drivers. In terms of distance whilst its a fair point it assumes that the HGV drivers exist to move said boxes by road. I seem to recall recently comments being made along the lines of Freightliner was running a flow between Liverpool and Birmingham and that was the case because of a shortage of HGV drivers.

Sometimes the freight is time critical enough to make it worthwhile to employ those 30 drivers rather than wait for the train to be loaded and get its scheduled path (which may not coincide too well with the arrival time of the ship). And if they're all going to be offloaded at the inland terminal and go to 30 different places then you need 30 drivers anyway, they each spend a chunk of time collecting their boxes and the customers are also paying the train operator. Rail only really makes sense for freight that's all going between the same two places so doesn't need road hauls at either end, or the distance is too long for a road driver to do out and back in a shift.

 

[Class 170101]

Sometimes the freight is time critical enough to make it worthwhile to employ those 30 drivers rather than wait for the train to be loaded and get its scheduled path (which may not coincide too well with the arrival time of the ship). And if they're all going to be offloaded at the inland terminal and go to 30 different places then you need 30 drivers anyway, they each spend a chunk of time collecting their boxes and the customers are also paying the train operator. Rail only really makes sense for freight that's all going between the same two places so doesn't need road hauls at either end, or the distance is too long for a road driver to do out and back in a shift.

Agreed but this assumes the lorry drivers exist to be employed in the first place. How much is there still a shortage even with many joined or in the process of joining?

It could also be a one train driver haul part way and a local haul to 30 different places that may require upto 30 lorry drivers but probably less.

 

[jfowkes]

We should also start giving greater emphasis to the health and environmental costs of that very efficient road haulage. Time and economic considerations are not the only things by which a transport mode should be judged.

 

[Pigeon]

I have never said it is impossible. Far from it. I simply want people to acknowledge the difficulties and the costs associated with solving those difficulties in the real world. It is far more than just knocking down one or two units.

As an example: From a railway operational point of view where between Euston & Northampton would you move the depot capacity removed by demolishing Bletchley depot. In particular where do you propose to stable OTM in that section? All existing locations are full.

EDIT - from a personal point of view this curve suits my needs but requires quite a bit of additional funding in what is becoming a "difficult" funding environment.

This time round I'd somehow got it through my head that it had now been decided that Bletchley depot was going to close anyway, which would have simplified things a lot. OK, so that was wrong. Back to plan A then

 

[DarloRich]

This time round I'd somehow got it through my head that it had now been decided that Bletchley depot was going to close anyway, which would have simplified things a lot. OK, so that was wrong. Back to plan A then

Check back tomorrow - seems to depend on which day of the week it is

 

[richieb1971]

If a Marston Vale - MKC curve is put in post EWR services, it will no doubt shut the railway.



This is the drivers view approaching Bletchley and that is the flyover in view. Industrial estate to the right.

If the curve took such an angle through there the flyover to MKC would be out of operation for some time.

 

[The Planner]

If a Marston Vale - MKC curve is put in post EWR services, it will no doubt shut the railway.

View attachment 109604

This is the drivers view approaching Bletchley and that is the flyover in view. Industrial estate to the right.

If the curve took such an angle through there the flyover to MKC would be out of operation for some time.

Why would it? Arguably you would only need possessions for the tie in and the signaling commissioning depending on where a curve joined and associated earthworks.

 

[zwk500]

If a Marston Vale - MKC curve is put in post EWR services, it will no doubt shut the railway.

If the curve took such an angle through there the flyover to MKC would be out of operation for some time.

Any Bedford- MK curve will go nowhere near the flyover because of curve radii. You'd have a new junction near the bridge over saxon Street to avoid tesco, go over Bletchley depot and along first avenue then have another junction around Denbigh Hall South Jn. As @The Planner says, you'd only need a couple of possessions on each line to install the junctions and fettle up.
Not that it's going to happen anytime soon, because Bletchley depot would need to move first.

 

[DarloRich]

This is the drivers view approaching Bletchley and that is the flyover in view. Industrial estate to the right.

If the curve took such an angle through there the flyover to MKC would be out of operation for some time.

Your curve would have to start immediately after the Saxon street bridge.

oh @zwk500 got there first!

 

[Magdalia]

Also some questions, is Bletchley still the half way mark between Oxford and Cambridge, or is Bedford closer to that marker? Or is it still unknown based on the mid section?

Bletchley has never been halfway between Oxford and Cambridge. To the nearest mile the old route was:

Oxford-Bletchley 31 miles
Bletchley-Bedford 16 miles
Bedford-Cambridge 30 miles

I'm guessing that the new route east of Bedford will be longer than the old, dragging the Oxford-Cambridge mid point a little closer to Bedford. But any diversion into Milton Keynes Central would drag the mid point back towards Bletchley.

 

[tspaul26]

Bletchley has never been halfway between Oxford and Cambridge. To the nearest mile the old route was:

Oxford-Bletchley 31 miles
Bletchley-Bedford 16 miles
Bedford-Cambridge 30 miles

I'm guessing that the new route east of Bedford will be longer than the old, dragging the Oxford-Cambridge mid point a little closer to Bedford. But any diversion into Milton Keynes Central would drag the mid point back towards Bletchley.

In terms of end to end journey time between Oxford and Cambridge the midpoint is near the current Ridgmont station.

 

[richieb1971]

In terms of end to end journey time between Oxford and Cambridge the midpoint is near the current Ridgmont station.

Seems like Bletchley is the closest mid station by a smidge if that is the case.

Any Bedford- MK curve will go nowhere near the flyover because of curve radii. You'd have a new junction near the bridge over saxon Street to avoid tesco, go over Bletchley depot and along first avenue then have another junction around Denbigh Hall South Jn. As @The Planner says, you'd only need a couple of possessions on each line to install the junctions and fettle up.
Not that it's going to happen anytime soon, because Bletchley depot would need to move first.

is that what we are talking about?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, that's what I'd propose, and the big advantage of it is that it would only take out a couple of warehouses (better than I thought now I've seen it on a map) and existing railway land, and no housing whatsoever. Milton Keynes is key to EWR, so having a large proportion of trains not serve the centre is just mad. To me you want most trains operating Cambridge-Bedford-MKC-Oxford, even if you do have say 1tph that runs fast via the flyover.

With the WCML "VHF" timetable still running it'd be hard to path, but post HS2 to me it would be very sensible indeed. Not just benefits for the route as a whole, but also enabling increased use of rail to get from Marston Vale stations (and the large housing developments likely to crop up around them) to central MK. And because with the best will in the world huge swathes of north MK are not going to drive past the A422 down to Bletchley to park up and take the train to Cambridge/Bedford, they'll just drive the whole way. But they might to MKC.

If necessary, there is room for a fifth track all the way up on the east side of the WCML (plus using the Up Bletchley and Down Bletchley that exist now and are barely used) without taking out any housing due to the large amount of space left around the railway. Again it might take out a couple of ageing business premises and some car parking, but nothing that would draw massive objections.

 

[zwk500]

I think you'll need to be further out than that to get acceptable curve radii for the speed/wear/standage concerns. You'd be through the warehouse marked Charles Tyrwhitt, with the junction pretty much on the B4034 bridge.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think you'll need to be further out than that to get acceptable curve radii for the speed/wear/standage concerns. You'd be through the warehouse marked Charles Tyrwhitt, with the junction pretty much on the B4034 bridge.

It's all ageing, run-down, on-the-cheap industrial stuff. About the easiest thing to relocate, indeed likely to draw far fewer objections than if it was going through a pretty looking green field.

 

[nw1]

Connectivity between Oxford and the North will be better served by getting trains to Birmingham and changing,

Will it though after EWR and HS2? EWR is going to MKC from the Oxford direction anyway from my understanding, so presumably if you're heading to Manchester or further north, it might end up being quicker, and likely less prone to overcrowding (avoiding Birmingham), to head over to MKC on EWR and then pick up whatever IC services remain on the classic WCML Trent Valley route after HS2. (Guessing there could be an hourly to Manchester and then an hourly to say Crewe for interchange further north, but that is pure guesswork).

 

[richieb1971]

The radii I put in is similar to the one going south. I doubt very much a high speed requirement is necessary.
The benefit of the map above is that the flyover is at ground level where it joins, so putting in some point work and necessary signalling would be the only interuption.

I was just trying to get a visual of what zwk500 was talking about.

 

[Nottingham59]

If necessary, there is room for a fifth track all the way up on the east side of the WCML

I think they've actually left enough space for two tracks, which would be extremely useful if they could be squeezed in.

 

[Meerkat]

It's all ageing, run-down, on-the-cheap industrial stuff. About the easiest thing to relocate, indeed likely to draw far fewer objections than if it was going through a pretty looking green field.

It will take out quite an area of them as the area in the triangle would presumably not be big enough to justify building a bridge for access.

 

[jfowkes]

It's all ageing, run-down, on-the-cheap industrial stuff. About the easiest thing to relocate, indeed likely to draw far fewer objections than if it was going through a pretty looking green field.

It will take out quite an area of them as the area in the triangle would presumably not be big enough to justify building a bridge for access.

If the depot is closing, that would be a lot of land north of the curve that could be sold to the private sector - possibly more than would be lost?

 

[richieb1971]

So let's say MkC gets 2 extra tracks to the south I'm assuming north of MkC is somewhat free of congestion. Southern doesn't go that far so just freight and the hourly LM service to crewe?

 

[zwk500]

It's all ageing, run-down, on-the-cheap industrial stuff. About the easiest thing to relocate, indeed likely to draw far fewer objections than if it was going through a pretty looking green field.

The radii I put in is similar to the one going south. I doubt very much a high speed requirement is necessary.
The benefit of the map above is that the flyover is at ground level where it joins, so putting in some point work and necessary signalling would be the only interuption.

I was just trying to get a visual of what zwk500 was talking about.

The existing low-level curve is c.350m radius, your proposed curve is c.500m radius, but that's still rather tight for modern builds. (Although tighter curves have been built recently). Depends what the trackplan layout would be at Denbigh hall junction - vertical gradients are also an important consideration as the flyover line climbs steeply as soon as the Relief lines are out of the way.

Will it though after EWR and HS2? EWR is going to MKC from the Oxford direction anyway from my understanding, so presumably if you're heading to Manchester or further north, it might end up being quicker, and likely less prone to overcrowding (avoiding Birmingham), to head over to MKC on EWR and then pick up whatever IC services remain on the classic WCML Trent Valley route after HS2. (Guessing there could be an hourly to Manchester and then an hourly to say Crewe for interchange further north, but that is pure guesswork).

There will still be the Birmingham-Reading-Southampton services in some form. A quick trip to New Street and change to Curzon street is probably going to be better than going to MK and changing, but it would depend on service levels which I can't remember off the top of my head.

I think they've actually left enough space for two tracks, which would be extremely useful if they could be squeezed in.

Not at MKC itself they haven't, the development is right up to the boundary. And then there's the issues of remodelling the layout to achieve the junctions you need. All doable, but would cost rather a lot.

So let's say MkC gets 2 extra tracks to the south I'm assuming north of MkC is somewhat free of congestion. Southern doesn't go that far so just freight and the hourly LM service to crewe?

There's a tiny bit more than that on the section between MK and Northampton. the Crewe service goes via the Fast Lines, but there's 3 London-Northampton an hour, 2 of which call at Wolverton, to deal with and there's nowhere to hold a freight until you get through Northampton Station to the goods loops there. There is space on that section, but it's not a vast empty sea of capacity by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not at MKC itself they haven't, the development is right up to the boundary.

There is room for an entire extra platform or even two by simply removing a small amount of street parking.

It isn't the railway's land but that isn't a showstopper.

 

[Nottingham59]

Not at MKC itself they haven't, the development is right up to the boundary. And then there's the issues of remodelling the layout to achieve the junctions you need. All doable, but would cost rather a lot.

Not sure what you mean. Isn't there already six platforms at MKC to accommodate a six track railway? And there is a strip of land between the railway and the A5 which looks to my eye to be designed to allow future expansion.

 

[richieb1971]

The approach to MkC doesn't allow it as the road is tight up to the track. 100 to 200 metres worth.

 

[Nottingham59]

The approach to MkC doesn't allow it as the road is tight up to the track. 100 to 200 metres worth.

I'm not sure where you mean. This is the point where the A5 comes closest to the railway

What am I missing? To my eye, there's space for an eight track railway there.

 

[The Planner]

Bear in mind EWR are initially planned to stable where the curve leaves the Bletchley Bedford line....

 

[Class 170101]

The existing low-level curve is c.350m radius, your proposed curve is c.500m radius, but that's still rather tight for modern builds. (Although tighter curves have been built recently). Depends what the trackplan layout would be at Denbigh hall junction - vertical gradients are also an important consideration as the flyover line climbs steeply as soon as the Relief lines are out of the way.

I would suggest you would want a track distance of at least 1000m (and probably more) if you are planning to run freight as I very much doubt the freight slots for EWR and the WCML slows will match up such that you just cross from one to the other and so they will have to wait on the east to north curve.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think you'll need to be further out than that to get acceptable curve radii for the speed/wear/standage concerns. You'd be through the warehouse marked Charles Tyrwhitt, with the junction pretty much on the B4034 bridge.

and if it nibbles the IKEA collection point there will be hell to pay from a swathe of Herts Beds and Bucks furniture customers!

 

[zwk500]

There is room for an entire extra platform or even two by simply removing a small amount of street parking.

It isn't the railway's land but that isn't a showstopper.

Platforms yes, but look at the H6 bridge. There isn't room between the Up slow and the Bridge column.

Not sure what you mean. Isn't there already six platforms at MKC to accommodate a six track railway? And there is a strip of land between the railway and the A5 which looks to my eye to be designed to allow future expansion.

No, there's 6 platforms to accommodate a layover line on each pair of lines on the 4-track section. Platform 5 may be manageable without, but Platform 2 is certainly required.

I'm not sure where you mean. This is the point where the A5 comes closest to the railway

What am I missing? To my eye, there's space for an eight track railway there.

You're missing that the alignment of the fast lines can't be moved without penalising 125mph running. I'm guessing that even post-HS2 it will want to be kept at 110mph minimum.

I would suggest you would want a track distance of at least 1000m (and probably more) if you are planning to run freight as I very much doubt the freight slots for EWR and the WCML slows will match up such that you just cross from one to the other and so they will have to wait on the east to north curve.

Agreed. 775m freight + 25m standback from the signal, assuming the standard 180m overlap you'd need 980m from clearance point to clearance point.