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

[edwin_m]

Let us for the sake of argument say that Thameslink services get extended to Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby (perhaps with additional stations such as the proposed Rushden Parkway in the mix). While such extensions are unlikely, their business case would dwindle further still if the Slows were used for that short part north of Bedford, because if something were to sit down over Bedford North on the Slows, disruption would be felt as far away as Trent Jn, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge.

Even if the Thameslinks didn't extend north, a blockage on the Slows where EWR would use them would cause freight to be routed onto the Fasts, delaying intercity & Connect services as well as the Thameslinks that do use the Fasts further south. EWR would also be disrupted.
However, if a train sat down on the 6-track formation, only the track pair affected would be disrupted.

That's a highly improbable scenario. Those stations have a pretty good service every 30min from EMR (assuming it all operates), unlikely to ever need a higher frequency and the units they use are more suitable (especially if they ever get the promised refurbishment) than the Metro-style 700s.

Certainly not a justification to demolish several dozen houses on the off-chance it might happen some day, and spend millions more on the remodelling than would otherwise be needed just to re-build Bedford with more platforms including one on the Up Fast.

As to the freight, there's virtually no capacity to run anything towards London in the daytime and EWR doesn't seem to be expecting anything significant to go towards Bletchley (and if it does it would have to switch tracks at Bedford, nullifying the stated reason for laying extra tracks). So it's highly unlikely that much more will ever appear than runs today.

 

[zwk500]

That's a highly improbable scenario. Those stations have a pretty good service every 30min from EMR (assuming it all operates), unlikely to ever need a higher frequency and the units they use are more suitable (especially if they ever get the promised refurbishment) than the Metro-style 700s.

Certainly not a justification to demolish several dozen houses on the off-chance it might happen some day, and spend millions more on the remodelling than would otherwise be needed just to re-build Bedford with more platforms including one on the Up Fast.

As to the freight, there's virtually no capacity to run anything towards London in the daytime and EWR doesn't seem to be expecting anything significant to go towards Bletchley (and if it does it would have to switch tracks at Bedford, nullifying the stated reason for laying extra tracks). So it's highly unlikely that much more will ever appear than runs today.

I have to agree that while I can see the need for additional platforms at Bedford (especially with the end-state EWR proposal), the need for 2 additional tracks from Bedford North jn is much less clear. However from what I remember of the plans the majority of the demolition was for the station rebuild, which is unavoidable.

 

[Class 170101]

Do Thameslink trains ever stable (or just turn back, not the same thing) on the Slow lines to the north? If so this indicates that those tracks are not heavily used by other trains, and extra station platforms or an extra siding or two somewhere to the north might be enough to allow EWR through without the need to provide two extra tracks on the critical section.

I'm not saying this is definitely so, but I do think EWR hasn't provided enough justification for their solution and have left themselves open to criticism.

To be honest if I was in charge of the purse strings I would agree with the extra platforms but I wouldn't add 5/6th tracks. I'm not convinced there is enough justification either and agree with @zwk500 above

 

[Andyjs247]

I think the main issue with Bedford is platform capacity as platforms 1,2 and 3 are pretty much fully utilised. This needs addressing for EWR to run through to Cambridge. It may well be that to accommodate extra platforms you’d end up replacing the bridges at Bromham Road to the north and Ford End Road south of the station anyway, which then allows 6-tracking but I don’t see that north of Bedford particularly needs it.

Probably what is most needed is a platform face on the up fast. It would also avoid crossing moves into platform 3 from the north but might end up needing a Colchester-type arrangement to fit it in

Then make the existing down fast platform 4 into an island - which would become platform 5&6. I think the issue with this is whether line speed can be maintained for non stop trains on what will be the inside of the curve.

 

[richieb1971]

All very well but this isn't coming from EWR. EWR are only announcing specifics on their own turf without releasing details on the crossover turf.

 

[edwin_m]

Then make the existing down fast platform 4 into an island - which would become platform 5&6. I think the issue with this is whether line speed can be maintained for non stop trains on what will be the inside of the curve.

I suspect it can't, and I'm not sure there is any need for a second platform on that side of the station. I suggest it needs a platform on the Up Fast, three long platforms for Thameslink (less busy due to no use by EMR) and two shorter platforms to the east for EWR. That demolishes most of the station except the Down Fast platform.

 

[MarkyT]

I suspect it can't, and I'm not sure there is any need for a second platform on that side of the station. I suggest it needs a platform on the Up Fast, three long platforms for Thameslink (less busy due to no use by EMR) and two shorter platforms to the east for EWR. That demolishes most of the station except the Down Fast platform.

It might be worth considering a small compromise on top through speed if necessary in order to move the down fast over to the back of existing #4. This could help to make space for further development of the slow side.
For example:

 

[zwk500]

Probably what is most needed is a platform face on the up fast. It would also avoid crossing moves into platform 3 from the north but might end up needing a Colchester-type arrangement to fit it in

I'm fairly sure it's been said before that to put a platform face on the Up fast requires a significant easing of the cant, which lowers the linespeed and therefore extends the junction margins.

Then make the existing down fast platform 4 into an island - which would become platform 5&6. I think the issue with this is whether line speed can be maintained for non stop trains on what will be the inside of the curve.

Again, I suspect the cant will not be permissable - and that's if the straightening was even possible given the track geometry around there.

Not wanting to speculate any further in this thread, can anybody remember if the EWR plans for Bedford Station proposed doing anything to the Fasts, because I'm fairly sure they didn't.

 

[mr_jrt]

From what I recall, one of the proposed options was a wholesale rebuild with 10 platforms or something like that.

 

[Last Hurrah]

Minister of State for Rail, Huw Merriman was up before the Transport Select Committee this morning

I dare say HS2 & EWR will be raised

 

[richieb1971]

From what I recall, one of the proposed options was a wholesale rebuild with 10 platforms or something like that.

Width of the station is something that isn't available in its current position. Can EWR mandate this or do they work in coordination with network rail? I suppose the question I am asking is one company jumping to conclusions that the other will deliver? Would the consultation have bothered to get Thameslink involved?

 

[The Planner]

Width of the station is something that isn't available in its current position. Can EWR mandate this or do they work in coordination with network rail? I suppose the question I am asking is one company jumping to conclusions that the other will deliver? Would the consultation have bothered to get Thameslink involved?

They can't mandate it and they will be/are working with NR.

 

[jfowkes]

From what I recall, one of the proposed options was a wholesale rebuild with 10 platforms or something like that.

That surely be overkill for a town the size of Bedford, even accounting for future growth trends?

 

[richieb1971]

That surely be overkill for a town the size of Bedford, even accounting for future growth trends?

The problem isn't growth, its Thameslink. There is at least 1 train parked in the station 24 hours a day and sometimes up to 3. Thats all 3 current platforms gone. I'm sure you have seen the videos of freights waiting for a path at Bedford, which happens north and southbounds regularly.

 

[jfowkes]

The problem isn't growth, its Thameslink. There is at least 1 train parked in the station 24 hours a day and sometimes up to 3. Thats all 3 current platforms gone. I'm sure you have seen the videos of freights waiting for a path at Bedford, which happens north and southbounds regularly.

Putting some reversing sidings in somewhere north of the station would presumably be a better/cheaper/faster way of solving/mitigating that than taking up valuable space in the middle(ish) of Bedford to get enough platforms. Pretty sure that idea has been discussed before.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Putting some reversing sidings in somewhere north of the station would presumably be a better/cheaper/faster way of solving/mitigating that than taking up valuable space in the middle(ish) of Bedford to get enough platforms. Pretty sure that idea has been discussed before.

There's tons of space currently used for surface car parking which could double or more the size of the station, even more if it was moved to the other side of the bridge. That could easily be put underground or multi-storey (even over the top of the line) to free it up.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Putting some reversing sidings in somewhere north of the station would presumably be a better/cheaper/faster way of solving/mitigating that than taking up valuable space in the middle(ish) of Bedford to get enough platforms. Pretty sure that idea has been discussed before.

Bedford already has sidings to the North of the station. Unfortunately they're only accessible from Platform 1, limiting their usefulness.

 

[jfowkes]

Bedford already has sidings to the North of the station. Unfortunately they're only accessible from Platform 1, limiting their usefulness.

Isn't it just a single siding, and a short one at that? Can it take a 12-car train?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Isn't it just a single siding, and a short one at that? Can it take a 12-car train?

Could have sworn there was more than one, but you're right. From GMaps, I'd estimate it to be around 160 metres, so no good for a 12 car.

 

[richieb1971]

It takes an 8 car from memory. There is only one siding the rest was swamped by the car park.

Even if you go north the 6 track formation will take all the room that would be available on the east side.

I got these at 4pm today via email -

- Q+A part 1

- Q+A part 2

- Questions at the Bedford event

Notable comments - Aylesbury not dropped, OHLE on hold in favouring up and coming new technologies that are more suitable, Marston Vale line decreased speed to facilitate the level crossings (although I think it means it just stays the same). Northern approach at Bedford due to the town centre and flood planes in the south east of the town requiring viaducting for miles. EWR have identified 2 freight paths that can use EWR.

 

[mr_jrt]

There's tons of space currently used for surface car parking which could double or more the size of the station, even more if it was moved to the other side of the bridge. That could easily be put underground or multi-storey (even over the top of the line) to free it up.

I vaguely recall the grand option was on the other side of the bridge, yes.

 

[edwin_m]

I vaguely recall the grand option was on the other side of the bridge, yes.

Yes, there was an option to the south, but that would destroy many of the sidings.

Thinking on this a bit more and peering at the aerial mapping, I think the Minimum Viable Product (current catchphrase) would be something like (west to east):

• Down Fast diverted to the west face of an island on the approximate site of the current east-facing Down Fast platform (question whether this can be done without a speed restriction)
• Up Fast diverted to the east face of this island (ditto, but with EWR interchange more MML trains may be stopping anyway)
• Possible Through Slow line on the current Up Fast alignment, so freight can pass when all Thameslink platforms are occupied?
• Existing three platforms mostly unchanged for use by Thameslink
• Existing buildings demolished. Easternmost platform becomes an island with eastbound EWR on the opposite face. EWR platforms can be shorter
• Westbound EWR on the eastern face of this island with a new building and a multi-storey car park in whatever space is left over.

EWR tracks would approach on the approximate alignment of the Bletchley line, with the northermost group of sidings possibly having to curve eastwards to make more room. There would be no connections to the MML south of the station and this plus a new building would take up most of the car parking to the east. North of the station, if the six-tracking doesn't go ahead, then these tracks would merge into the Slows via a double junction, with bi-directional running so EWR could use the Up Slow in both directions when a freight was passing through (in either direction) via the Down Slow and the Through Slow. A similar junction further north (mirror image) would allow EWR to diverge eastwards.

 

[jfowkes]

OHLE on hold in favouring up and coming new technologies that are more suitable

I wish she'd have said which technologies she meant, so I knew which ones to laugh/cry at

 

[richieb1971]

I wish she'd have said which technologies she meant, so I knew which ones to laugh/cry at

Batteries were mentioned. I think the line wants to be innovative and first in its class being an Oxford Cambridge thing.

 

[zwk500]

Batteries were mentioned. I think the line wants to be innovative and first in its class being an Oxford Cambridge thing.

No, the DfT want to be cheap.

Also, presumably the Aylesbury being not dropped is 'not never' rather than 'we're actually doing things with it', because it's been 'potential' for a long time.

 

[jfowkes]

Batteries were mentioned. I think the line wants to be innovative and first in its class being an Oxford Cambridge thing.

I'd like to know more specifically rather than handwaving at batteries and hydrogen. I know the truth is that they are just cutting construction costs and accepting higher running costs as a consequence. But I would love to know if they genuinely think there's some technology that will somehow make OLE redundant for a line like EWR.

 

[camflyer]

Cambridge Utd is actually, since the completion of the Chisholm Trail considerably closer to Cambridge North than Cambridge (Central).

True. But Cambridge (Central) to the ground is a better pub crawl.

 

[hwl]

No, the DfT want to be cheap.

Agreed, all about minimising cost in the short to medium term.
EWR also want to avoid being on the hook for any electrification in the Oxford area.

Also, presumably the Aylesbury being not dropped is 'not never' rather than 'we're actually doing things with it', because it's been 'potential' for a long time.

The problem with Aylesbury is that it is reliant on HS2 progress which is continually slipping hence no politician wants to make a before a given date opening promise (e.g. before the next election type of promise that Bicester - Bletchley got) when it involves significant action from HS2 to even get the alignment for EWR construction purposes. Given current HS2 progress rates in the area, HS2 are unlikely to handover the complete Claydon-Aylesbury alignment till late 2025 at the earliest (keeping control of it for as long as possible makes things easier for HS2.)
Hence adding Aylesbury opening as a pre 2029 election promise some time in 2024 makes sense.

 

[zwk500]

Agreed, all about minimising cost in the short to medium term.
EWR also want to avoid being on the hook for any electrification in the Oxford area.

Yes. I can't imagine that if they're lowering the linespeed spec for Level Crossings they'd then blow any savings from that by putting OLE over them all.
It's a shame, but at least we will have a railway between Oxford and Bedford that could have OLE at a later point. Between Oxford and MK there don't look to be too many bridges that would be majorly problematic for future electrification, although it's not a knitting-only job at all.

The problem with Aylesbury is that it is reliant on HS2 progress which is continually slipping hence no politician wants to make a before a given date opening promise (e.g. before the next election type of promise that Bicester - Bletchley got) when it involves significant action from HS2 to even get the alignment for EWR construction purposes. Given current HS2 progress rates in the area, HS2 are unlikely to handover the complete Claydon-Aylesbury alignment till late 2025 at the earliest (keeping control of it for as long as possible makes things easier for HS2.)
Hence adding Aylesbury opening as a pre 2029 election promise some time in 2024 makes sense.

IIRC Aylesbury was dropped to 'potential' a long while before any concerns about handover dates etc.

 

[hwl]

IIRC Aylesbury was dropped to 'potential' a long while before any concerns about handover dates etc.

HS2 concerns were part of the dropping as it would open after Bicester - Bletchley opens. Minimum scope and reducing costs were the big ones.
There will have been behind the scenes grumbling from HS2 that Aylesbury opening ASAP would increase their costs.
It will stay potential until there is some certainty on HS2 works progression in the area, which seem to slip by 3 months every 12 months.

Promising Aylesbury EWR would actually probably reduce unpopularity of HS2 construction locally but that would involve joined up thinking...