• 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 Mainline interchanges

Status
Not open for further replies.

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
I can't see how you could ever do anything about without some kind of massive and destructive alterations. You really need to move the crossing point entirely but then that splits the place in two.
That is the plan for Liddlington. A new crossing route out of the village and a footbridge for the village.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,612
Location
Nottingham
Lidlington in particular, with the slope of the road as well as the road junctions and buildings, I can't see how you could ever do anything about without some kind of massive and destructive alterations. You really need to move the crossing point entirely but then that splits the place in two.
Possibly a question for the speculation forum, but I wonder if they would have been better just building the new line from Ridgmont to Hitchin - around half the distance of new track compared to going via Cambourne and avoids disrupting the Marston Vale line ....
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Possibly a question for the speculation forum, but I wonder if they would have been better just building the new line from Ridgmont to Hitchin - around half the distance of new track compared to going via Cambourne and avoids disrupting the Marston Vale line ....

trouble with that is that Hitchin - Cambridge is essentially full.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Is it? I'm surprised. Royston has around 6tph each way. There are only four tracks South of Hitchin, so the six tracks to the north of Hitchin can't all be full.

the interaction between the fast, semi fast and stoppers is the issue - they can’t overtake.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,612
Location
Nottingham
the interaction between the fast, semi fast and stoppers is the issue - they can’t overtake.
I understand that. I guess they might need a turn-back platform at Royston to let the reversing stopper keep out of the way. Which would be cheaper than building a extra 10-15 miles of new railway that zig-zags all over Befordshire
 

fishwomp

Member
Joined
5 Jan 2020
Messages
534
Location
milton keynes
Well if you think a draughty, steam heat Mk1 running at 60 mph is a better offer than either a Voyager or 158 running regular, clock face timings at closer to 100mph, then I think you're wearing your sepia tinted glasses.
People pay good money - a premium - for just that! Would happily take a steam from Oxford to Cambridge, it's 100 miles (and isn't Bletchley - Bedford set for 60mph after all?) so not much in it in absolute journey time.

If they could run a non-stop service once a week each way like that, I'd take it every time. You'd need 2-4 coaches on the 158, but about 8-10 on the steam to cope with demand - plenty sepia glasses out there.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
8 surely. 6 + 2 on the flyover
I was under the impression they were now adding another new platform down with the WCML ones for terminating services from the Marston Vale, presumably to keep the flyover ones clear?
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,840
I was under the impression they were now adding another new platform down with the WCML ones for terminating services from the Marston Vale, presumably to keep the flyover ones clear?
No, it doesn't need another one at the bottom.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
2,928
Location
The Fens
Is it? I'm surprised. Royston has around 6tph each way. There are only four tracks South of Hitchin, so the six tracks to the north of Hitchin can't all be full.
If you doubt the difficulty of pathing more trains between Hitchin and Cambridge, I suggest you study the ECML diversion paths for last weekend on RTT, before they disappear.
the interaction between the fast, semi fast and stoppers is the issue - they can’t overtake.
Absolutely, Cambridge-Hitchin all stations takes 37 minutes and governs line capacity.

But it is not true that trains can't overtake, because the platforms at Royston are bidirectional, a leftover from the original GN suburban electrification when all trains terminated there. In ye olden dayes, before Thameslink, it was quite common for late running down stoppers to go "wrong side" at Royston to allow fast trains to overtake, or for up stoppers to go "wrong side" to allow late running fast trains to overtake. But that's much more difficult now because of the extra Brighton trains.
I guess they might need a turn-back platform at Royston to let the reversing stopper keep out of the way. Which would be cheaper than building a extra 10-15 miles of new railway that zig-zags all over Bedfordshire

The terminating stoppers are a covid thing, in the full timetable they all run through from/to Cambridge.

A turnback platform at Royston would require complete rebuilding of the station and loss of much of the car park.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
i think it was 3 initially - or at least 2 + 1 dependent on loops at, perhaps, Forders.
Two service concepts, although one had two variants: either keep Ridgmont station where it is with two platforms or move it onto the new passing loops as a four platform interchange station.
Well, yeah, technically, but the ones that have building around them make it pretty hard to install a bridge either over or under.
A vehicular bridge, perhaps, but bridges for non-motorised users are not so difficult.
Lidlington in particular, with the slope of the road as well as the road junctions and buildings, I can't see how you could ever do anything about without some kind of massive and destructive alterations. You really need to move the crossing point entirely but then that splits the place in two.
Or just close it to vehicles.

Or, move the station and create a by-pass and new access routes to reduce traffic over the crossing.
That is the plan for Liddlington. A new crossing route out of the village and a footbridge for the village.
This has been causing no end of headaches at work for the past few months trying to identify a ‘package’ for the Lidlington area that works and is affordable.
Possibly a question for the speculation forum, but I wonder if they would have been better just building the new line from Ridgmont to Hitchin - around half the distance of new track compared to going via Cambourne and avoids disrupting the Marston Vale line ....
This was considered and discounted at a previous stage. It would need major upgrades to the existing Shepreth Branch and perform worse in terms of business case delivery because of the lower and more dispersed population centres (and growth potential) en route.
I understand that. I guess they might need a turn-back platform at Royston to let the reversing stopper keep out of the way. Which would be cheaper than building a extra 10-15 miles of new railway that zig-zags all over Befordshire
How exactly does it zigzag in Bedfordshire?
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
People pay good money - a premium - for just that! Would happily take a steam from Oxford to Cambridge, it's 100 miles (and isn't Bletchley - Bedford set for 60mph after all?) so not much in it in absolute journey time.

If they could run a non-stop service once a week each way like that, I'd take it every time. You'd need 2-4 coaches on the 158, but about 8-10 on the steam to cope with demand - plenty sepia glasses out there.

I guess the question is whether EWR should be a fit for 21st century public transport link or a glorified museum harking back to the 1950s.

My money is on the latter.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
2,928
Location
The Fens
I guess the question is whether EWR should be a fit for 21st century public transport link or a glorified museum harking back to the 1950s.

My money is on the latter.
It is not long since Cambridge as a city has ceased to be a glorified museum harking back to the 1950s. Now it needs to be fit for the 21st century.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
It is not long since Cambridge as a city has ceased to be a glorified museum harking back to the 1950s. Now it needs to be fit for the 21st century.

I was being tongue in cheek.

Cambridge has grown which has led to the modernisation - the centre of Cambridge less so.

The reality is whilst there might be enough for a train load of enthusiasts a couple of times a week to have a steam hauled Cambridge - Bletchley with a rake of Mk1s, there is far more demand for a regular, reasonably quick service using moder(ish) air con'd stock.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I was under the impression they were now adding another new platform down with the WCML ones for terminating services from the Marston Vale, presumably to keep the flyover ones clear?

There already is such a platform - 6. It needs a lift but otherwise it's fine for the purpose. 5 is sometimes used for easier access if not needed for something else.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
2,928
Location
The Fens
I was being tongue in cheek.

Cambridge has grown which has led to the modernisation - the centre of Cambridge less so.

The reality is whilst there might be enough for a train load of enthusiasts a couple of times a week to have a steam hauled Cambridge - Bletchley with a rake of Mk1s, there is far more demand for a regular, reasonably quick service using moder(ish) air con'd stock.
I recognised that you were being tongue in cheek, and was being tongue in cheek in my response.

Connectivity in the Cambridge/Oxford arc is essential for UK future economic development. The AstraZeneca covid vaccine was a Cambridge/Oxford collaboration that was able to overcome the lack of connectivity, but there are possibly hundreds of other projects, not as newsworthy as a vaccine, that may never get off the ground without better connectivity.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,268
There already is such a platform - 6. It needs a lift but otherwise it's fine for the purpose. 5 is sometimes used for easier access if not needed for something else.
I remember there was some debate a couple of years ago, (back in the original EWR thread), when you had found and posted an “artist’s impression” that seemed to show a low level “P7“ on the opposite face of P6, complete with a lift, but as I reasoned at the time all the detailed engineering drawings for the TWA have P7&8 as being the new high level platforms.
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
I agree that Bletchley should be looked at in the future post HS2 for a fast connecting service northbound. Hs2 has great prospects outside of its own remit.

Bedford is the easiest place to put any northern curve if its for freight. It has 2 slow northbound tracks doing not much at all with full OHLE for 20+ miles (not that it would help).

I can't help feel that EWR is a project fueled by someone's dream, but it isn't mine. I see no value that Bedford gets route E, prefer Wixams as a Tamworth style interchange, it gives faster end to end journeys and cuts out the slowest section of EWR through Bedford Midland. There is much more room to expand at Wixams. The idea that we must serve up towns with trains is an old way of thinking. Do people live in rural areas and still do weekly shops in town centres? I don't think so. Maybe once a month. As long as you have a somewhat local station to get connectivity to the rail network to where you want to go, THAT is the benefit. I understand that folk want connecting services, well surely the punters should get what they want. If 500+ people a day are getting off at Bletchley to get to MK to reach a northern destination then it is the railways job to make that happen surely? If it became 2000 people a day it would be borderline ridiculous. People in this business seem to create the narrative around what they want, not what is needed... Which is why the railways are always inadequate and over priced.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
As a Bedfordian, sympathizer to the route E NIMBY's

I can't help feel that EWR is a project fueled by someone's dream, but it isn't mine. I see no value that Bedford gets route E, prefer Wixams as a Tamworth style interchange, it gives faster end to end journeys and cuts out the slowest section of EWR through Bedford Midland. There is much more room to expand at Wixams. The idea that we must serve up towns with trains is an old way of thinking. Do people live in rural areas and still do weekly shops in town centres? I don't think so. Maybe once a month. As long as you have a somewhat local station to get connectivity to the rail network to where you want to go, THAT is the benefit. I understand that folk want connecting services, well surely the punters should get what they want. If 500+ people a day are getting off at Bletchley to get to MK to reach a northern destination then it is the railways job to make that happen surely? If it became 2000 people a day it would be borderline ridiculous. People in this business seem to create the narrative around what they want, not what is needed... Which is why the railways are always inadequate and over priced.
Typical NIMBY argument: “it’s obviously much better for X to go near someone else’s property than near mine.
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
Typical NIMBY argument: “it’s obviously much better for X to go near someone else’s property than near mine.
I'm not a nimby in this particular case. Neither route goes through my area. Wixams wants a station, already has a railway going through it so its not much different from now. Route C in the Bedford area doesn't really affect any households where as route E has a massive impact, requires expensive infrastructure. I'm following a logic that is different from others but that didn't make me a nimby.
If you make the argument that Bedford midland must be on the EWR for connectivity you must apply the same logic to Bletchley and apply a timetable where northern routes are accessible from there also. What is the point of having Bedford getting connectivity, Bletchley not getting it, Oxford getting it etc. Most folk would get off at Bletchley for connections surely.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
EWR serving Bedford Midland makes the most sense by a county mile, likewise route E. Once you improve the hub there the improved connectivity will drive a load of investment and development around the station, all accessible for a much wider catchment area due to the interchange possibilities. By all means give Wixhams a station, but a local one feeding into Bedford Midland.
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
EWR serving Bedford Midland makes the most sense by a county mile, likewise route E. Once you improve the hub there the improved connectivity will drive a load of investment and development around the station, all accessible for a much wider catchment area due to the interchange possibilities. By all means give Wixhams a station, but a local one feeding into Bedford Midland.
OK. I'd just like to say as a bedfordian it's "Wixams" not "Wixhams" as everyone on here keeps calling it.

I see merit in route E but I also see a grand expenditure on BDM, loads of bridge adjustments and nimby resentment. I hope your right about Bedford getting this growth you talk about.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
EWR serving Bedford Midland makes the most sense by a county mile, likewise route E. Once you improve the hub there the improved connectivity will drive a load of investment and development around the station, all accessible for a much wider catchment area due to the interchange possibilities. By all means give Wixhams a station, but a local one feeding into Bedford Midland.

Wouldn't that basically be Kempston Hardwick?
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
EWR serving Bedford Midland makes the most sense by a county mile, likewise route E. Once you improve the hub there the improved connectivity will drive a load of investment and development around the station, all accessible for a much wider catchment area due to the interchange possibilities. By all means give Wixhams a station, but a local one feeding into Bedford Midland.
100% - Tamworth is not a parkway. Whereas Nuneaton down the line, is basically this.

Maybe people don't do weekly shops in their county towns etc, but it's where they go out to eat/on the piss, and very probably, work.

Let's also remember in the talk of the pandemic, and the industries concerned on EWR - which people can't and haven't been working from home? People working in healthcare and in labs, plus other types of scientists and researchers. And many academics. That is what book-ends this route. They will still have to 'go in'.

MKC and Bedford to a far lesser degree, are more mainstream and diversified - MKC especially being service sector, HQs, generalist commercial offices (and lots of logistics!) - and so probably feeling more of the pandemic factor in commuting patterns.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
I'm not a nimby in this particular case. Neither route goes through my area. Wixams wants a station, already has a railway going through it so its not much different from now. Route C in the Bedford area doesn't really affect any households where as route E has a massive impact, requires expensive infrastructure. I'm following a logic that is different from others but that didn't make me a nimby.
I’ll bite.

Please clarify, under your proposals:
  1. What pattern of services would be provided?
  2. How many would serve Bedford Midland?
  3. Would any services calling at Bedford Midland be through services or would they all terminate?
  4. Would any services from intermediate stations on the Marston Vale line serve Cambridge, or would they all terminate at Bedford? If so, where?
  5. How many extra platforms will you need to provide to accommodate these services and where? What other works will be needed to the station and the surrounding area?
  6. How would you cross the former clay/gravel/landfill pits south of Bedford? Would that be easy in engineering terms or difficult?
  7. How would you relocate the Wixams station from its currently proposed location? How would people get to the new site (from Wixams, Kempston Hardwick, Stewartby, Bedford town centre and elsewhere)?
  8. What services would call at Wixams on the Midland lines?
  9. If you follow Route Option C east of Bedford, how will you get through Sandy? Where (if at all) would you have a station between Sandy and Cambridge? How would you deal with the Cambridgeshire NIMBYs’ demands for the railway to enter Cambridge from the north? How will you cross the floodplains/rivers/ancient woodland/heritage assets/priority habitats/highways? How many properties will need to be acquired and demolished in order to do that? Will all this be easy/simple/cheap or difficult/complex/expensive?
  10. If you follow Route Option B east of Bedford, where will you cross the ECML? Will there be intermediate stations and, if so, where? How would you deal with the Cambridgeshire NIMBYs’ demands for the railway to enter Cambridge from the north? How will you cross the floodplains/rivers/ancient woodland/heritage assets/priority habitats/highways? How many properties will need to be acquired and demolished in order to do that? Will this be easy/simple/cheap or difficult/complex/expensive?

If you make the argument that Bedford midland must be on the EWR for connectivity you must apply the same logic to Bletchley and apply a timetable where northern routes are accessible from there also. What is the point of having Bedford getting connectivity, Bletchley not getting it, Oxford getting it etc. Most folk would get off at Bletchley for connections surely.

Why must this be the case? The existing network around Bletchley is laid out differently and the current and historic (for the past several decades, at least) service patterns are also different.

Frankly, your argument appears to be that ‘if Bletchley doesn’t have northward connectivity Bedford shouldn’t either’.
 

Pigeon

Member
Joined
8 Apr 2015
Messages
802
I'm not a nimby in this particular case. Neither route goes through my area. Wixams wants a station, already has a railway going through it so its not much different from now. Route C in the Bedford area doesn't really affect any households where as route E has a massive impact, requires expensive infrastructure. I'm following a logic that is different from others but that didn't make me a nimby.

I used to live in Bedford (and I still call "Wixams" plain "Elstow dump"). I find it remarkable that they have had the guts to decide on a route that properly incorporates BDM, but I am very glad that they did do that instead of ending up with one of the half-arsed southabout options for trying to sweep the problem under the carpet that it looked like we were going to get stuck with, which would have been a pain in the arse to get to from more or less everywhere except the new estate and would have meant an awful lot of possible journeys being hit with the same kind of "go one stop then change again" problem that arises with Bletchley/MK.

I'm now in Worcester and have the same kind of complaint about Worcester Parkway: it's useless as a station for Worcester because it's not in Worcester but in the middle of a field, it introduces the "go one stop then change again" problem, it is detrimental to the service to Worcester itself, and its existence creates a situation that makes it more unlikely than ever that some of the local difficulties around Worcester and railways will ever be dealt with properly.

A station that purports to serve a town needs to be in the town, not plonked somewhere random outside it because that happens to be easier; the Victorians learnt this pretty quickly and places that still have stations sited in the days before they'd learnt it still feel the deficiency. The town is where the people are so the station needs to be where they can get to it, and the same applies in the reverse direction - the stuff people want to get to is in the town so a station that isn't in the town is no use, a point which the modern delusion that "it's OK because people can drive to it" disregards. And an interchange needs to be a single point, not a function split over two neighbouring points, otherwise it becomes two interchanges with twice, or more, the awkwardness. On both counts BDM is where the EWR station needs to be, and the argument regarding Bletchley/MK is about the same sort of thing.

If you make the argument that Bedford midland must be on the EWR for connectivity you must apply the same logic to Bletchley and apply a timetable where northern routes are accessible from there also. What is the point of having Bedford getting connectivity, Bletchley not getting it, Oxford getting it etc. Most folk would get off at Bletchley for connections surely.

Regarding the last sentence, well, it depends where they want connections to. But yes, indeed I do apply the same logic to both ends of the Marston Vale section. The trouble is that Bletchley/MK is a more awkward instance of the problem than Bedford, for reasons like the sizes/distances involved, capacity on that bit of the WCML, and the existence of the Marston Vale line itself. What really needs to be done is to build the extra trackage required to do the same "in the south, out the north" thing they have now decided on for Bedford, and invert the configuration at Bedford to go "in the north, out the south". But Bedford's only getting what it's getting because there is currently no track going east from it at all, and asking for that kind of arrangement around Bletchley/MK when an onward line does exist even if it's suboptimal isn't going to happen, so basically a crappy bodge is all we ever are likely to get.
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
I'm happy for route E to go ahead through Bedford so I will drop my argument for Wixams.

Under route E though I would like to see a east-north curve at the Bedford junction if possible (I favour this over it being elsewhere).
I envisage Bedford Midland to be on par size with a station such as Peterborough. We don't know if BDM is staying on its current location or not?
I would like to see the proposed Bedford-Leeds service invoked after EWR initiates. If BDM gets the extra platforms this should be doable.

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?
Do the franchises currently have joined up thinking or do they work in silos?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,541
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Regarding the last sentence, well, it depends where they want connections to. But yes, indeed I do apply the same logic to both ends of the Marston Vale section. The trouble is that Bletchley/MK is a more awkward instance of the problem than Bedford, for reasons like the sizes/distances involved, capacity on that bit of the WCML, and the existence of the Marston Vale line itself. What really needs to be done is to build the extra trackage required to do the same "in the south, out the north" thing they have now decided on for Bedford, and invert the configuration at Bedford to go "in the north, out the south". But Bedford's only getting what it's getting because there is currently no track going east from it at all, and asking for that kind of arrangement around Bletchley/MK when an onward line does exist even if it's suboptimal isn't going to happen, so basically a crappy bodge is all we ever are likely to get.

An east to north curve from the Marston Vale over land taken up by low cost industrial units (so no NIMBY issue) to MKC plus an extra track (for which there is room) would largely provide this.
 

William3000

Member
Joined
24 May 2011
Messages
198
Location
Cambridgeshire
An east to north curve from the Marston Vale over land taken up by low cost industrial units (so no NIMBY issue) to MKC plus an extra track (for which there is room) would largely provide this.
Yes I agree that the north to east curve could eliminate the problems associated with trains from Cambridge/Bedford not directly serving Milton Keynes Central for the intercity interchange opportunity while addressing the concerns of those who don’t think Bletchley should replace Milton Keynes Central as the primary stop. Such a proposal would however problem need 2 additional lines running between Bletchley to MKC on the eastern side of the existing tracks and would result in a 7 minute or so time penalty for through services to Oxford (which I think would be something most could live with).

I agree that EW rail should go via Bedford (Midland) for better connectivity.

So a Cambridge to Oxford service might look something like:

Cambridge (Central)
Cambridge South
Cambourne
St Neots South
Bedford (Midland)
Ridgmont
Milton Keynes Central
Bletchley
Winslow
Bicester Village
Oxford Parkway
Oxford (Central)
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,451
An east to north curve from the Marston Vale over land taken up by low cost industrial units (so no NIMBY issue) to MKC plus an extra track (for which there is room) would largely provide this.

And the availability of free paths between MK and Bletchley would kill it, even post HS2 there is still a significant demand for paths from MK south to London.

Bedford is the easiest place to put any northern curve if its for freight. It has 2 slow northbound tracks doing not much at all with full OHLE for 20+ miles (not that it would help).

But what benefit is there sending freight via EWR ?

If it's coming from Felixstowe you'd have to send it via Newmarket (gauge restricted) and Cambridge (busy) - if it's heading for the MML or WCML, it still makes more sense to send it via Ely and Peterboro.

If it's coming from Southampton or Tilbury - again why would you put it on EWR ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top