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

[70014IronDuke]

Yes, I was wondering how to explain that more fully. Many posters seem to use that name under the false assumption that must have been what it was called, but with no evidence then why do they do it?

Is it because they have this naive belief that there'll be a constant stream of students and staff shuttling between the two universities, rather than them being in competition with one another?

I think it's a mixture of 'branding' and the need for short media headlines. I confess, it is a bit of a mouthful to say or write Oxford-Milton Keynes-Bedford-Cambridge.

I don't know when all this 'branding' came in - eg names like "The Tarka line" or the change from Central Wales to 'Heart of Wales' - i suppose in the 90s?
Before that, names for lines were totally prosaic - the Bishop Auckland branch or whatever.

But, as has been pointed out several times, for the vast proportion of its life, the line was operated as two separate services terminating at Bletchley, with only one through train per day. AIRI, it was only in its last years that a few more through trains were put on (maybe three each way?).

I'm pretty sure that if, in 1965, you'd said to the Bletchley shed foreman something like "they're going to try to save the Varsity Line" he would have looked at you in total incomprehension.

Having said that, there were 'some' through passengers. I discovered many years after closure that one off my own relatives used it on occasion to get from Reading to Cambridge on occasion.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh yes, there was a south facing bay at the back of the down fast platform, which could be accessed from the Oxford line without affecting the WCML at all, along with other trackwork in the space between the powerbox building and the down fast. This is why the powerbox was set back so far from the line when other WCML boxes of the same period butted up to the railway - when it was designed and built there were tracks in the intervening area.

I would not want to bet on it, but I thought there were actually two bays there. anybody know for sure?

Don't forget there wasn't just a service to Oxford out of the bay - there were also infrequent trains running to Buckingham and Banbury in early BR days, the usual haunt of the original Derby Lightweight single unit DMUs.
......

Yes, up to about 1962. But i thought most trains only ever went to Buckingham? For some strange, even bizarre reason the Buckingham-Banbury section was worked as a separate stretch. Although this closed before i was properly aware of it.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Yes, up to about 1962. But i thought most trains only ever went to Buckingham? For some strange, even bizarre reason the Buckingham-Banbury section was worked as a separate stretch. Although this closed before i was properly aware of it.

My 1959 LMR timetable shows 10 services Bletchley-Buckingham, all but 2 continuing (sometimes with an extended wait or change) to Banbury.
There was a very odd 2223 Buckingham-Banbury on Saturdays, with no connection from Bletchley (although it returned there afterwards).

At the same time there were just 8 services Bletchley-Oxford, 2 of which were through trains from Cambridge (with 17-18 minute waits at Bletchley).
(Actually that was eastbound; no through trains are shown westbound).
There was the odd through peak service from Wolverton and Bedford, and 2 Bletchley-Oxford trains on Sunday.

 

[mr_jrt]

I think it was Fletton Sidings box which controlled access to the local brickworks and the curves to the WCML (north to Bletchley station and south towards Euston).
And then controlled access to the flyover when it was built.
See post #9 in this: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/65959-the-old-bletchley-to-oxford-line/

Just been reading about that northern curve. Interesting, I'd missed that in all our previous discussions about Bletchley station, so thanks for that.

Also helps solve one of the problems with my proposal to rework the southern WCML as paired by direction.

 

[70014IronDuke]

My 1959 LMR timetable shows 10 services Bletchley-Buckingham, all but 2 continuing (sometimes with an extended wait or change) to Banbury.

Hmmm. Interesting. So there were actually more trains to Buckingham than to Oxford! (and an equal number, ie 8, to Banbury and Oxford.) Quite surprising.

There was a very odd 2223 Buckingham-Banbury on Saturdays, with no connection from Bletchley (although it returned there afterwards).

Amazing! Did Banburians (or BR Banburians) descend on Buckingham boozers on Saturday night or what in those days? If it returned to Bletchley, it must have been around midnight arrival time. How many passengers did that carry, leaving Banbury at around 23.00, one wonders? Good grief, no wonder the railways were losing money, with trains scheduled like that!

At the same time there were just 8 services Bletchley-Oxford, 2 of which were through trains from Cambridge (with 17-18 minute waits at Bletchley).
(Actually that was eastbound; no through trains are shown westbound).

Interesting. I was under the impression it was the other way round at that time, ie the through service was from Cambridge.

I think BR improved things in about 1962 or 63. I remember travelling on what I think was a Cambridge bound train from Bicester LR at about 15.00 departure time in January, 1963 (that was the hard winter).

There was the odd through peak service from Wolverton and Bedford, and 2 Bletchley-Oxford trains on Sunday.

You mean from Wolverton and Bedford to Oxford? Really, from Wolverton? Interesting. I wonder if that was for C&W workers to stations west of Bletchley?
Of course, BR first tried to close the line in 1959, which was quite a radical move at the time.
Thanks for posting this little nuggets.

 

[jimm]

I think it's a mixture of 'branding' and the need for short media headlines. I confess, it is a bit of a mouthful to say or write Oxford-Milton Keynes-Bedford-Cambridge.

I don't know when all this 'branding' came in - eg names like "The Tarka line" or the change from Central Wales to 'Heart of Wales' - i suppose in the 90s?
Before that, names for lines were totally prosaic - the Bishop Auckland branch or whatever.

But, as has been pointed out several times, for the vast proportion of its life, the line was operated as two separate services terminating at Bletchley, with only one through train per day. AIRI, it was only in its last years that a few more through trains were put on (maybe three each way?).

I'm pretty sure that if, in 1965, you'd said to the Bletchley shed foreman something like "they're going to try to save the Varsity Line" he would have looked at you in total incomprehension.

The Cotswold Line 'brand' for the Oxford-Worcester route was coined by BR way back in 1974 - I think someone in the area management team came up with it. Heart of Wales Line certainly goes back to the early 1980s - the Heart of Wales Line Travellers' Association was founded in 1981.

 

[snowball]

Since the Oxford-Cambridge road proposal has been discussed a good deal in this thread in the last week or two, I'll mention that the stage 3 report on it has been published today, along with those of four other DfT studies:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...dge-expressway-strategic-study-stage-3-report

 

[cle]

Ahh the Varsity Line... a modern day Hogwarts Express, all dons in gowns and so on...

It's basically another Norwich to Liverpool type service - or indeed XC. Some end to end traffic no doubt, but more about overlapping regional journeys. This one is different because it's noew infrastructure to be used in numerous ways - but the Reading/Oxford to Cambridge (Stansted/Norwich?) would be more like that service in nature.

 

[jimm]

Ahh the Varsity Line... a modern day Hogwarts Express, all dons in gowns and so on...

It's basically another Norwich to Liverpool type service - or indeed XC. Some end to end traffic no doubt, but more about overlapping regional journeys. This one is different because it's noew infrastructure to be used in numerous ways - but the Reading/Oxford to Cambridge (Stansted/Norwich?) would be more like that service in nature.

I think people might be surprised by just how much end to end traffic there could be - and Cambridge is not the end, despite what some people seem to think. The initial impetus for the East West concept came from Suffolk, of all places.

There and in Norfolk, they are keen to see something done that would open up links to much of southern England without needing to cross London if using rail, or battle round the M25 if driving. And for all the talk of Oxford v Cambridge rivalry, there is plenty of collaboration between people at the various universities as well.

 

[glbotu]

I think people might be surprised by just how much end to end traffic there could be - and Cambridge is not the end, despite what some people seem to think. The initial impetus for the East West concept came from Suffolk, of all places.

There and in Norfolk, they are keen to see something done that would open up links to much of southern England without needing to cross London if using rail, or battle round the M25 if driving. And for all the talk of Oxford v Cambridge rivalry, there is plenty of collaboration between people at the various universities as well.

Yes, as a whole, universities tend to collaborate. While people think of the undergraduate population, as leading research centres, Oxford and Cambridge have a huge number of post-doctoral (and above) researchers, who collaborate on an very frequent basis. Looking at the undergraduate population, the "Varsity Line" will hugely improve current Oxford/Cambridge - WCML journeys (currently hourly via Birmingham for each, takes over 3hrs from Cambridge) as well as Oxford/Cambridge - MML.

(I'm deliberately ignoring the non-university traffic, generated by the enormous tech businesses at each end of the route, commuting to large popluation centres in the middle of the route, which has been extensively discussed already).

 

[swt_passenger]

Since the Oxford-Cambridge road proposal has been discussed a good deal in this thread in the last week or two, I'll mention that the stage 3 report on it has been published today, along with those of four other DfT studies:

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...dge-expressway-strategic-study-stage-3-report

The way its referred to in that report definitely seems to be that EWR to Bedford will be built first anyway.

 

[mr_jrt]

Yes, as a whole, universities tend to collaborate. While people think of the undergraduate population, as leading research centres, Oxford and Cambridge have a huge number of post-doctoral (and above) researchers, who collaborate on an very frequent basis. Looking at the undergraduate population, the "Varsity Line" will hugely improve current Oxford/Cambridge - WCML journeys (currently hourly via Birmingham for each, takes over 3hrs from Cambridge) as well as Oxford/Cambridge - MML.

(I'm deliberately ignoring the non-university traffic, generated by the enormous tech businesses at each end of the route, commuting to large popluation centres in the middle of the route, which has been extensively discussed already).

In fairness, actually upgrading the existing lines from Oxford and Cambridge to Birmingham would do much to bring those times down, you don't need EWR for that. Is anyone aware of any particular reasons why those lines couldn't be upgraded/sped up if required?

 

[The Planner]

Bang for buck, much of it is already 90mph+ from Oxford, lot of cash for diminishing returns.

 

[route:oxford]

In fairness, actually upgrading the existing lines from Oxford and Cambridge to Birmingham would do much to bring those times down, you don't need EWR for that. Is anyone aware of any particular reasons why those lines couldn't be upgraded/sped up if required?

Don't focus just on Oxford-Cambridge. In reality the percentage of journeys between the two will be relatively low by comparison to the other point-to-point journeys on the route.

The really big numbers will be between Reading/Oxford & Milton Keynes and connecting to the WCML from the outset.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The road will be the same - it's about connectivity in the Home Counties avoiding London, not about travelling academics.

 

[mr_jrt]

Don't focus just on Oxford-Cambridge. In reality the percentage of journeys between the two will be relatively low by comparison to the other point-to-point journeys on the route.

The really big numbers will be between Reading/Oxford & Milton Keynes and connecting to the WCML from the outset.

I'm not focussing on Oxford-Cambridge - the post I was responding to (as is yours) was suggesting Oxford and Cambridge to WCML connectivity would be a major traffic generator, I was just pointing out they can already connect to it at Birmingham, and upgrades to the existing lines could potentially improve those times dramatically. If the desire is to (re)build EWR as a 100-125mph electrified line, the same should probably hold true for the existing routes as well.

Don't get me wrong, I've been cheerleading for EWR for a very, very, very long time, I'm just saying it's not the be-all-end-all of solving those problems.

 

[JamesT]

I'm not focussing on Oxford-Cambridge - the post I was responding to (as is yours) was suggesting Oxford and Cambridge to WCML connectivity would be a major traffic generator, I was just pointing out they can already connect to it at Birmingham, and upgrades to the existing lines could potentially improve those times dramatically. If the desire is to (re)build EWR as a 100-125mph electrified line, the same should probably hold true for the existing routes as well.

Don't get me wrong, I've been cheerleading for EWR for a very, very, very long time, I'm just saying it's not the be-all-end-all of solving those problems.

Milton Keynes is closer. Oxford to Birmingham by road (which isn't too far off the rail route) is 77 miles according to Google. Oxford to MK is 40 (and the train will be more direct). Built to similar standards, you'll get to MK first.

If your destination is in the North-West, a short hop to the WCML then a fast train that bypasses Birmingham could be an attractive option.

And from The Planner's comment, there's not so much scope for dramatic improvements on the existing line to Birmingham.

 

[glbotu]

I'm not focussing on Oxford-Cambridge - the post I was responding to (as is yours) was suggesting Oxford and Cambridge to WCML connectivity would be a major traffic generator, I was just pointing out they can already connect to it at Birmingham, and upgrades to the existing lines could potentially improve those times dramatically. If the desire is to (re)build EWR as a 100-125mph electrified line, the same should probably hold true for the existing routes as well.

Don't get me wrong, I've been cheerleading for EWR for a very, very, very long time, I'm just saying it's not the be-all-end-all of solving those problems.

So, the Cambridge - Peterborough - Leicester - Nuneaton - Birmingham spends too much of its time travelling North (hell, North-East to get to Ely), to be able to be significantly sped up, and too much time travelling West before it gets to the WCML for useful connectivity, as well as needing to provide a local service to the stations in between. As comparison:

Cambridge - Miltion Keynes : 46.7 miles

Cambridge - Ely - Peterborough - Leicester - Nuneaton: 106.5 miles

Even if your line was 125mph, instead of 90 mph, you're just not going to cover it in anywhere near the same time.

 

[MarkRedon]

Not least because HS2 will be built on part of the ex-GC Aylesbury to Claydon alignment. So the Aylesbury to Claydon section of EWR will need to be rebuilt slightly to the east. And if you're going to rebuild it out of necessity you may as well do the job properly and do it to the final spec.

The work is also going to need to be phased to maintain access to Claydon for construction, either via Aylesbury or via Bicester. It will be similar to how the Bicester to Oxford project had to maintain access for the MOD around the blockade.

The Bicester to Bletchley line gets raised to cross over HS2 and is also realigned.

Thank you very much for pointing this out. The issues involved are discussed in part at: http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/information-sheets/east-west-rail-hs2/ – although I suspect that this information may be in need of updating. The need to coordinate HS2 and East-West planning is part of the strategic justification for an earlier start on EWR recently put forward by the National Infrastructure Commission and now apparently accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

 

[Esmenfif]

In reference to the government's plans for Network Rail, I read an article on the BBC website that said a new franchise would be created to run an Oxford-Cambridge service. Does anyone know what is being referenced here, because, as far as I know, there is no possibility of such a thing happening any time soon.

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-38201570

The poster child for this new revolution/devolution will be a brand new franchise - the so-called Varsity line from Oxford to Cambridge, which will see disused and overgrown sections of a line, long abandoned, laid with shiny new track with a new kind of company in charge.

 

[snowball]

Does anyone know what is being referenced here, because, as far as I know, there is no possibility of such a thing happening any time soon.

See this other thread, based on a recent report in the Telegraph:

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=138689

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The need to coordinate HS2 and East-West planning is part of the strategic justification for an earlier start on EWR recently put forward by the National Infrastructure Commission and now apparently accepted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

What is the current time projection for the East-West Rail and HS2?

 

[LLivery]

I've just seen this too. A franchise just for this seems very odd, unless they mean the new Chiltern franchise will include EWR infrastructure?

 

[Chris125]

In reference to the government's plans for Network Rail, I read an article on the BBC website that said a new franchise would be created to run an Oxford-Cambridge service. Does anyone know what is being referenced here, because, as far as I know, there is no possibility of such a thing happening any time soon.

A mini-franchise for East West Rail services emerged earlier this year when the DfT released their updated franchise schedule:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...e/523791/may-2016-rail-franchise-schedule.pdf
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What is the current time projection for the East-West Rail and HS2?

The following page on the EWR site should help clarify:

East West Rail and HS2

As a result of the identification of the benefits set out above and recent revisions to EWR2’s timescales, EWR2 has revised its strategy and will no longer seek authorisation for a standalone EWR2 scheme for the section of route being authorised by the HS2 Bill.

The next phase of the HS2 / EWR design development is now underway and will provide further clarification on what programme opportunities and construction cost efficiencies exist. This will be set out in a report which is due in Autumn 2016. Future stages of this work will see further design work leading towards the eventual construction of both projects.

The second round of EWR2’s TWAO consultation will include information on the HS2 proposal (albeit making clear that this is not being authorised as part of the EWR2 TWAO) as it will effectively form part of the overall EWR2 scheme as well as information on powers that are required for the EWR project outside of this area.

If the hybrid Bill receives Royal Assent in December 2016 as expected, this will result in the legal powers to construct EWR2 in this area being received, since these legal powers to construct the EWR2 upgrade in this area are contained in the hybrid Bill. Should any further funding be made available for EWR2 to accelerate its construction work, legal powers would exist to carry out the work in this area.

 

[Andyjs247]

I have also heard that East West Rail is to get bi-modes. It might fit with a mini franchise, as I would presume they would have to be new trains. I imagine it will be suburban type stock as I think bi-mode IEP trains as per GWR/VTEC unlikely.

We know there will be a new service between Oxford and MK/Bedford also MK to Marylebone. And bi-modes make sense, given that electrification seems to be out of fashion now. But the service pattern and where trains might go beyond Oxford/MK/Bedford is still to be determined.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Don't focus just on Oxford-Cambridge. In reality the percentage of journeys between the two will be relatively low by comparison to the other point-to-point journeys on the route.
The really big numbers will be between Reading/Oxford & Milton Keynes and connecting to the WCML from the outset.

How does that square with the new DfT intention to move EWR into a separate company (build and operate)?
That suggests a self-contained operation focussed on the local corridor housing developments rather than a network-wide strategic link.

 

[The Ham]

I have also heard that East West Rail is to get bi-modes. It might fit with a mini franchise, as I would presume they would have to be new trains. I imagine it will be suburban type stock as I think bi-mode IEP trains as per GWR/VTEC unlikely.

We know there will be a new service between Oxford and MK/Bedford also MK to Marylebone. And bi-modes make sense, given that electrification seems to be out of fashion now. But the service pattern and where trains might go beyond Oxford/MK/Bedford is still to be determined.

If the 319D (see the thread about it in rolling stock) is found to work well it could be London cast offs with diesel engines fitted.

 

[HSTEd]

This private build-and-operate thing just reminds me of Borders Railway and its efficient free-market construction.

Oh wait.

 

[CdBrux]

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?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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?

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.

 

[edwin_m]

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.

It would be relatively straightforward to put this right into the private sector as a design-build-finance-operate-maintain or some combination thereof. A private consortium would build and pay for it and recover their money via availability payments that would be conditional on providing a quality service. The government would the ultimate owner of the infrastructure and it would revert to the government at the end of the concession, when it could be re-let or merged back into Network Rail. Many light rail systems have been built on this sort of model, most recently Nottingham.