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

[Class 170101]

With EWR being taken out of NR hands, does this mean the public element of the funding will be outside the constraints of the NR funding limits and thus potentially make it less at risk from re-prioritisation if other projects are struggling?

Didn't Transport Scotland try a similar method to build the Borders Railway and contractors gradually withdraw leaving NR as the only option left to build the line?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As far as I can see from the announcement the EWR company will be part of DfT.
They will have a remit to get private involvement in building and operating the line, but it's not clear who will be in charge.

I would interested how the interfaces would be managed too.

eg at Oxford, Bletchley over the WCML tracks

Should the EWR be electrified in subsequent years how the OLE will be maintained and how payments will be made for the power supply. Also who will manage the signalling control? NR in a ROC or will the line have its own signalling centre?

 

[Verulamius]

More details on the new east west rail company and its objectives are set out in Grayling's speech this evening https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/an-innovative-modern-passenger-focused-railway-network

 

[MarkRedon]

A pleasant little article about Verney Junction and points east, west, north and south:

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...rayling-oxford-cambridge-line-verney-junction

The article is headlined:

Chris Grayling’s Oxford-Cambridge line will clatter through 75 miles of English history

Distinctly more guarded about Grayling's plans was Tuesday's article, written before Grayling's speech:

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...il-line-chris-grayling-plans-oxford-cambridge

Every silver cloud has a Gray (geddit?) lining...

On Tuesday morning, Grayling told parliament in a written statement: “I am going to establish East West Rail as a new and separate organisation, to accelerate the permissions needed to reopen the route, and to secure private-sector involvement to design, build and operate the route as an integrated organisation.” ... He said he intended to build on two major reports into the rail industry, the 2011 McNulty report and the 2015 Shaw report, that advocated cost-cutting, devolution and bringing in private finance. He added: “But there is much more to do.”

 

[richieb1971]

I have to say that I am enjoying the push talk for this project lately.

I've always said this industry is all talk and no action, but lately i'm starting to believe it. The non orthodox approach to EWR is a test bed for the future. And if delivered anywhere near on time would be considered a success story in my book.

Hope it goes well.

 

[DarloRich]

I have to say that I am enjoying the push talk for this project lately.

I've always said this industry is all talk and no action, but lately i'm starting to believe it. The non orthodox approach to EWR is a test bed for the future. And if delivered anywhere near on time would be considered a success story in my book.

Hope it goes well.

:roll: I bet you do. Without wishing to be rude we now aren't ( and i hate this phrase) comparing apples with apples.

For one I bet EWRco will be allowed to class the site, entirely, as a brown field construction site meaning the use of standard construction equipment, plant and men without the requirement to follow the railway safety standards. I bet they will be allowed to use whatever labour they like, without the need to follow railway safety standards, on standard construction terms etc etc.

 

[CdBrux]

:roll: I bet you do. Without wishing to be rude we now aren't ( and i hate this phrase) comparing apples with apples.

For one I bet EWRco will be allowed to class the site, entirely, as a brown field construction site meaning the use of standard construction equipment, plant and men without the requirement to follow the railway safety standards. I bet they will be allowed to use whatever labour they like, without the need to follow railway safety standards, on standard construction terms etc etc.

Out of interest why shouldn't they be, tracks may (?) still be in place but they aren't used as I understand, at least on the majority of the line so why go to unnecessary additional measures. I would assume it should follow the same rules as say HS2 construction will.

 

[DarloRich]

Out of interest why shouldn't they be, tracks may (?) still be in place but they aren't used as I understand, at least on the majority of the line so why go to unnecessary additional measures. I would assume it should follow the same rules as say HS2 construction will.

It should but i don't think NR would have been able to treat the site in such a way. They would still have to comply with their internal standards and process. They are MUCH more safety focused than the general construction world.

I have worked in both and NR standards are much higher (and therefore more onerous) than normal site requirements. I didn't need slew/reach limited excavator to do my ground works on a general construction site

 

[edwin_m]

It should but i don't think NR would have been able to treat the site in such a way. They would still have to comply with their internal standards and process. They are MUCH more safety focused than the general construction world.

I have worked in both and NR standards are much higher (and therefore more onerous) than normal site requirements. I didn't need slew/reach limited excavator to do my ground works on a general construction site

So are these standards actually increasing safety on sites that are nothing to do with the operational railway, or is NR just applying "one size fits all" standards to guard against hazards that don't exist? Once the hazards of proximity to the railway are taken out of the equation, are NR-sponsored sites any safer than similar activities run by competent contractors from the private sector, such as the consortium that is building the Metrolink extensions?

That sort of behaviour is exactly the reason or the excuse (depending on reader's viewpoint/prejudice) why the government wants to create another body to act as a comparator to NR in big rail construction projects.

 

[richieb1971]

I just want railways built as close to cost as possible. And that means labour and materials. The more affordable something is, the more of it you can make and the more progress railways will see. If you apply these high costs that NR apply then you may have the safest railway on Earth, but probably not much of it.

I'd like to see a TV show that actually explains why HS2 costs £50 billion (50,000 millions). Or Wembley stadium goes 3x over budget, or why 2 roundabouts in Oxford town centre cost £19m, or why the Buckingham palace once needed a roof costing £12m. Ultimately, it wasn't labour and costs.

Any country that wants to be great, cannot be great if it charges itself an arm and a leg to do a job. Since machines do most of the work these days, i'm surprised health and safety is that much of an issue. Just don't have folks walking around heavy machinery.

I know, i'm probably talking rubbish as usual... Someone will tell me that the cheapest you can build a simple bridge is £50m or a railway is impossible to build at under £8m a mile.

 

[DarloRich]

So are these standards actually increasing safety on sites that are nothing to do with the operational railway, or is NR just applying "one size fits all" standards to guard against hazards that don't exist? Once the hazards of proximity to the railway are taken out of the equation, are NR-sponsored sites any safer than similar activities run by competent contractors from the private sector, such as the consortium that is building the Metrolink extensions?

That sort of behaviour is exactly the reason or the excuse (depending on reader's viewpoint/prejudice) why the government wants to create another body to act as a comparator to NR in big rail construction projects.

Take a look at the HSEA statistics on site injuries across both spheres. It isnt a one size fits all approach rather a higher consideration of site and worker safety on the railways. The railways still hurt far too many people while at work but considerably less than standard construction.

Although there are also much bigger comparators around the terms and conditions of employment, job security, pension provision, employment rights etc in both spheres. I would suggest employment in construction is much more fluid.

I just want railways built as close to cost as possible. And that means labour and materials. The more affordable something is, the more of it you can make and the more progress railways will see. If you apply these high costs that NR apply then you may have the safest railway on Earth, but probably not much of it.

I'd like to see a TV show that actually explains why HS2 costs £50 billion (50,000 millions). Or Wembley stadium goes 3x over budget, or why 2 roundabouts in Oxford town centre cost £19m, or why the Buckingham palace once needed a roof costing £12m. Ultimately, it wasn't labour and costs.

Any country that wants to be great, cannot be great if it charges itself an arm and a leg to do a job. Since machines do most of the work these days, i'm surprised health and safety is that much of an issue. Just don't have folks walking around heavy machinery.

I know, i'm probably talking rubbish as usual... Someone will tell me that the cheapest you can build a simple bridge is £50m or a railway is impossible to build at under £8m a mile.

It is a fair point about cost ( if expressed poorly) but your views on health and safety are frankly naive. I think you said you did IT stuff so I will try and give you an example as to how costs rise on projects.

Imagine being asked to put a network of 5 computers into a small building.

Then consider there are only 4 companies in the country who could install the IT kit. And the developer who initially said he wanted it all working by March suddenly asks you to do it by the start of January. Then you get on site and find that those cable runs you were told to use aren't in the right place or the right size & the server room isnt big enough so you have to change the lot. and you can only do the work between 2 and 4 am on a Tuesday and a Thursday and a 2 weekends in December. and you cant use a normal screwdriver but have to use a special one. Oh and you have to do the work around the people in the office and cant disrupt any of the services. Then you have to install the kit in the same timescale over 4 offices. etc etc.

May I suggest the Chartered Institute of Building report on Managing the
Risk of Delayed Completion in the 21st Century (https://www.ciob.org/sites/default/...of Delayed Completion in the 21st century.pdf )

it is fairly old now but offers some interesting information and statistics on project delivery. I am sure there must be an update but cant find it yet.

 

[HowardGWR]

A question for those who 'know'. May I assume that, whoever manages the scheme, there will be a chord from the Bletchley 'flyover' lines from Milton Keynes at Bletchley to the lines to Bedford (thus north to east and east to north). Otherwise, the benefit of the flyover from Bicester will be lost. There are just a few industrial units in the way, looking at the site from above and the chord would cross over the throat of the TMD, presumably.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A question for those who 'know'. May I assume that, whoever manages the scheme, there will be a chord from the Bletchley 'flyover' lines from Milton Keynes at Bletchley to the lines to Bedford (thus north to east and east to north). Otherwise, the benefit of the flyover from Bicester will be lost. There are just a few industrial units in the way, looking at the site from above and the chord would cross over the throat of the TMD, presumably.

The service pattern does not make that chord useful.

The planned service pattern is:
- Aylesbury to MKC
- Oxford to Bedford
- Bedford to Bletchley local service
- Possibly Oxford to MKC

There is no plan for MKC to Bedford, and no plan for Oxford to Bedford via MKC, so no need for the chord.

Even if they did decide to run Oxford to Bedford via MKC, the chord would just remove a couple of minutes for an additional reversal, it wouldn't remove the core benefit of the flyover which is to avoid crossing the fast lines on the WCML on the level (which you can't do anyway, the flyover replaced the ground-level junction).

 

[judethegreat]

Has there ever been any suggestion of anything like a Birmingham Cambridge service via MKC? (I'd like this to have been able to go direct twixt Northampton and Bedford ideally but as it is via MKC..)

 

[HowardGWR]

The service pattern does not make that chord useful.

The planned service pattern is:
- Aylesbury to MKC
- Oxford to Bedford
- Bedford to Bletchley local service
- Possibly Oxford to MKC

There is no plan for MKC to Bedford, and no plan for Oxford to Bedford via MKC, so no need for the chord.

Even if they did decide to run Oxford to Bedford via MKC, the chord would just remove a couple of minutes for an additional reversal, it wouldn't remove the core benefit of the flyover which is to avoid crossing the fast lines on the WCML on the level (which you can't do anyway, the flyover replaced the ground-level junction).

Thanks. I am sorry, I didn't make my thoughts clear. I assumed that the Oxford to Bedford (Cambridge and east) would be required to access MKC for commercial reasons. If they will never do so, then fine. Ditto with the other services that I assumed would now run into MKC. I've been told that Bletchley is not a very useful stop, because the faster trains to the south and north will only stop at MKC, not Bletchley. I was informed that most local commuters want to go to MKC, not Bletchley.

To avoid services 'fouling' the WCML, I assumed it would be imperative to keep them off it, let alone cross it: a similar solution to the Reading improvements.

 

[swt_passenger]

Has there ever been any suggestion of anything like a Birmingham Cambridge service via MKC? (I'd like this to have been able to go direct twixt Northampton and Bedford ideally but as it is via MKC..)

Yes. It is regularly "suggested" - i.e. it has been suggested many times in this forum by people who don't usually read the published info about the EWR business case. For every proposition there is nearly always an existing analysis explaining why it won't happen.

 

[MikePJ]

Has there ever been any suggestion of anything like a Birmingham Cambridge service via MKC? (I'd like this to have been able to go direct twixt Northampton and Bedford ideally but as it is via MKC..)

Cambridge to Northampton scored very highly in one of the business case documents as a desirable journey pair, but I suspect in reality this'll involve a change at Bletchley.

 

[DarloRich]

Thanks. I am sorry, I didn't make my thoughts clear. I assumed that the Oxford to Bedford (Cambridge and east) would be required to access MKC for commercial reasons. If they will never do so, then fine. Ditto with the other services that I assumed would now run into MKC. I've been told that Bletchley is not a very useful stop, because the faster trains to the south and north will only stop at MKC, not Bletchley. I was informed that most local commuters want to go to MKC, not Bletchley.

To avoid services 'fouling' the WCML, I assumed it would be imperative to keep them off it, let alone cross it: a similar solution to the Reading improvements.

The is a connection from the Flyover to MK so trains from the Oxford direction can reach MK. The lines are separate from the WCML until Denbigh Hall Junction with a short run to MKC from there. There is a proposals for high level platforms at Bletchley. What there is not is a connection from MK to Bedford without a reversal at Bletchley.

 

[edwin_m]

Take a look at the HSEA statistics on site injuries across both spheres. It isnt a one size fits all approach rather a higher consideration of site and worker safety on the railways. The railways still hurt far too many people while at work but considerably less than standard construction.

Do you have a link to any specific statistics on this? A quick Google appears to find only stuff that is too general to answer the question.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think there is certainly a very strong social case for more through workings, though 'business' cases will not recognise that. Such cases only estimate how much extra business would be generated by doing so.

These unwanted changes often add half an hour to journeys every time one makes one, due to lower frequencies and lack of cooperation between TOCs. Thus, such trips are sometimes made by car, which is itself very tedious and frustrating to boot, in today's traffic. A through service between Birmingham and Bedford and points east would be very much more restful, for handicapped or elderly pax.

Given the ease with which m.u.s are coupled and uncoupled at locations such as Nottingham, Salisbury and many others, I wonder indeed whether more East-West services could be similarly treated. In the 'bad old days', it was the norm to do this. Coaches went from one end of the country to the other, being attached and detached, but these patterns were ended when the costs of shunting engines and crews were thus saved. Perhaps east-west will open the possibility of such services restarting, as trains just need a 'connector' trained member of staff at main transfer locations.

 

[70014IronDuke]

....

Even if they did decide to run Oxford to Bedford via MKC, the chord would just remove a couple of minutes for an additional reversal, it wouldn't remove the core benefit of the flyover which is to avoid crossing the fast lines on the WCML on the level (which you can't do anyway, the flyover replaced the ground-level junction).

Well, you probably didn't mean it like this, the way you put it here, it seems as if you are saying they built the flyover, and upon opening it, closed the ground-level junction.

This was not the case, was it? As I recall, the flyover opened in c 1960, but the flat junction stayed until at least the closure of the Oxford service, at the end of 67.

But of course, the existence of the flyover then allowed the flat junction to be taken out.

 

[richieb1971]

If there ever was a need to go north from Fenny Stratford, I would imagine it would be cheaper to go under the flyover than to it. The only reason it cannot be done is because about 8 sidings are in the way. But to my recollection none of the trains use the whole of it. So shortening them could be possible.

Not to mention NR own all that land where the TMD is, so the trains could be moved there.. They once were there if my recollection was right. I remember driving into Bletchley in the car and seeing the cabs of 308's??? on the top of the hill from the road.

 

[judethegreat]

I think there is certainly a very strong social case for more through workings, though 'business' cases will not recognise that. Such cases only estimate how much extra business would be generated by doing so.

These unwanted changes often add half an hour to journeys every time one makes one, due to lower frequencies and lack of cooperation between TOCs. Thus, such trips are sometimes made by car, which is itself very tedious and frustrating to boot, in today's traffic. A through service between Birmingham and Bedford and points east would be very much more restful, for handicapped or elderly pax.

Given the ease with which m.u.s are coupled and uncoupled at locations such as Nottingham, Salisbury and many others, I wonder indeed whether more East-West services could be similarly treated. In the 'bad old days', it was the norm to do this. Coaches went from one end of the country to the other, being attached and detached, but these patterns were ended when the costs of shunting engines and crews were thus saved. Perhaps east-west will open the possibility of such services restarting, as trains just need a 'connector' trained member of staff at main transfer locations.

Totally agree.

Re last paragraph - I have always found it ironic trains used to split and join all over the place in the days of locos and coaches, but now when it is actually far simpler to split and join (with m.u.s), it happens far less ( I know, higher frequencies now meaning more crowded network, etc).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I've never given it a thought before that the through Oxford Cambridge passenger service still had to cross the WCML on the flat rather than use the newly provided flyover. I know Beeching didn't want that line closed, but was there talk of withdrawing passenger services when the platformless flyover was built, or perhaps splitting them in half at Bletchley?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I am surprised there is not to be a north curve as I'm sure I remember stuff yonks ago about more people wanting to get from Bedford and Marston Vale stations to MKC rather than Bletchley..

Just remembered aswell there was once a south-west curve, so the LNWR could run Euston to Worcester, via the north curve at Wolvercote.

Was there ever a north-east curve?

 

[richieb1971]

I think its fair to say that when EWR is finished the prospects of expanding what was originally planned will be explored.

The doom sayers will always protest such things. The only thing that stops a Birmingham to East coast ride via Bedford is the missing junction at Bletchley and perhaps a capacity issue through Rugby, MKC etc.

But once the EWR is complete and OHLE is either ditched or gone ahead with, along with the MML OHLE which would have happened by then, the possibilities are there to expand to the beyond.

 

[Dr Hoo]

There was, of course, a Northampton to Bedford line that gave North to East connectivity in the days before Milton Keynes existed as a community and traffic objective in its own right.

 

[jimm]

I've never given it a thought before that the through Oxford Cambridge passenger service still had to cross the WCML on the flat rather than use the newly provided flyover. I know Beeching didn't want that line closed, but was there talk of withdrawing passenger services when the platformless flyover was built, or perhaps splitting them in half at Bletchley?

I am surprised there is not to be a north curve as I'm sure I remember stuff yonks ago about more people wanting to get from Bedford and Marston Vale stations to MKC rather than Bletchley..

Just remembered aswell there was once a south-west curve, so the LNWR could run Euston to Worcester, via the north curve at Wolvercote.

Was there ever a north-east curve?

The Bletchley flyover was built purely for freight traffic - the expectation being that passenger services would continue to cross on the flat. And as has been noted many times before in this thread, most of the passenger trains in both directions before the end of Oxford passenger services and the closure east of Bedford started or terminated at Bletchley anyway.

As also previously discussed, creating an east to north curve would be a very expensive business - you would have to buy up a large part of the business estate that occupies the land such a curve would need to run through.

The LNWR did not run Euston to Worcester - while it provided the coaches for these services from 1854 to 1861, LNWR locomotives went no further west than Hanborough (at that time called Handborough). For the rest of the journey, the LNWR coaches were coupled to some Oxford Worcester and Wolverhampton Railway coaches and an OWW locomotive.

I doubt the south to west curve at Bletchley actually saw much if any use by passenger trains, as all the accounts I have ever read say that the Worcester coaches were attached and detached from LNWR mainline services at Bletchley, rather than running as separate trains to and from Euston. That curve probably saw little use by anything at all, given that the LNWR closed it during the 19th century.

 

[richieb1971]

As also previously discussed, creating an east to north curve would be a very expensive business - you would have to buy up a large part of the business estate that occupies the land such a curve would need to run through.

Only if it passes over the flyover from TMD to the right, much cheaper to go under the flyover and turn right. All the land belongs to NR on that alignment.

 

[MK Tom]

I don't believe a North-East chord is necessary for a Bedford-MKC service anyway - LM use the change of direction at Bletchley as an excuse to not do it but fitting it into the WCML paths and MKC platform arrangements is the bigger issue. It's worth noting that platform 2 at MKC is occupied from xx:00 to xx:13 and xx:25 to xx:47 at the moment. A lot of these trains are 8/12 car which can't use 2A. So when we have Oxford and Aylesbury services in place as well it's going to be difficult to accommodate extra terminators, especially at peak hours when LM run extra ones.

However when the Cambridge-Bedford section opens circa 2258 then MKC-Cambridge and beyond will be a desirable service and it should definitely be looked at as part of that. But there's no need at this stage.

 

[DarloRich]

Do you have a link to any specific statistics on this? A quick Google appears to find only stuff that is too general to answer the question.

Health and safety in construction sector in Great Britain, 2014/15

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/industry/construction/construction.pdf?pdf=construction

and

Statistics on fatal injuries in the workplace in Great Britain 2016

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/pdf/fatalinjuries.pdf

plus data sets for above

http://www.hse.gov.uk/statistics/tables/index.htm
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If there ever was a need to go north from Fenny Stratford, I would imagine it would be cheaper to go under the flyover than to it. The only reason it cannot be done is because about 8 sidings are in the way. But to my recollection none of the trains use the whole of it. So shortening them could be possible.

Not to mention NR own all that land where the TMD is, so the trains could be moved there.. They once were there if my recollection was right. I remember driving into Bletchley in the car and seeing the cabs of 308's??? on the top of the hill from the road.

Only if it passes over the flyover from TMD to the right, much cheaper to go under the flyover and turn right. All the land belongs to NR on that alignment.

This again? In one post you say you want things done as cheaply as possible then suggest bonkers civil engineering works for no real reward and vast expense. It is madness and about the least practical or sensible suggestion ever made :roll:

I can see a couple of practical problems of the top of my head:

• Curve radius
• bridge clearance
• access to TMD
• OHLE clearance
• removal of operational sidings
• impact on freight loop/access to P5

Where do you fancy staging all of the LM units that stable there every night? Those "unused" sidings are full of 12 car trains after about 2200. You cant use the TMD as you have just cut off the access...................

 

[Andyjs247]

Personally I don't see an East to North chord at Bletchley as a priority. I believe a Cambridge to Birmingham or Manchester service has been mooted as an aspiration - I'm fairly sure I read something somewhere in the documentation for the central section. Although it's nice to have a chord to run such a service direct, I don't see that it would be a massive problem to have a reversal at Bletchley.

Thinking of strategic connections, it's already possible to join the WCML to go north at Nuneaton. IMO it would be better to spend the money on a west to north connection to the ECML at Sandy.

 

[richieb1971]

• Curve radius
• bridge clearance
• access to TMD
• OHLE clearance
• removal of operational sidings
• impact on freight loop/access to P5

Where do you fancy staging all of the LM units that stable there every night? Those unused sidings are full of 12 car trains after about 2200. You cant use the TMD as you have just cut off the access...................

Curve radius would be the same as going south if done right, you might have to chip away a bit from the flyover but since its not currently in use by anything now would be a good time to do it.

Bridge Clearance, see Curve Radius (two jobs done at once)

Access to TMD would be affected, its not replacing anything, its in addition to.

The sidings would have 30 metres trimmed at most. I don't know what parks there at night so I take your word for it.

If NR can maintain and build tracks like at Shrewsbury station where multiple lines cross each other, they can do it here.


I didn't say this is a viable project, I just see it as the common sense solution to putting a curve where there isn't one currently. I believe that before the end of the world there will be a curve there. It will done at some point. Probably at the most expense once all railways are running.

Its certainly cheaper than knocking down a few buildings and getting another flyover turning right.