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

[bspahh]

If big cranes are your thing then Bletchley is the place to be.

Network Rail Air Ops https://twitter.com/nrairops/status/1289194636674838529 just posted these pictures

Spoiler: Crane Picture 1

Spoiler: Crane Picture 2

Spoiler: Crane Picture 3

Spoiler: Crane Picture 4

 

[DarloRich]

Check out the jib on that

 

[squizzler]

Check out the jib on that

One might even go so far as to say: Ludicrous Jibs!

 

[DJ_K666]

You know what, that makes the Bletchley station area look like a model railway

 

[Trainee9]

A detailed news release about the EWR works, including the flyover: https://sway.office.com/OJUHZZkvJJSSA8oS.
Thee is also a planning application drawing for the flyover showing the spans to be removed and the columns to be removed and strengthened that I found on one of the forums. I can't find my download of it.

 

[Nottingham59]

Thank you Trainee9. And welcome to the forum!

 

[swt_passenger]

A detailed news release about the EWR works, including the flyover: https://sway.office.com/OJUHZZkvJJSSA8oS.
Thee is also a planning application drawing for the flyover showing the spans to be removed and the columns to be removed and strengthened that I found on one of the forums. I can't find my download of it.

Welcome, there is a detailed drawing pdf of the flyover from the planning application that I uploaded earlier in this thread. Post #3769

 

[Class 170101]

East West Rail takes new steps further east | Railnews | Today's news for Tomorrow's railway

www.railnews.co.uk

East West Rail takes new steps further east

A BUSINESS case for improving train services between Cambridge, Ipswich and Norwich is to be developed by consultants on behalf of the East West Rail Consortium, as an addition to the plans for reopening the former Varsity Line between Oxford, Bedford and Cambridge.

Will be interesting to see whether they can get through Cambridge Station nvermind the other constraints beyond Cambridge to Ipswich and Norwich.

 

[si404]

Will be interesting to see whether they can get through Cambridge Station nvermind the other constraints beyond Cambridge to Ipswich and Norwich.

Ipswich would be a replacement of the existing service, rather than an increase.

 

[Class 170101]

Ipswich would be a replacement of the existing service, rather than an increase.

Still got to be able to link through Cambridge and tie up the single Line between Coldham Lane Jn and Chippenham Jn, plus Haughley Jn. A fair few constraints there.

 

[edwin_m]

Still got to be able to link through Cambridge and tie up the single Line between Coldham Lane Jn and Chippenham Jn, plus Haughley Jn. A fair few constraints there.

Haughley is somewhere in the design process for doubling. I'm not sure if it's fully funded yet but I imagine it would be done before EWR gets to Cambridge.

 

[59CosG95]

Haughley is somewhere in the design process for doubling. I'm not sure if it's fully funded yet but I imagine it would be done before EWR gets to Cambridge.

I imagine that it'll probably become a double-lead junction, as an upgrade from a single lead; that seem to be de rigeur for junctions which are intensely used but don't warrant a flyover or diveunder.
Assuming the Cambridge - Ipswich services are directly replaced by EWR services, you'll still have, on avg:

• 2tph each way LST-NRW
• 1tph each way IPS - CBG (- beyond...)
• 1tph each way IPS - PBO (aspired; currently 1tp2h each way)
• Roughly 2tph freight each way

To me, that doesn't seem frequent enough on the Main Lines to warrant grade separation, a la Werrington.

The speeds across it are, currently:
100mph on the UM & DM, with 30mph along the crossover and single lead. 4ch after the junction (LTN 82m 79ch; CCH 40m 49ch), the single lead becomes 2 lines (Up Bury & Dn Bury) at CCH 40m 45ch. At CCH 40m 42ch, the linespeed increases from 30 to 60mph.
I can definitely see an upgrade in the speed from CCH 40m 42ch to 40m 49ch to at least 40mph IMO.

The Google Maps snapshot above shows the site of the junction (facing west), and also Haughley Level Crossing (an AHBC), which I suspect will either be closed or upgraded to full barriers & CCTV (depending on scope).
Also note Haugh Ln on the right of the shot; the road goes beneath both lines, which might make grade separation that much more awkward.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, the plans are for a double lead junction. This removes the timetabling constraint so that trains to and from the Ely line can pass each other on or near the junction. And if this is actually scheduled to take place then it creates an extra path towards Norwich for every pair so timetabled. However there is no particular capacity constraint on the Norwich line and no plans to increase its use, so a double but flat junction creates enough capacity for any foreseeable requirement.

 

[rdlover777]

I know its way to early but do with know if EW Rail will have new stock commissioned for it like Crossrail and its 345s or will current rolling stock be running along it?

 

[si404]

I know its way to early but do with know if EW Rail will have new stock commissioned for it like Crossrail and its 345s or will current rolling stock be running along it?

It's not way too early - given construction has started on the railway, construction would need to start on the trains too.

Initially E-W Rail will have cascaded diesel stock. There's no point buying new diesel stock when there's medium-term plans to electrify the line alongside a large swathe of the network and you don't want to end up with trains with 30+ years of life left not really having a place to go.

 

[59CosG95]

Not sure whose stock this would be though, as pretty much every DMU fleet is still in squadron operation (bar the Pacers - hurrah!). TfW do have 197s coming in, and WMR have 196s coming in; while EMR/XC are confirmed to be taking the WMR 170s, TfW's 175s remain unspoken for. Jury's still out on whether they'd be suitable for EWR services.

 

[fgwrich]

Not sure whose stock this would be though, as pretty much every DMU fleet is still in squadron operation (bar the Pacers - hurrah!). TfW do have 197s coming in, and WMR have 196s coming in; while EMR/XC are confirmed to be taking the WMR 170s, TfW's 175s remain unspoken for. Jury's still out on whether they'd be suitable for EWR services.

Personally, I would like to see a cascade involving Great Western taking something far more suitable for Cardiff Portsmouth and releasing a number of Turbos - They, be it 166s or 165s could then be refurbished and used on East West based out of Chilterns Aylesbury Depot. That way keeping parts commonality with them and potentially a depot who knows the stock. But that's really for a different thread!

 

[si404]

But that's really for a different thread!

This one: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-rolling-stock.201326/

 

[cle]

It seems like every Anglia thread comes back to Ely. I wish someone would bite the bullet.

But if EWR would just extend existing services, surely faster ones would make sense (vs Cambridge-Ipswich, which is fairly local) - the Stansted/Cambridge to Norwich makes more sense.

And then something else could pick up the severed Stansted - Cambridge portion, perhaps this long-discussed 2nd Birmingham, an extension of the Leicester terminator by most reckoning.

 

[A0]

It seems like every Anglia thread comes back to Ely. I wish someone would bite the bullet.

Well, if you've got an answer and a few million quid, I'm sure Network Rail would like to hear from you......

Large projects take time and go through various approvals (not just in the state sector) for very good reason. Unfortunately there are alot of posters on these boards who have little or no concept of what it takes to run a project, particularly a multi-year, multi million pound one.

But if EWR would just extend existing services, surely faster ones would make sense (vs Cambridge-Ipswich, which is fairly local) - the Stansted/Cambridge to Norwich makes more sense.

And then something else could pick up the severed Stansted - Cambridge portion, perhaps this long-discussed 2nd Birmingham, an extension of the Leicester terminator by most reckoning.

Again - the question is what problem are you trying to solve ?

Is there a huge demand for Ipswich services to Cambridge to be improved or extended ? My understanding is improving Ipswich - Peterborough is seen as a higher priority - though that one is backed up behind Ely improvements.

And tacking on Norwich to EWR probably won't help reliability - alot has been done to improve the Cambridge - Norwich service, tacking it onto EWR won't improve it.

 

[si404]

But if EWR would just extend existing services, surely faster ones would make sense (vs Cambridge-Ipswich, which is fairly local) - the Stansted/Cambridge to Norwich makes more sense.

The Stansted-Norwich is only not all-stops Ely-Norwich because several of them are so minor that they only get a token service each day - it's just as local as the Cambridge-Ipswich.

I think EWR doesn't want to undo the recent change of directly linking Norwich to its nearest main airport, hence why they want to go to Ipswich first.

And it isn't as if the service west of Cambridge isn't local. OK, it won't stop at all the Marston Vale stops, but Cambourne, Tempsford, Bedford, Ridgmont and Woburn Sands to get to Bletchley (and then Winslow, Bicester Village and Oxford Parkway to get to Oxford) is hardly 'fast'.

Still got to be able to link through Cambridge and tie up the single Line between Coldham Lane Jn and Chippenham Jn, plus Haughley Jn. A fair few constraints there.

Timetabling constraints, yes. Infrastructure constraints, no. At least no more than having E-W Rail and Ipswich services terminate at Cambridge (which might even be more problematic - turning 1tph terminating from the south and 1tph terminating from the north into 1tph through might be easier).

 

[Class 170101]

Is there a huge demand for Ipswich services to Cambridge to be improved or extended ? My understanding is improving Ipswich - Peterborough is seen as a higher priority - though that one is backed up behind Ely improvements.

Only insofar journey time between Ipswich and Cambridge by having a faster train between them I would say.

 

[A0]

Only insofar journey time between Ipswich and Cambridge by having a faster train between them I would say.

Which presumably is more to do with stopping patterns and linespeed than anything else. There are 7 intermediate stops on an Ipswich - Cambridge service - assume 2 mins per stop there's almost 15 mins of the 1h 20m journey time. Even a 'fast' service would have at least 3 - Newmarket, Bury and Stowmarket. That would gain 10 mins - anything else would have to come from linespeed improvements, currently between 40 and 75 mph. Maybe increasing it to 90mph would improve matters slightly, but that probably depends on pathing around the freights along the line.

 

[Tobbes]

Which presumably is more to do with stopping patterns and linespeed than anything else. There are 7 intermediate stops on an Ipswich - Cambridge service - assume 2 mins per stop there's almost 15 mins of the 1h 20m journey time. Even a 'fast' service would have at least 3 - Newmarket, Bury and Stowmarket. That would gain 10 mins - anything else would have to come from linespeed improvements, currently between 40 and 75 mph. Maybe increasing it to 90mph would improve matters slightly, but that probably depends on pathing around the freights along the line.

To be really competitive with road Ips-Cambs, rail will need a c. 45min journey time; Haughley Junction redoubling, linespeed improvements, electrification, redoubled Newmarket to Cambs would as a package all contribute to this, but it feels like a big job.

 

[A0]

To be really competitive with road Ips-Cambs, rail will need a c. 45min journey time; Haughley Junction redoubling, linespeed improvements, electrification, redoubled Newmarket to Cambs would as a package all contribute to this, but it feels like a big job.

The road journey according to Google maps is over an hour - the train doesn't need to hit 45 mins - in fact short of building a high speed line I doubt you'd ever achieve that. According to Railmiles it's just over 55 miles, to hit a 45 min journey time you'd need an average speed of 85mph assuming 3 stops @ 2 mins each.

Ely - Norwich is pretty much the same distance (53 miles) and even the fastest on there is 53 mins with 1 stop on a line with a linespeed of 75-90 mph.

 

[Tobbes]

The road journey according to Google maps is over an hour - the train doesn't need to hit 45 mins - in fact short of building a high speed line I doubt you'd ever achieve that. According to Railmiles it's just over 55 miles, to hit a 45 min journey time you'd need an average speed of 85mph assuming 3 stops @ 2 mins each.

Ely - Norwich is pretty much the same distance (53 miles) and even the fastest on there is 53 mins with 1 stop on a line with a linespeed of 75-90 mph.

Problem is that Cambs station isn't central, and most of the places you want to go either are very central or are on the periphery where it is advantage car. Train needs to be under the hour, and as close to 45 mins as possible to be really competitive

 

[cle]

Well, if you've got an answer and a few million quid, I'm sure Network Rail would like to hear from you......

Large projects take time and go through various approvals (not just in the state sector) for very good reason. Unfortunately there are alot of posters on these boards who have little or no concept of what it takes to run a project, particularly a multi-year, multi million pound one.



Again - the question is what problem are you trying to solve ?

Is there a huge demand for Ipswich services to Cambridge to be improved or extended ? My understanding is improving Ipswich - Peterborough is seen as a higher priority - though that one is backed up behind Ely improvements.

And tacking on Norwich to EWR probably won't help reliability - alot has been done to improve the Cambridge - Norwich service, tacking it onto EWR won't improve it.

Problem to solve is not one of my own devising - merely that all documentation about EWR's last phase mention serving Norwich. It's clearly an existing ambition. Hence the discussion. So one solution to a scenario with a limitation of paths is to append an existing service to it. Make sense?

On Ely, I think we're allowed to discuss it without having to be a civil engineer or to provide a fleshed out plan - last I checked this was a public forum for rail enthusiasts of all shapes and sizes without the need for insider credentials. I only said it needs sorting - no slur at those who haven't yet, or that I can do so myself.

And on both Ipswich and Norwich, and indeed EWR, we're acting as if stopping patterns can't and won't change.

 

[A0]

Problem is that Cambs station isn't central, and most of the places you want to go either are very central or are on the periphery where it is advantage car. Train needs to be under the hour, and as close to 45 mins as possible to be really competitive

Cambridge station IS pretty central - the centre is only about 1 mile away which is no worse than many places.

You could make the same point about Ipswich to an extent.

As I say, 45 mins is unrealistic, just over an hour less so.

 

[Andyjs247]

To be really competitive with road Ips-Cambs, rail will need a c. 45min journey time; Haughley Junction redoubling, linespeed improvements, electrification, redoubled Newmarket to Cambs would as a package all contribute to this, but it feels like a big job.

Have you tried driving in central Cambridge?

Cambridge station IS pretty central - the centre is only about 1 mile away which is no worse than many places.

You could make the same point about Ipswich to an extent.

As I say, 45 mins is unrealistic, just over an hour less so.

Frankly I doubt you’d do that journey by road in much under 75 minutes; and you would need to allow longer at peak times - such is the traffic congestion around Cambridge.

 

[whittlesfordok]

Having commuted to Ipswich by train and car it’s about the same in time but I am the right side of Cambridge. It is an ok commute by either but getting to Cambridge station can be a problem.