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

[wagnaga]

Interested thing I've noted on that petition, the northern route has the support of specifically south Cambridgeshire with no mention of north Cambridgeshire, seems a bit of NIMBYism mentioned above...
View attachment 87921
On the rest of your scheme I would imagine EWR have their reasons for why the route they have chosen is the best, "Option E" as you seem to all it shows how they considered many different options before deciding on this one.

South Cambridgeshire covers an area surrounding Cambridge city so encompasses to the borders of Suffolk, Essex, Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire and then up the A10 to just before Streatham and along the A14 to Fenstanton. So for the council to suggest this you would hope eliminates NIMBY as whatever route it takes that could get that reaction from their residents.

 

[21C101]

CBRR seem in denial about the desire to serve both Cambridge City and South and run through to Ipswich or Norwich without reversing.

The problem is that because some trains do reverse, laymen often think that is a normal solution rather than something to be avoided at all costs.

 

[wagnaga]

The problem is that because some trains do reverse, laymen often think that is a normal solution rather than something to be avoided at all costs.

What are the pains that it would create? Presumably because the Norwich service now runs through to Stansted there is some platform capacity to reverse.

 

[21C101]

What are the pains that it would create? Presumably because the Norwich service now runs through to Stansted there is some platform capacity to reverse.

Any reversing manouvere causes disproportionate delay to the service involved and takes up disproportionate track capacity as it of necessity crosses from down to up side or vice versa.

It is therefore to be avoided other tha as an absolute last resort on a new railway line.

Personally I think there is far too much focus on the Oxford to Cambridge journey time at the expense of interchange intermediately. If I had my way there would be no new railway anywhere near Cambridge, with trains heading for Hitchin, intercity interchange at Stevenage, an underground station underneath Luton Airports Terminal, intercity interchange at Luton and a curve north of Ampthill Tunnel onto the line onto Bletchley and Oxford.

 

[PeterC]

Any reversing manouvere causes disproportionate delay to the service involved and takes up disproportionate track capacity as it of necessity crosses from down to up side or vice versa.

It is therefore to be avoided other tha as an absolute last resort on a new railway line.

Personally I think there is far too much focus on the Oxford to Cambridge journey time at the expense of interchange intermediately. If I had my way there would be no new railway anywhere near Cambridge, with trains heading for Hitchin, intercity interchange at Stevenage, an underground station underneath Luton Airports Terminal, intercity interchange at Luton and a curve north of Ampthill Tunnel onto the line onto Bletchley and Oxford.

Certainly all the publicity that I have noticed has been about linking Oxford and Cambridge when the line's real function is to link their overlapping hinterlands to both cities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem is that because some trains do reverse, laymen often think that is a normal solution rather than something to be avoided at all costs.

When you're talking about 3-car DMUs, is it really that disastrous? It's not like you need to run the locomotive around.

Personally I think there is far too much focus on the Oxford to Cambridge journey time at the expense of interchange intermediately.

I certainly agree with that. In particular, all trains should serve MKC, because that is a very key part of the demand, then off towards Bedford via a north to east curve onto the Marston Vale. Crikey, even Stagecoach have noticed that the demand across MK/Bedford is minimal, in that the X5 no longer runs across Bedford. It's MK and Bedford to/from Oxford, and MK and Bedford to/from Cambridge (plus shorter journeys mainly on the Cambridge side).

 

[edwin_m]

A train approaching from the north would use the double-track section between wherever the junction was and Cambridge station twice, and at Cambridge itself would have to cross into (probably) a west side bay platform and back out. There's probably the bay platform capacity to do that, but line capacity could be an issue. The reversing trains also wouldn't serve the proposed Cambridge South station.

 

[21C101]

When you're talking about 3-car DMUs, is it really that disastrous? It's not like you need to run the locomotive around.



I certainly agree with that. In particular, all trains should serve MKC, because that is a very key part of the demand, then off towards Bedford via a north to east curve onto the Marston Vale. Crikey, even Stagecoach have noticed that the demand across MK/Bedford is minimal, in that the X5 no longer runs across Bedford. It's MK and Bedford to/from Oxford, and MK and Bedford to/from Cambridge (plus shorter journeys mainly on the Cambridge side).

A good start would be for the existing Bedford to Bletchley trains to go on to MK, which hasn't happened despite several million being spent to put the signalling in place at Bletchley.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A good start would be for the existing Bedford to Bletchley trains to go on to MK, which hasn't happened despite several million being spent to put the signalling in place at Bletchley.

That was always said to be lack of paths on the WCML plus you'd need three units to run hourly (there isn't quite enough layover at Bletchley to do it - I thought there was but apparently not). To me, EWR needs to include a north-east (sorry, fixed) curve to allow direct MKC-Bedford running without the time lost on the reverse, which wouldn't be that difficult as the area that it would need to go through is low-value industrial.

 

[21C101]

That was always said to be lack of paths on the WCML plus you'd need three units to run hourly (there isn't quite enough layover at Bletchley to do it - I thought there was but apparently not). To me, EWR needs to include a north-west curve to allow direct MKC-Bedford running without the time lost on the reverse, which wouldn't be that difficult as the area that it would need to go through is low-value industrial.

The big one is the capacity issue. Lets hope that Post HS2 that problem goes away.

 

[D365]

The big one is the capacity issue. Lets hope that Post HS2 that problem goes away.

Depends how paths get reallocated and, more importantly, if there is any money left for what would be an entirely new route via Newport Pagnell.

 

[21C101]

Depends how paths get reallocated and, more importantly, if there is any money left for what would be an entirely new route via Newport Pagnell.

I meant hs2 releasing capacity for the existing Bedford Bletchley service to go onto MK.

 

[D365]

I meant hs2 releasing capacity for the existing Bedford Bletchley service to go onto MK.

That's what I mean also.

 

[ashkeba]

That's what I mean also.

Why would a Bletchley-MK service need to go to Newport Pagnell?

 

[D365]

Why would a Bletchley-MK service need to go to Newport Pagnell?

Ah, I was getting confused with @Bletchleyite's proposal for a new MK to Bedford route. As opposed to the status quo, reversing at MKC.

 

[Class 170101]

Their real aim seems to be to get the line to follow the A428 and the Expressway regardless of whether its the best route or not. Regarding the Expressway has that actually received consent nevermind the funding it needs?

 

[100andthirty]

When you're talking about 3-car DMUs, is it really that disastrous? It's not like you need to run the locomotive around.



I certainly agree with that. In particular, all trains should serve MKC, because that is a very key part of the demand, then off towards Bedford via a north to east curve onto the Marston Vale. Crikey, even Stagecoach have noticed that the demand across MK/Bedford is minimal, in that the X5 no longer runs across Bedford. It's MK and Bedford to/from Oxford, and MK and Bedford to/from Cambridge (plus shorter journeys mainly on the Cambridge side).

At a recent E-W Rail presentation by one of their directors I asked whether there would be a facility for trains to go from MKC to Bedford without reversing at Bletchley. I also asked about the capacity on the slow lines being used by these trains occupying the line for only a few miles. I don't recall getting very convincing answers!

 

[JamesT]

Their real aim seems to be to get the line to follow the A428 and the Expressway regardless of whether its the best route or not. Regarding the Expressway has that actually received consent nevermind the funding it needs?

Officially development is ‘paused’ on the expressway. Which is either a way to cancel it without having to admit that, or a sneaky way to mollify the protesters without actually cancelling it depending on who you believe.

 

[swt_passenger]

At a recent E-W Rail presentation by one of their directors I asked whether there would be a facility for trains to go from MKC to Bedford without reversing at Bletchley. I also asked about the capacity on the slow lines being used by these trains occupying the line for only a few miles. I don't recall getting very convincing answers!

A direct route without reversal has never been part of the published scheme, as has been explained numerous times within this thread.

 

[davetheguard]

Anyone know if any work on rebuilding the now-demolished central section of the Bletchley flyover has been (is being) done over the Christmas/New Year holiday? Or are they able to launch the new sections of viaduct over the WCML without an occupation of the main line below?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Anyone know if any work on rebuilding the now-demolished central section of the Bletchley flyover has been (is being) done over the Christmas/New Year holiday? Or are they able to launch the new sections of viaduct over the WCML without an occupation of the main line below?

It is not in progress at the moment and the road has reopened, I walked under there yesterday. Interestingly, because nobody has bothered to change the bus timetables in time, the buses are operating from Bletchley bus station under the bridge, but then turning off, doing a circuit via the railway station and returning to route. It would be nice to see this almost Germanic integration staying, at least until the EWR platform is built, at which point there will be an entrance and exit on the other side directly opposite the bus station itself.

One thing I did notice was that the pillar on the station side of the road has a dirty great crack in it on one side at the bottom of the horizontal support on top - I wonder if they will find that they need to replace those, too?

A direct route without reversal has never been part of the published scheme, as has been explained numerous times within this thread.

Indeed not. It's something that I think would make a lot of sense and wouldn't be that expensive to do, rather than something that's planned.

A lot of EWR seems to be predicated on the idea that there is a considerable demand actually from Oxford-Cambridge, and it only takes a ride on the X5 to see that there really isn't. The X5 is like the Liverpool-Norwich train service - it's convenient for a load of overlapping, more local journeys, almost nobody does the whole thing in one go. The actual travel demand would be better reflected by MKC-Aylesbury, MKC-Oxford (and beyond if appropriate) and MKC-Bedford(-Cambridge) services, which could of course be interworked as appropriate to handle the smaller number of end to end through journeys.

 

[HowardGWR]

A lot of EWR seems to be predicated on the idea that there is a considerable demand actually from Oxford-Cambridge, and it only takes a ride on the X5 to see that there really isn't. The X5 is like the Liverpool-Norwich train service - it's convenient for a load of overlapping, more local journeys, almost nobody does the whole thing in one go. The actual travel demand would be better reflected by MKC-Aylesbury, MKC-Oxford (and beyond if appropriate) and MKC-Bedford(-Cambridge) services, which could of course be interworked as appropriate to handle the smaller number of end to end through journeys.

One could say the same about the proposed 'expressway' road. I have found, when opposing road schemes in the past, that the oft-quoted 'strategic' nature of the road was not born out by the origin/destination data. A few HGVs perhaps, but not many car journeys would travel the whole length.

 

[Class 170101]

A lot of EWR seems to be predicated on the idea that there is a considerable demand actually from Oxford-Cambridge, and it only takes a ride on the X5 to see that there really isn't. The X5 is like the Liverpool-Norwich train service - it's convenient for a load of overlapping, more local journeys, almost nobody does the whole thing in one go. The actual travel demand would be better reflected by MKC-Aylesbury, MKC-Oxford (and beyond if appropriate) and MKC-Bedford(-Cambridge) services, which could of course be interworked as appropriate to handle the smaller number of end to end through journeys.

Not sure I would do a coach journey of that distance, I think I'd use the train via London or drive rather than use the bus / coach.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure I would do a coach journey of that distance, I think I'd use the train via London or drive rather than use the bus / coach.

I probably would too, but plenty of people do, because otherwise NatEx and Megabus wouldn't have viable businesses.

 

[WilliamH]

I prefer Bedford to be connected to Stansted. Its the only connection I would really want going eastwards. I suppose changing trains won't hurt.

Of course if you had a northern approach you wouldn't have to change trains at Cambridge.

Interested thing I've noted on that petition, the northern route has the support of specifically south Cambridgeshire with no mention of north Cambridgeshire, seems a bit of NIMBYism mentioned above...
View attachment 87921
On the rest of your scheme I would imagine EWR have their reasons for why the route they have chosen is the best, "Option E" as you seem to all it shows how they considered many different options before deciding on this one.

That's the point. They never properly considered a northern approach to Cambridge. In case people think that EWR Co. is perfect, consider that in their assessment of CBRR's proposal, that said that it would be difficult to cross a planned rowing lake north of Cambridge. This plan for a rowing late was cancelled 18 months before they made the assessment. BTW I think that calling anybody that wants to challenge the status quo a NIMBY is rather lazy thinking. I am looking at the facts.

 

[Energy]

I am looking at the facts.

If you haven't already I would suggest an FOI request to EWR to see there reasons for choosing the route.

BTW I think that calling anybody that wants to challenge the status quo a NIMBY is rather lazy thinking

It wasn't about you challenging it, it was that your suggested route isn't near you...

Anyway getting back on topic, what is the latest progress like on EWR

 

[cle]

I think the reversal at Bletchley isn't so bad. Yes a curve would be better, but Bletchley will be more of a hub (negates that to bypass it) - and it has the platforms to offer the reversal.

As for pathing, don't the Trings free up some space? As I recall, post-HS2 there were more Watford/Tring terminators, and more of today's semi-fasts would run up the fasts. I would hope that the Bletchley/MKC run would be possible.

Or swap it with the Southern, which frankly doesn't need to run above Watford. Instead it could do 2-3tph from Watford to Clapham. Who's riding it the whole way?

 

[edwin_m]

I think the reversal at Bletchley isn't so bad. Yes a curve would be better, but Bletchley will be more of a hub (negates that to bypass it) - and it has the platforms to offer the reversal.

As for pathing, don't the Trings free up some space? As I recall, post-HS2 there were more Watford/Tring terminators, and more of today's semi-fasts would run up the fasts. I would hope that the Bletchley/MKC run would be possible.

Or swap it with the Southern, which frankly doesn't need to run above Watford. Instead it could do 2-3tph from Watford to Clapham. Who's riding it the whole way?

Turn Southern back at Bletchley to give connections onto EWR and run EWR in its path to MK?

 

[JonathanH]

Or swap it with the Southern, which frankly doesn't need to run above Watford. Instead it could do 2-3tph from Watford to Clapham. Who's riding it the whole way?

Turn Southern back at Bletchley to give connections onto EWR and run EWR in its path to MK?

Isn't the thinking of running Southern to Milton Keynes something to do with Avanti only stopping 1tph at Watford Junction? I concede that very few people making a journey to Manchester, North Wales or Trent Valley stations would use the Southern service all the way to Milton Keynes instead of going to Euston for the Avanti or LNR service in the first place.

I am not sure whether terminating the Southern service at Bletchley and giving its path to East West Railway would inconvenience more passengers than if the EWR passengers need to change.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the reversal at Bletchley isn't so bad. Yes a curve would be better, but Bletchley will be more of a hub (negates that to bypass it) - and it has the platforms to offer the reversal.

It would be possible to operate, if you built the curve, Oxford-Oxford Pkwy-Winslow-Bletchley-MKC-Bedford. So Bletchley wouldn't lose out.

Or swap it with the Southern, which frankly doesn't need to run above Watford. Instead it could do 2-3tph from Watford to Clapham. Who's riding it the whole way?

I certainly have (well, bar one station). It's quietish north of Watford, certainly, but with Watford only getting 1tph of the WCML IC service (MKC getting three) I think it going to MKC is important for connectivity. It's probably quietest south of Clapham, to be honest, so if I was going to lop anything out of it I would have it terminate at CLJ.