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

[DarloRich]

Only parts of the Marston Vale are 70mph possible. The bits at each end are plagued with sharp turns. The eventual run into the new bit of track heading east of Bedford might alleviate some of that if the spur coming off the vale line is pretty straight. If the priority is running times between Oxford and Cambridge, Bedford will take a much lower priority in the proceedings unless they build a flyover over the whole town.

If this railway existed today, I bet quite a few Thameslink customers would be re-routing to other railways via the east-west link.

Trains don't accelerate from 0 to 100mph instantly! When people talk about a 100mph railway they don't mean 100-mph all the way ( although that would be great) they mean the infrastructure is built to a standard that will support 100mph running. There obviously has to be a part of the track given over to accelerating and breaking. Most of the Vale is perfectly suitable for that with an upgrade. It is mostly flat and mostly runs through open countryside. It is also worth noting that the new E-W trains wont use the existing curve into Bletchley but will instead run via the flyover to a high level platform. The curve at St Johns is also very tight but it is perfectly possible the E-W trains wont serve midland station at all.

Interesting, thanks Richie - would tilt make a significant difference on the Marston Vale?

No.

I've always preferred serving Bedford from a Parkway station where the Marston Vale is crossed by the MML, with a recast MML timetable having fast trains serving this station and skipping Beford Midland Road and having to reverse. In this scenario, EWR would swing either up through the original site of Bedford St Johns and recreate the original alignment as closely as possible to Sandy (though this means bridges up and over the country park and the A421, or a bored tunnel from St Johns (original) to the other side of the A421 (c. 2km)), or, more radically in a bored tunnel for 3km on a much straighter alignment from the MML/Marston Vale interchange to surface east of the A421.

Whereas in the real world.............

(Why do MML trains have to skip Bedford and reverse?)

The benefit of the first would be that it would make for a simple triangular connection to Midland Road from the East, whereas the long tunnel would make that much more expensive. I guess it depends on what your priorities are, and how important Bedford Midland - Sandy - Cambs flows are expected to be - I'm assuming that they'ii be increasingly important.

The obvious determent would be the vast amount of money that would require to simply make lines look nice on a crayon map.

The restriction on the vale line appears to be because of the level crossings. So tilting trains and making them go even faster would only make the railway more of a health and safety hazard.

NR want to replace all level crossings with road bridges going over the railway but this is cost prohibitive. There were murmurings of considering a new passage via MKC to Bedford and only using a partial of the vale line as this would be cheaper, but I think its still cost prohibitive.

The crossings need to go to facilitate faster and safer running. That costs money and is one of the issues the scheme faces.

Ah, thanks very much, Richie - makes sense.

No it doesn't! There isnt going to be tilting trains or a new route from Bedford to MK.

I think the main hurdles are -

Maintaining 100mph across the whole route

I think there is a clear misunderstanding of what a 100 mph railway means!

Making Bedford Midland a viable station to support EMT, THL and EWR trains for the 10+ years until a parkway station is built going East.
Finding the most cost effective route going east of Bedford (I think going to Hitchin is better than Sandy since cost might stop this. Getting a route to Hitchin off the ground is better than not getting anything off the ground).

There isnt going to be a Bedford parkway station. The location of the cross over point of the MML & the Marston Vale simply isnt suitable without significant land take, road changes and the removal of newly built commercial units.

390s will be 30 years old in the early 2030s, so it isn't beyond possibility that they could be cascaded to something like EWR (which i expect to be electrified in CP7 in time to open the whole thing as an electric railway). But the broader point is well taken.

I swear, even though I now can't find a source for it, that the 390s were only intended to run for 27 years. Of course, the 4 newer 2012 units are still young things (even if now based on a 20+ year old design) and might be sticking around a bit longer.

Who knows - tilting requires so much gauge clearance work that NR's current preferred method seems to be re-alignment, such as what's currently occurring at Market Harborough. Of course, only a decade ago NR was very anti electrification (ha!) so tilt might come back into favour.

There wont be titling trains running on these services. There is no indication the line will be built in such a way as to support titling trains.

 

[Dunnyrail]

Thanks guys for those of you who appear to think that insulting ramarks are a good way to make your point. Fortunately I am thick skinned enough to throw these over my shoulder and carry on.

Rob Brighouse, chairman of East-West Rail, has been reported as suggesting it, as discussed upthread.

Yes this is what I was refering to as a delaying tactic.

How is that good news please?

If it is built (the OxCam Expressway) prior to the East West being completed between Beford and Cambridge and possibly the bit to Bletchley and whatever will be for the Bletchley to Bedford link. It could well be a further nail in the coffin for the East West as once people start using Roads it is somewhat difficult to get them out of that little tin box on how many wheels it may have.

Over to you guys. Those of you that do, get the insults and demeaning remarks upgraded a little, they really are badly thought out and not any where near the worst that a stand up commedian could do!

 

[A0wen]

I think the main hurdles are -

Maintaining 100mph across the whole route
Making Bedford Midland a viable station to support EMT, THL and EWR trains for the 10+ years until a parkway station is built going East.
Finding the most cost effective route going east of Bedford (I think going to Hitchin is better than Sandy since cost might stop this. Getting a route to Hitchin off the ground is better than not getting anything off the ground).

You've got to be joking if you think Bedford - Hitchin is either cheaper or easier than Bedford - Sandy is.

Bedford - Hitchin as the crow flies is about 18 miles, Bedford - Sandy is 8.5 miles.

Going via Hitchin would necessitate a reversal if running into Hitchin or trying to find a convenient way onto the Cambridge branch between Hitchin and Letchworth if not.

The trackbed at Henlow is already built on - and I believe the old RAF base (which the old line ran through) is also up for development as well.

You've then got the small issue of finding additional paths between Hitchin and Cambridge - which is already well used by TSGN (at least when they're running trains) and you can safely assume when they finally get their timetable sorted out there will be more trains running along there than there are today.

The biggest problem on the Marston Vale - as DarloRich touched on is the level crossings every 30 seconds. It's got a sub-optimal route out of Bletchley and several of the crossings are going to be very difficult to address - Fenny Stratford, Bow Brickhill, Apsley Guise and Woburn Sands being the main ones. That said there isn't a realistic alternative route - if you head up the WCML and look for an alternative cut across to Bedford you're going to be extending the journey again and north of Wolverton you're getting on for Roade before there's even a chance of a viable route - the terrain around Haversham, Hanslope, Castlethorpe and Linford isn't viable.

There could be some merit in trying to avoid Bedford itself by deviating from the Marston Vale at Marsh Leys then shadowing the A421 to Willington where the old formation could be picked up again, BUT it would mean a new station on the south side of the A421 if Bedford is to be served or an interchange with the MML - that said there's alot of housing development taking place around Wixams - so a station there might be viable in its own right.

Hitchin, though, is a complete non-starter. In fact the only thing even less likely is to run down the MML to Luton and across to Stevenage which was one of the more outlandish crayonista ideas that was being peddled around here not so long ago.

 

[DarloRich]

Yes this is what I was refering to as a delaying tactic.

You seem to be seeing this as some kind of conspiracy. It really inst.

The biggest problem on the Marston Vale - as DarloRich touched on is the level crossings every 30 seconds. It's got a sub-optimal route out of Bletchley and several of the crossings are going to be very difficult to address - Fenny Stratford, Bow Brickhill, Apsley Guise and Woburn Sands being the main ones. That said there isn't a realistic alternative route - if you head up the WCML and look for an alternative cut across to Bedford you're going to be extending the journey again and north of Wolverton you're getting on for Roade before there's even a chance of a viable route - the terrain around Haversham, Hanslope, Castlethorpe and Linford isn't viable.

Agreed - a look at a simple OS map should confirm the same!

The crossings are a big issue but not one that cant be fixed with thought and money. Nor do they all need to close. I say Fenny Stratford could remain. it is double barried and will be on a low speed section of the route that may well remain single tracked. Liddlington, Woburn and Apsley may have to remain simply because of the local community layouts.

Bow Birckhill can be fixed as there is enough land to accommodate both a bridge and a new road layout for the approach roads. Woburn will be a massive PITA to sort out. Apsley is a close and divert perhaps with a foot bridge. Ridgmont is a close and divert. Liddlington is a close and divert. The issues is that all three will be really unpopular to close as they will cut the villages in half. Thats before we think about moving all the foot and occupational crossings. THAT is why the funding is a real issue! it will still be cheaper than a proposed new line somewhere north of MK.

There could be some merit in trying to avoid Bedford itself by deviating from the Marston Vale at Marsh Leys then shadowing the A421 to Willington where the old formation could be picked up again, BUT it would mean a new station on the south side of the A421 if Bedford is to be served or an interchange with the MML - that said there's alot of housing development taking place around Wixams - so a station there might be viable in its own right.

You may as well branch off south of Kempston Hardwick and run over the brick ponds towards the MML. The issue is avoiding the Wixhams development ( where there is already supposed to be a station!) and curving back to join the A421 alignment somewhere after Shortstown or Cardington. Again - it just doesn't seem viable.

 

[A0wen]

You may as well branch off south of Kempston Hardwick and run over the brick ponds towards the MML. The issue is avoiding the Wixhams development ( where there is already supposed to be a station!) and curving back to join the A421 alignment somewhere after Shortstown or Cardington. Again - it just doesn't seem viable.

Probably as wide as it's long - to go through Bedford won't be straightforward either - and you have the added challenge of do you serve St Johns or Midland ?

Something like 'Wixams Parkway' which could serve both and have some sensible parking might actually reduce the traffic trying to get into Bedford. If you ran north of Wixams, you could go south of Elstow and north of Shortstown fairly easily at the moment and rejoin the old formation next to Bedford Football Club.

The old route through Bedford would need to be reinstated otherwise - it looks like there's space behind the Stagecoach depot and Currys / PCW then cross Cardington Road which is a dual carriageway and then take the old route which is now well used as a foot / cycle path.

 

[DarloRich]

Probably as wide as it's long - to go through Bedford won't be straightforward either - and you have the added challenge of do you serve St Johns or Midland ?

Practically - St Johns! Service wise - reverse at Midland ( unless you go north to branch off!).

Something like 'Wixams Parkway' which could serve both and have some sensible parking might actually reduce the traffic trying to get into Bedford. If you ran north of Wixams, you could go south of Elstow and north of Shortstown fairly easily at the moment and rejoin the old formation next to Bedford Football Club.

The old route through Bedford would need to be reinstated otherwise - it looks like there's space behind the Stagecoach depot and Currys / PCW then cross Cardington Road which is a dual carriageway and then take the old route which is now well used as a foot / cycle path.

It is certainly not easy either way! It is very tight north of Wixhams with lots of the land set aside for development. You have got to get over the brick ponds, miss the quarry, cut between Elstow & Wixhams, miss the houses at Shortstown and miss the hangers at Cardington. The old route isnt easy either thanks to that marina!

lets just cut Bedford off the route and go straight from Kempston to the ECML by tunnel

 

[A0wen]

Practically - St Johns! Service wise - reverse at Midland ( unless you go north to branch off!).



It is certainly not easy either way! It is very tight north of Wixhams with lots of the land set aside for development. You have got to get over the brick ponds, miss the quarry, cut between Elstow & Wixhams, miss the houses at Shortstown and miss the hangers at Cardington. The old route isnt easy either thanks to that marina!

lets just cut Bedford off the route and go straight from Kempston to the ECML by tunnel

Elstow - Shortstown is easy - south of Elstow, north of Shortstown - avoids the houses and there's a farm in the way which one of the bus companies uses as its parking, under the A600 next to the A 421 junction. Avoids the hangers at Cardington - they're on the south side of Shortstown.

The bigger problem is when you get to Sandy as the route there has disappeared - probably need to head north and join the ECML north of Sandy.

Either way - still a bit more sensible and likely than going via Hitchin as some other posters keep peddling.

 

[DarloRich]

Elstow - Shortstown is easy - south of Elstow, north of Shortstown - avoids the houses and there's a farm in the way which one of the bus companies uses as its parking, under the A600 next to the A 421 junction. Avoids the hangers at Cardington - they're on the south side of Shortstown.

The bigger problem is when you get to Sandy as the route there has disappeared - probably need to head north and join the ECML north of Sandy.

Either way - still a bit more sensible and likely than going via Hitchin as some other posters keep peddling.

Agreed - the only issue is you end up with a kind of double S bend which reduces the speed of the line.

 

[richieb1971]

The thread sees no middle ground.

Use pre existing infrastructure and the route is too slow or too expensive to upgrade
Use new infrastructure and the land isn't available/suitable and is also too expensive.

Obviously someone somewhere in the EWR consortium sees the needle in the haystack. Or the project is dynamically changing as time moves on.

 

[work-traveller]

First meaningful work on Phase 2 will be the removal of existing track from Bicester to Claydon - commencing in two months.

 

[richieb1971]

wow some news I'm actually glad to hear.

 

[D1009]

First meaningful work on Phase 2 will be the removal of existing track from Bicester to Claydon - commencing in two months.

Does that mean the junction to the Chiltern line, is it Gavray Junction will be temporarily plain lined?

 

[work-traveller]

Does that mean the junction to the Chiltern line, is it Gavray Junction will be temporarily plain lined?

The works start to the East of the junction and the west of Charbridge Lane, so no effect on existing services.

 

[cle]

Good news. Is this phase actually approved, and budgeted?

Are they doing anything to help line speeds between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury? I know capacity isn’t a concern as it’s to be an extension, but surely journey times could be quickened up. How about line speed north of Aylesbury up to Winslow? And passing spots along that long stretch.

 

[aylesbury]

Good news will have to go up there and have a look at the work its good news something to look forward to.

 

[The Planner]

Good news. Is this phase actually approved, and budgeted?

Are they doing anything to help line speeds between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury? I know capacity isn’t a concern as it’s to be an extension, but surely journey times could be quickened up. How about line speed north of Aylesbury up to Winslow? And passing spots along that long stretch.

No, that got taken out of scope very early on as it isn't required to deliver the timetable. Aylesbury VP to Claydon will get a line speed increase, no loops apart from some twin track on the approach to Claydon.

 

[Andyjs247]

Good news. Is this phase actually approved, and budgeted?

Yes it is budgeted, but is still subject to approval of the TWAO.

Are they doing anything to help line speeds between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury? I know capacity isn’t a concern as it’s to be an extension, but surely journey times could be quickened up. How about line speed north of Aylesbury up to Winslow? And passing spots along that long stretch.

Work between Princes Risborough and Aylesbury has been subject to “descoping”, and will not now be done. Aylesbury to Claydon is being completely rebuilt, and upgraded to 90mph albeit single track. No passing loops on this section - not necessary for the planned timetable - as The Planner says.

Essentially Bicester-Claydon-Winslow-Bletchley will be double track and 100mph throughout. Newton Longville loops were also descoped but I understand the HS2 depot would provide the facilities to loop a freight train and reverse if necessary. You will still be able to run Bicester Claydon (reverse) Aylesbury, as now.

 

[hooverboy]

There wont be titling trains running on these services. There is no indication the line will be built in such a way as to support titling trains.

frankly I don't care too much what trains they have running on it, as long as it's running,regular and quicker than taking the car.
bedford-cambridge 30 minutes tops...likewise for MK.

TBH 100mph turbostar is quite sufficient.

 

[Class 170101]

As long as the de-scoped bits are passively provided for if needed in future.

 

[Andyjs247]

As long as the de-scoped bits are passively provided for if needed in future.

Well that would be sensible. Except that there is not now going to be passive provision for electrification. Certain structures which would require rebuilding are not now being done and will present a barrier to future electrification. It makes no sense; particularly since it is actually costing more.

 

[The Planner]

Passive for twin track north of Aylesbury. Princes Risborough to Aylesbury is completely dropped so if anyone wants to do anything there then they cough up for it.

 

[work-traveller]

No, that got taken out of scope very early on as it isn't required to deliver the timetable. Aylesbury VP to Claydon will get a line speed increase, no loops apart from some twin track on the approach to Claydon.

Plus the relocation of the FCC Energy from Waste facility at Calvert with new reception sidings etc.

 

[The Planner]

That is HS2 led and FCC have played a blinder there comparing what they will get to what they have now.

 

[cle]

How depressingly short-sighted and ‘us’ - but better than nothing. The electrification provision is especially stupid, given just how popular and useful I think this will become in time.

A loop north of AVP shouldn’t be too hard if ever needed. Could Quainton Road station be used to loop? And potentially a future stop (if not a dynamic or long one, may as well).

 

[aylesbury]

There should be double track north of Aylesbury as once the service gets going it will have to be increased from once an hour to two per hour. This always happens provide the trains and people will flock to use them,its a shame that electrification will not happen.

 

[MikePJ]

In terms of other progress, various rumours I hear from friends with railway connections say that forward planning for the extra capacity required for EWR is being factored into forthcoming works to the lines around Cambridge (main) station. There is talk of an extra running line through the depots north of the main station, which would involve opening up a bricked-up arch under the Mill Road bridge. It will be at least a decade (and more likely 15 years+) before EWR reaches Cambridge, but there's a lot of other demand for enhanced services in the Cambridge area and so it's being factored in on top. More running lines between Cambridge and Shrepreth Branch Junction (where the Kings Cross and Liverpool St lines diverge) are also being planned - which ties up with the much-talked-about South station.

 

[Dunnyrail]

You seem to be seeing this as some kind of conspiracy. It really inst.

Thanks so much, I will take that as an appology and move on.

At least my initial words have re-opened the dabate here and happily teased out some good/bad ideas and some that hopefully will be used if and when this important project moves forwards.

It terms of 100mph capability, I do accept the need for as many miles as is possible. But this will always need to be considered between cost and time gained. There will be places Bletchley-Bedford that this will be tricky, just as there is not 100mph running all the way from the Junction from Chiltern to Oxford. But I must say again what a superb job Chiltern have made of that piece of Railway and just shows what can be done with a will and the right attitude to get things done.

With the right Piloitical will and some serious push, I still see no reason why Oxford / Ayles - Cam could not be done by 2023. But it will take a step change in the way things are done now and I accept that, also accepting that how things are done now (with the exception of how Chiltern have approached things) is not the best or even right way.

Long live the debate!

 

[Non Multi]

2023? This is the UK, you'll be lucky to see Bicester - Bletchley operational by 2023.

 

[Mikey C]

Cambridge is to me a longer term project.

Even without that section, the Oxford and Aylesbury to Milton Keynes sections will add really useful journey options.

 

[swt_passenger]

2023? This is the UK, you'll be lucky to see Bicester - Bletchley operational by 2023.

Cambridge is to me a longer term project. Even without that section, the Oxford and Aylesbury to Milton Keynes sections will add really useful journey options.

As said, there’s a big problem with looking at this as one big project. The way I see it, it varies from highly probable to highly unlikely as you head further from west to east. So there’s never a one line answer to people who restart the thread asking for a quick answer.

Also, so many questions are actually already answered if only new questioners would browse a few pages back. For example, the quite recent stuff about Aylesbury to Quainton Rd and Calvert was also covered around about post 1647 onwards for a page or so. (I had found the original description of re-doubling from the TWA application via Google, but it was then explained how that had been overtaken by descoping.)