• 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 Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

Status
Not open for further replies.
ac6000cw

ac6000cw

Established Member
Joined
10 May 2014
Messages
3,157
Location
Cambridge, UK
Ianno87 said:
Although electric vehicles don't solve road congestion, or the source of the emissions (if fossil fuel power stations are still in use). They're useful, but not a panacea.
Click to expand...

Ianno87 said:
or the source of the emissions (if fossil fuel power stations are still in use)
Click to expand...
Electric trains have the same issue, of course - and EWR isn't being electrified at present (although hopefully that will change before the eastern section is built).

Ianno87 said:
They're useful
Click to expand...
...which is exactly why the manufacturing of road vehicles has grown from nothing to a huge global industry in a 100 years.

I'm certainly not anti-railway or pro-car (I'm just thinking about/commenting on the realities of the situation re. various transport modes), but the development timescales for railway projects seem glacial, not helped by the railway being unable to sustain and develop itself from sales revenue, so is dependent on politics for financial support.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

R

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,981
A0wen said:
The problem is too many are using climate etc as fig leaves for controlling people, trying to control how people can travel.

People weren't forced to use the railways from the mid 1800s, they *chose* to. Similarly in the 1930s people weren't forced to use the motorbus instead of a local branch railway, they chose to because it was more convenient. Same of cars from the 50s onwards. Yet now there are people, using the environment as a fig leaf, who are wanting to make people's journeys less convenient.

Stop trying to force change and let people make their own mind up. And if the majority don't see it from your perspective, it's you rather than them that has the problem.


But aren't the two new tracks to allow EWR to be separate from the mainline to reduce contention? Basically the same approach as taken at Nuneaton with Birmingham - Peterboro?
Click to expand...

Apart from freight, nothing will use the 2 slow lines that already exist. Thames link doesn't go north of Bedford but I propose that it does just a mile or so to a stabling point. The fasts cater for EMR exclusively. This leaves the slows for EWR and freight. There is no contention. If EWR becomes a Felixstowe freight route of 1 train an hour I can say I agree 2 new lines are needed.

Without more justification the 2 extra lines are overkill.

Bedford is going to go crazy, cauldwell street Bridge, Bromham Road Bridge and all sorts of other disruption will cause chaos. How anyone can think to rebuild a bridge only completed 1 year ago is beyond ridiculous.
 
A

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,481
richieb1971 said:
Apart from freight, nothing will use the 2 slow lines that already exist. Thames link doesn't go north of Bedford but I propose that it does just a mile or so to a stabling point. The fasts cater for EMR exclusively. This leaves the slows for EWR and freight. There is no contention. If EWR becomes a Felixstowe freight route of 1 train an hour I can say I agree 2 new lines are needed.

Without more justification the 2 extra lines are overkill.

Bedford is going to go crazy, cauldwell street Bridge, Bromham Road Bridge and all sorts of other disruption will cause chaos. How anyone can think to rebuild a bridge only completed 1 year ago is beyond ridiculous.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree - the only consideration might be that freights are held back during peak times, so they are queued north of Bedford until the peak is over. So the thought process may be to keep EWR clear, but there are probably more elegant solutions.
 
R

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,981
A0wen said:
I don't disagree - the only consideration might be that freights are held back during peak times, so they are queued north of Bedford until the peak is over. So the thought process may be to keep EWR clear, but there are probably more elegant solutions.
Click to expand...
Bedfords current freight paths are less than they were a few years ago. None of the oil trains run anymore which had driver changes at Bedford and 60mph running.

The proposal of rebuilding Bedford station and adding lots of platforms and then proposing 6 tracks north of Bedford kind of contradicts its own need. You only need one or the other.

As for someone elses suggestion that EMR services ceased to stop running in the Peak, that is also contradictive because on May 16th (I believe) the Corby-St Pancras electric services are resuming in the peak hours. And apart from the suggestion it saves EMR valuable minutes by not stopping at Bedford, it was my assumption that trains were already full when they stopped at Bedford anyway. The class 360's at 12 car in the peak will most certainly negate any requirement for Diesel EMR trains to stop at Bedford at all if done right.

Then we have this other proposal from somewhere else that in the future a Leeds to Bedford service will resume releasing capacity on the London trains going north.

The elephant in the room is Thameslink. Move those trains away from the main 4 tracks and you have adequate capacity, which the new proposed BDM actually does already.
 
T

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,569
richieb1971 said:
Apart from freight, nothing will use the 2 slow lines that already exist. Thames link doesn't go north of Bedford but I propose that it does just a mile or so to a stabling point. The fasts cater for EMR exclusively. This leaves the slows for EWR and freight. There is no contention. If EWR becomes a Felixstowe freight route of 1 train an hour I can say I agree 2 new lines are needed.

Without more justification the 2 extra lines are overkill.
Click to expand...
You may be interested in paragraphs 8.5.14-16 and 8.5.47-55 of the Technical Report which addresses the capacity constraints of using only the existing four-track line.

In general terms, this would reduce existing freight capability which means that the ‘four-track’ option does not meet the Project Objectives and, as such, it cannot be taken forward as things stand.

It would also preclude any increase in passenger services north of Bedford in the future without further infrastructure interventions.
 
M

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,408
Location
Brighton
...thank you. I was about to suggest people actually read the reports which detail the positions very clearly. You can disagree with their reasoning, but it is given. Won't take long to read, promise! :)
 
V

Verulamius

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2014
Messages
246
One of the proposed changes in the Bedford area is to route the EWR line through the Jowlett sidings. As these are 12 car sidings they are in much demand for Thameslink. Indeed ideally there would be more 12 car sidings near Bedford.

The report states that they will propose to relocate the 12 car sidings elsewhere without giving further details.

Is this likely to be north of Bedford, suporting the recommendation for six tracks?
 
R

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,981
Linky please. I only read the consultation I don't know where a technical report exists.
 
ABB125

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,765
Location
University of Birmingham
T

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,569
richieb1971 said:
Linky please. I only read the consultation I don't know where a technical report exists.
Click to expand...

Apologies: I was on my phone which was being annoying about inserting a link!

ABB125 said:
The link is hidden towards the bottom of the page in a drop-down menu. In that menu you'll also find appendices etc. (I haven't read the Technical Report, so don't know what's in the appendices.)
Click to expand...

The Technical Report appendices are broadly:
A and B: the Project Objectives
C: explanation of the Assessment Factors used in the main analysis
D and E: further information on the analysis of Section D (the new line between Bedford and Cambridge excl.)
F: information about what an approach into Cambridge from the north (as proposed by some members of the public and politicos) would entail
 
R

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,981
tspaul26 said:
You may be interested in paragraphs 8.5.14-16 and 8.5.47-55 of the Technical Report which addresses the capacity constraints of using only the existing four-track line.

In general terms, this would reduce existing freight capability which means that the ‘four-track’ option does not meet the Project Objectives and, as such, it cannot be taken forward as things stand.

It would also preclude any increase in passenger services north of Bedford in the future without further infrastructure interventions.
Click to expand...
1617371619830.png

I almost laughed. Bedford has had 2 way running on the slow lines for eons. This isn't even 2 way, its just using the pre-existing slow lines for about 1.5 miles and veering off. The Northampton line that closed in the 1960's had to cross the fast lines and was further a field by an extra mile. I feel that there is more to this than meets the eye. The gains seem small for knocking down 90 homes, rebuilding a bridge about a year old and all the disruption it will cause. 2 extra tracks will help alot with capacity no doubt. It will turn Bedford into something more akin to Peterborough station.

1617372327304.png

Hmm, 6 track option is mostly for the benefit of extra freight capacity. Interesting.
 
Last edited:
T

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,569
richieb1971 said:
I almost laughed. Bedford has had 2 way running on the slow lines for eons. This isn't even 2 way, its just using the pre-existing slow lines for about 1.5 miles and veering off. The Northampton line that closed in the 1960's had to cross the fast lines and was further a field by an extra mile. I feel that there is more to this than meets the eye. The gains seem small for knocking down 90 homes, rebuilding a bridge about a year old and all the disruption it will cause. 2 extra tracks will help alot with capacity no doubt. It will turn Bedford into something more akin to Peterborough station.

View attachment 93683

Hmm, 6 track option is mostly for the benefit of extra freight capacity. Interesting.
Click to expand...

The bi-directional capability has been taken into account, I can assure you.

The six-track options are the only way to allow for increased passenger services in the future, as the quoted paragraph 8.5.53 says, so it is neither exclusively nor mostly about additional future freight capacity.
 
R

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,981
tspaul26 said:
The bi-directional capability has been taken into account, I can assure you.

The six-track options are the only way to allow for increased passenger services in the future, as the quoted paragraph 8.5.53 says, so it is neither exclusively nor mostly about additional future freight capacity.
Click to expand...
I don't think the residents of Bedford will care what its for. Almost every bridge the railway affects is going to be destroyed/rebuilt or modified and a significant amount of homes need to be destroyed for this. I feel like the government is trying too hard to shift people to rail with 4tph.

We went from baby steps a few years ago, even 50% of what we are seeing today in this consultation would be laughed at in 2017. Now we are getting revamped stations, bridges, 6 tracks, 4tph.. the only omission is electrification.
 
T

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,569
richieb1971 said:
I don't think the residents of Bedford will care what its for. Almost every bridge the railway affects is going to be destroyed/rebuilt or modified and a significant amount of homes need to be destroyed for this. I feel like the government is trying too hard to shift people to rail with 4tph.

We went from baby steps a few years ago, even 50% of what we are seeing today in this consultation would be laughed at in 2017. Now we are getting revamped stations, bridges, 6 tracks, 4tph.. the only omission is electrification.
Click to expand...
Whilst I understand your point, EWR Co has to design for the Project Objectives that have been given to it. The four-track option does not meet them which means that an infrastructure intervention is required.

As to electrification, if you can persuade HM Treasury to pay for it then I’m sure that EWR Co would have no objection to getting on with it!
 
R

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,981
tspaul26 said:
As to electrification, if you can persuade HM Treasury to pay for it then I’m sure that EWR Co would have no objection to getting on with it!
Click to expand...
It would be interesting to see the price of OHLE for the entire length of EWR vs all the rest of the mandated requirements we suddenly cannot do without.

Local residents often say "its not even an electric railway, its going to use diesel trains". That says to me they cannot understand why we are building diesel ran railways in the 21st century.
 
V

Verulamius

Member
Joined
30 Jul 2014
Messages
246
Appendix A (Sponsor's Requirements) and B (Programme wide output specification) are relevant to electrification. DFT is the Sponsor and the programme wide output specification has been developed by EWR Co and agreed with DfT.


Requirement - appendix A

7. Electrification
7.1. The Railway should seek opportunities to actively support decarbonisation and contribute to Net Zero Carbon Emissions, and bring forward proposals to the DfT in this regard.

Programme wide output specification - appendix B

5.19. Electrification
5.19.1. The Railway shall not at this point in time be electrified.
5.19.2. EWR Co shall develop proposals to place before DfT on the options for electrification.
5.19.3. All new or renewed infrastructure shall be made compatible with positive passive provision of future electrification at 25kV (overhead) unless specified otherwise.
5.19.4. As per the European Union 2004/30/EU all electrical apparatus within the vicinity of EWR route shall not emit electro-magnetic radiation that would prevent other equipment from functioning as intended.
5.19.5. Neutral Passive provision shall be provided for CS1 taking into account Section 5.18.3;
5.19.6. Pending a decision by DfT all configuration states except CS 1 will be designed for an electrified railway.
 
R

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,981
1617383775354.png

In regards to Fenny Stratford area and the single track. They are talking about making the track dual. I am surprised they want to build lots of bridges in this area for the 2nd track. Since the single track only runs for a short length over those bridges. Building double either side seems decent enough. How many other places in the UK are coping with a single track for miles, and this railway needs double for such a short amount of length.

Interesting that there is absolutely zero mention of a north curve in the consultation I have read so far, not anywhere on the route. If any freight comes from the East, its only option is to go south. Going from south or west, you're spoilt for choice.
 
B

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,901
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Ianno87 said:
And that's a bad thing because......?
Click to expand...

It's not but I do feel that 4tph is a bit excessive and will either result in (a) short DMUs on excessive frequencies, or (b) long EMUs carrying a lot of fresh air.

If there isn't (ignoring the much slower option of Chiltern which more competes with the coaches) demand for more than 2tph from Oxford to London, what makes people think there's demand for that towards Cambridge?
 
I

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Bletchleyite said:
If there isn't (ignoring the much slower option of Chiltern which more competes with the coaches) demand for more than 2tph from Oxford to London, what makes people think there's demand for that towards Cambridge?
Click to expand...

1. Chiltern is not "much slower" than GWR. I'd say together they do form a meaningful 4tph service

2. Once again, EWR is almost barely anything to do with connecting Oxford with Cambridge, that's almost a side effect. The core purpose is connecting areas of housing growth with areas of employment growth (in multiple combinations, many overlapping), over shorter distances. And over shorter distances, frequency becomes much more important in generating propensity to travel (in terms of Generalised Journey Time)

For example on (2) somebody travelling from, say, St Neots/Tempsford to Cambridge will find a 15 minute interval service materially different to a 30 minute interval: the former you'd wait for the next train if you missed one, the latter you'd just drive instead.

And if you're designing infrastructure now (to last 100+ years) far better to future proof it for 4tph. And if designed properly, frequent trains isn't a problem - the proposal at Bedford (for example) is hardly penny pinching.
 
Y

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,854
Location
Yorkshire
Just a gentle reminder that this thread is an infrastructure thread to exclusively discuss the progress updates relating to the East-West rail project.

We absolutely do wish to encourage discussion on any potential alternative routes, potential service levels, potential road schemes, and any other topics, but we do ask that these are please posted in a new thread (if there isn't one already) in the appropriate forum section please.

Here are some threads people may find of interest; if you wish to discuss anything not already covered, you are more than welcome to create a new thread!


Thanks :)

Also on another topic, just a gentle reminder that if referring to external content please include a link to the source as well as a text quote from it; please note blind people cannot read text contained within images and do rely on the actual text being posted, thanks :)
 
Last edited:
B

Brissle Girl

Established Member
Joined
17 Jul 2018
Messages
2,665
It feels to me as if the Bedford proposals take the project well into “far too expensive, disruptive and unpopular” territory, which is then used as a justification for canning the whole project (think Castlefield corridor, Windermere electrification).
 
Y

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
67,854
Location
Yorkshire
Brissle Girl said:
It feels to me as if the Bedford proposals take the project well into “far too expensive, disruptive and unpopular” territory, which is then used as a justification for canning the whole project (think Castlefield corridor, Windermere electrification).
Click to expand...
Indeed; if anyone wishes to discuss alternative options, there is a dedicated thread here:

 
T

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,569
flitwickbeds said:
As for the Bedford section, I've seen local opposition on social media today that 90 houses will need to be demolished to fit in extra tracks north of the station. Don't know how true that is as the summary document doesn't seem to talk about this, but I imagine - given how constrained the current station is - that it will need a massive makeover and enlarging to accommodate the new route.
Click to expand...

richieb1971 said:
The gains seem small for knocking down 90 homes, rebuilding a bridge about a year old and all the disruption it will cause. 2 extra tracks will help alot with capacity no doubt. It will turn Bedford into something more akin to Peterborough station.
Click to expand...

richieb1971 said:
a significant amount of homes need to be destroyed for this.
Click to expand...

For the avoidance of doubt, the emerging preferred option for the area north of Bedford station - to add two extra tracks on the eastern side - is estimated to require (as a reasonable worst case scenario) the demolition of 28 residential properties. These comprise 21 houses as some of them are sub-divided into more than one dwelling.
 
M

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,408
Location
Brighton
...and it goes into great detail laying out the options for all permutations, i.e.
  • two new lines on the east side
  • two new lines on the west side
  • one new lines on both sides
  • a single new line on the east side
  • a single new line on the west side
  • no new lines
 
R

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,981
Bedford residents are particularly quiet about this consultation so far. Even though I've shoved it in their faces. No doubt it will all kick off when mayor Dave supports it. As soon as he rings his bell everyone jumps on it and starts protesting.

Any more news on the flyover? After the 12th I might take a drive up there.
 
T

Trainee9

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2020
Messages
82
Location
Milton Keynes
At the Bletchley flyover, both sides of the box structure, assembled from shell blocks, look complete. A large number of cross beams have been delivered. At the northern end, the structure terminates a few yards from pier 24, still in place. A new shell block pier is being constructed at pier 17. On the other side of the Buckingham road, vertical steel reinforcements for pier 30 can be seen and the concrete foundation pad is evidently in place (visible in a shot posted on Twitter, see page 164). The solid piers 29,28 and 27 adjacent to the Buckingham road are being fitted with temporary working platforms attached to the concrete. One understands that these piers are to be extended with shell blocks.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top