East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

[Dave_Cardboard]

There's a few photos - including some aerial ones - searching Twitter for @networkraileus.

 

[Tobbes]

Photos here: https://twitter.com/NetworkRailEUS/...9?ref_src=twsrc^google|twcamp^serp|twgr^tweet

 

[The Planner]

A busy Easter bank holiday weekend of works ahead on Bletchley Flyover. The Mercury House car park on Buckingham Road now has a 750T crane set up, to start the process of removing spans from the flyover. The smaller office block has been demolished and the middle sized office block is in the process of being demolished.

Bit touch and go I heard as to whether it would happen

 

[Neen Sollars]

From Dave-Cardboard on HS2 work thread.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1249313979182219269

Scroll down a couple of the aerial shots from NR helicopter to see the Bletchley fllyover site. Good photos to get a better perspective of what is going on. I can see a building being demolished western side of WCML presume that is the small office building. If the large office is the big dark block adjacent to it, why does that have to be demolished?

 

[Hughby]

I couldn't 'scroll down' to Bletchley Flyover pictures from that link. Hopefully this link takes you to the Bletchley pictures...

nrairops on Twitter

“Preparation work well underway for the removal of a concrete section of the Bletchley Flyover @NetworkRailEUS @ewrconsortium. Keeping the country moving”

twitter.com

 

[Hughby]

I believe that the building being demolished in the first photo is the 'middle sized office block' that @work-traveller mentioned. It's flattened now except for the two vertical steel members. I've no idea what plans there are for the larger dark building.

 

[Meerkat]

I've no idea what plans there are for the larger dark building.

Looks quite dated and not very big. The site must be worth a fortune right near the station, with EWR only making it more so.
Anyone got a quick link to where the high level platforms are going relative to the junction for MK please?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Looks quite dated and not very big. The site must be worth a fortune right near the station, with EWR only making it more so.
Anyone got a quick link to where the high level platforms are going relative to the junction for MK please?

The old Cable and Wireless building? I doubt it's that valuable - could stick some houses/flats on it but the area around there is not particularly desirable (not rough, but you wouldn't sell premium flats). There's not a strong pull for commuters to live near Bletchley station (most drive, walk or cycle there from further away, and the car park is never full and the cycle space well-set-up and quite secure) and the town centre isn't that nice. And if you wanted to locate a business, there's tons of office space in CMK which is much, much more desirable.

I doubt EWR will make that much difference to the desirability or otherwise of Bletchley, it's already viable to commute to Aylesbury or Oxford by car, and if you don't drive there are good bus services from MK more widely.

 

[swt_passenger]

[…]
Anyone got a quick link to where the high level platforms are going relative to the junction for MK please?

There’s an artists impression in this post:

The platforms won't be over the WCML - they'll be off to the side, just before the junction...

I think the existing high level junction position is tweaked a little, but is basically within a few yards of its present location.

The entire package of TWA drawings was linked at one stage back in 2018, but they’re proving elusive a5 the moment...

 

[Meerkat]

There’s an artists impression in this post:


I think the existing high level junction position is tweaked a little, but is basically within a few yards of its present location.

The entire package of TWA drawings was linked at one stage back in 2018, but they’re proving elusive a5 the moment...

Thanks, it’s going to be pretty tight!

 

[mr_jrt]

I'm curious as to why those buildings are coming down too...just coincidence? They don't look to be anywhere near the worksite nor impinging any rail alignments. Hopefully it's not for a massive new development right up against the tracks. Would be nice to preserve an alignment on the west of the station for future enlargements, though I can't really see that happening any time soon.

 

[Hughby]

Nothing much (visibly) going on today - certainly no heavy lifting.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm curious as to why those buildings are coming down too...just coincidence? They don't llok to be anywhere near the worksite nor impinging any rail alignments. Hopefully it's not for a massive new development right up against the tracks. Would be nice to preserve an alignment on the west of the station for future enlargements, though I can't really see that happening any time soon.

I can't see a problem with a development there. The station is on the other side of the road bridge, if there was to be an expansion it'd be into the present car park. The land is not useful for anything else.

I don't think it's a particularly desirable housing location either, to be honest, but even so you'd probably sell a typical "Barratt's estate" out. Or social housing could be built there.

Moderator note: can we please stick to actual updates regarding the EW Rail project in this thread.

If anyone wishes to discuss any related topics, including predictions, ideas etc please create a new thread in the relevant section (or use an existing thread if appropriate)

Some posts moved to: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...ar-railway-stations-be-higher-density.203443/

 

[67018]

As a bit of light relief, here's a picture of the line just to the north of Charndon. Looks like some new ballast has been laid along quite a bit of this section, almost looks ready to be turned into a railway (to this non-specialist).

Anyone know why there are lines of small 'EWR' flags on sticks in the adjacent fields hereabouts? They seem to mark a line parallel to the railway but 10 yards or so outside the current boundary, so maybe indicating access paths for equipment?

 

[swt_passenger]

I'm curious as to why those buildings are coming down too...just coincidence? They don't look to be anywhere near the worksite nor impinging any rail alignments. Hopefully it's not for a massive new development right up against the tracks. Would be nice to preserve an alignment on the west of the station for future enlargements, though I can't really see that happening any time soon.

It’s looking very like a useful coincidence to me. The streetview images suggest the offices are some sort of annex to the main block on Buckingham Rd, and the greenery up the buildings indicates they’ve been empty for a long time, but it’s still very unlikely they’d have been compulsory purchased for use as a worksite under the TWA. Especially as the TWA didn’t actually allow for flyover demolition and rebuild, it was originally an overhaul and waterproofing.

The separate new “permitted development” application for the flyover partial replacement doesn’t explicitly refer to the demolition as part of the work package, but does however include the area in its drawings of access routes...

 

[D365]

Are there any diagrams for the proposed high level Bletchley platforms? I tried googling but couldn't find anything substantial...

 

[swt_passenger]

Are there any diagrams for the proposed high level Bletchley platforms? I tried googling but couldn't find anything substantial...

Yes, I’ve just found them again.
The TWA Order application files are right at the bottom of this page on NR website:

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

Then you need to select:
“02 TWAO application documents”
And then choose the last downloadable file in the drop down list:
“East West Rail NR15 Planning Drawings Route Sections 2D, 2E and Stations.pdf”

 

[MikePJ]

As a bit of light relief, here's a picture of the line just to the north of Charndon. Looks like some new ballast has been laid along quite a bit of this section, almost looks ready to be turned into a railway (to this non-specialist).

Anyone know why there are lines of small 'EWR' flags on sticks in the adjacent fields hereabouts? They seem to mark a line parallel to the railway but 10 yards or so outside the current boundary, so maybe indicating access paths for equipment?

A quick guess - they may mark the legal boundary of the railway. The legal powers that allow the line to be built/refurbished will extend a little way beyond the existing trackbed, and the project team will want to ensure that works happen "inside the line". Victorian railway engineers generally asked Parliament for approval to deviate from their intended route by a small margin, to allow for things not being quite as drawn on the maps, and I presume that's still the case today.

Edit: yes, the Transport and Works Act Order gives "power to deviate" within lines specified on the maps. So it's likely that the flags mark the "limit of deviation" line, showing where the engineers have legal power to build.

 

[Meerkat]

A quick guess - they may mark the legal boundary of the railway. The legal powers that allow the line to be built/refurbished will extend a little way beyond the existing trackbed, and the project team will want to ensure that works happen "inside the line". Victorian railway engineers generally asked Parliament for approval to deviate from their intended route by a small margin, to allow for things not being quite as drawn on the maps, and I presume that's still the case today.

Edit: yes, the Transport and Works Act Order gives "power to deviate" within lines specified on the maps. So it's likely that the flags mark the "limit of deviation" line, showing where the engineers have legal power to build.

Does that mean they own that land or do they just have to compensate the landowners later if the land is used?

 

[hooverboy]

It’s looking very like a useful coincidence to me. The streetview images suggest the offices are some sort of annex to the main block on Buckingham Rd, and the greenery up the buildings indicates they’ve been empty for a long tI’ve; but it’s still very unlikely they’d have been compulsory purchased for use as a worksite under the TWA. Especially as the TWA didn’t actually allow for flyover demolition and rebuild, it was originally an overhaul and waterproofing.

The separate new “permitted development” application for the flyover partial replacement doesn’t explicitly refer to the demolition as part of the work package, but does however include the area in its drawings of access routes...

so there is a bit of scope for deviation then.

it looks like bletchley flyover basically needs knocking down and building with something more fit for purpose.
why not just knuckle down and get on with the MKC chord?,it's far ,far more useful.

 

[hooverboy]

Does that mean they own that land or do they just have to compensate the landowners later if the land is used?

of course the present landowners should be compensated! a couple of million to "help" companies to bugger off elsewhere out of our way should not be an issue on a project that is costing probably nearly £1BN in the grand scale of things when all is said and done.It would cost twice as much in legal fees should they wish to bring a court case and stay put.
lets just get it done and fit for best use!

 

[MikePJ]

Does that mean they own that land or do they just have to compensate the landowners later if the land is used?

I presume that they have an option to purchase the land if it's required. They may rent it for the duration of construction if it's only used for construction access. Generally if a public agency actually buys land outright for construction purposes, they immediately fence it off to mark the new land boundary (this is very noticeable with road projects). Someone almost certainly knows better than I do.

 

[swt_passenger]

so there is a bit of scope for deviation then.

it looks like bletchley flyover basically needs knocking down and building with something more fit for purpose.
why not just knuckle down and get on with the MKC chord?,it's far ,far more useful.

I don’t think the planning application implies any sort of deviation at all, the line of the viaduct will be exactly as it is now, because only a subset of the supports are being replaced.

 

[hooverboy]

I presume that they have an option to purchase the land if it's required. They may rent it for the duration of construction if it's only used for construction access. Generally if a public agency actually buys land outright for construction purposes, they immediately fence it off to mark the new land boundary (this is very noticeable with road projects). Someone almost certainly knows better than I do.

I would have thought that purchase of necessary land to do the job would be obligatory, with a resale of surplus assets done after completion.

I would not be overly inclined to lease/rent as the lessor can stipulate some rather unreasonable conditions.

 

[hooverboy]

I don’t think the planning application implies any sort of deviation at all, the line of the viaduct will be exactly as it is now, because only a subset of the supports are being replaced.

just taking at face value, the above implies that the viaduct was intended to be just a facelift,but upon further structural inspection has turned out to be something rather more serious.
at which point do you say "ok,lets start again with a blank canvas"
do you think it reasonable that we have to go through a whole rigmorole of risk assessments,legalities and so on all over again,or should there be something in the paperwork that says " on our initial assesment,this will happen....but a SHTF scenario should recommend xxx(rip it up and start again) is done.
if plan B also included,then surely this has also been signed off.

surely contingency plans have been made,after all they had 5 options for routing

 

[swt_passenger]

just taking at face value, the above implies that the viaduct was intended to be just a facelift,but upon further structural inspection has turned out to be something rather more serious.
at which point do you say "ok,lets start again with a blank canvas"

Not at this point, because we can see from the planning drawings they aren’t doing that...

 

[hooverboy]

Not at this point, because we can see from the planning drawings they aren’t doing that...

from the planning drawings it probably looks fine...what have the earthworks guys discovered?

 

[Bald Rick]

Does that mean they own that land or do they just have to compensate the landowners later if the land is used?

It will be the ownership boundary. Note that in some cases, the ownership will be temporary.

 

[Meerkat]

It will be the ownership boundary. Note that in some cases, the ownership will be temporary.

thanks - so the owners get paid and then a refund if not needed? Seems a bit of a legal palaver!

 

[Bald Rick]

thanks - so the owners get paid and then a refund if not needed? Seems a bit of a legal palaver!

It will be needed!