Interesting. The car park only has 23 spaces according to the National Rail website, so it seems a bit unlikely that this would happen, since it'd just fill up very early in the morning. Thats aside from the discouraging factors of the narrow country road between it and the A34, including a significant 20mph section with speed-bumps and squeezes through the village. If I lived in Islip the last thing I'd want is fewer trains stopping there than were on offer, clearly! Furthermore, surely local residents won't be using the car park anyway since Islip isn't a large village so (unless mobility impaired of course) one can just walk or cycle to the station … very odd. Looks like cutting off nose to spite face to me, but who knows the details of the story (not me!).
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]
- Thread starter aylesbury2
- Start date
Interesting. The car park only has 23 spaces according to the National Rail website, so it seems a bit unlikely that this would happen, since it'd just fill up very early in the morning. Thats aside from the discouraging factors of the narrow country road between it and the A34, including a significant 20mph section with speed-bumps and squeezes through the village. If I lived in Islip the last thing I'd want is fewer trains stopping there than were on offer, clearly! Furthermore, surely local residents won't be using the car park anyway since Islip isn't a large village so (unless mobility impaired of course) one can just walk or cycle to the station … very odd. Looks like cutting off nose to spite face to me, but who knows the details of the story (not me!).
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
From this: https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-...entral-Section-Engineering-Summary-Report.pdf there's an assumed-for-business-case service pattern.
74. For Business Case appraisal purposes, a common set of ‘Do Something’ passenger services as well as a single freight service per hour was assumed for all corridor options as shown here:
Semi-fast trains would be 100mph and would give a 79 minute Oxbridge journey time if it goes via Bedford Parkway or Bedford St Johns, and 89 minutes if goes via Bedford Midland.
They look at removing the Bletchley - Cambridge 'shuttle', and also extending it to Milton Keynes, but then don't say what they find from that. They also find that the regional trains make reasonable money, but the stopping one doesn't quite break-even, and so a more optimal service pattern would need to be found.
They also talk, in this document, about Birmingham/Manchester - Cambridge via E-W Rail being a good idea. However due to "the capacity charge on the WCML" the costs of doing them would outweigh the benefits (especially Manchester) until HS2.
----
However, a consultation on the Central section is upcoming, which means a purge of detail on it in prep for new details.
74. For Business Case appraisal purposes, a common set of ‘Do Something’ passenger services as well as a single freight service per hour was assumed for all corridor options as shown here:
- 1 train per hour (tph) London Paddington – Oxford – Cambridge semi-fast (an extension of the ‘Do-Minimum’ London Paddington – Bedford service;
- 1 tph Bletchley – Cambridge semi-fast; and
- 1 tph Bristol – Cambridge, with alternate trains extended to Norwich or Ipswich.
- Thameslink December 2018 specimen timetable
- IEP specimen Timetable on the ECML
- Chiltern Evergreen 3
- East West Rail Western Section (EWR WS):
- 1 tph Paddington – Oxford – Milton Keynes
- 1 tph Paddington – Oxford – Bedford
- 1 tph Marylebone – Milton Keynes
- 1 tph Bournemouth – Manchester diverted via EWR WS and West Coast Main Line (with backfilling between Oxford and Birmingham and between Birmingham and Manchester)
Semi-fast trains would be 100mph and would give a 79 minute Oxbridge journey time if it goes via Bedford Parkway or Bedford St Johns, and 89 minutes if goes via Bedford Midland.
They look at removing the Bletchley - Cambridge 'shuttle', and also extending it to Milton Keynes, but then don't say what they find from that. They also find that the regional trains make reasonable money, but the stopping one doesn't quite break-even, and so a more optimal service pattern would need to be found.
They also talk, in this document, about Birmingham/Manchester - Cambridge via E-W Rail being a good idea. However due to "the capacity charge on the WCML" the costs of doing them would outweigh the benefits (especially Manchester) until HS2.
----
However, a consultation on the Central section is upcoming, which means a purge of detail on it in prep for new details.
Is the Bournemouth to Manchester via the Western Section looking at all likely? I'm a little sceptical on the availability of WCML paths for that one... And what do they mean by backfilling? A connecting service?
(I understand that these aren't necessarily anything to do with the final service pattern, but I'm still curious about the general thoughts as to the viability of such a service. Especially breaking the 1.5tph direct link between Southampton-Birmingham in favour of a 0.5tph one seems surprising to me...)
eastdyke
Established Member
That was published very nearly 2 years ago and the EWR Phase 2 proposals have since been 'value engineered'. Further, the NIC recommendations for a million new homes within the CaMkOx arc have been placed on the table.
I have seen nothing recently but vague aspirations concerning service patterns for a completed East West Rail.
The (relatively) recently published 'The Case for East West Rail, Western Section Phase 2' [Dec 2018]
https://assets.publishing.service.g...or-east-west-rail-western-section-phase-2.pdf
quotes 'current and future indicative rail journey times' at figure 2.4:
My note: Bedford - Cambridge is around 30 miles. Subject to actual route miles, number of stops and arrangements for connections at Bedford I cannot see that Cambridge-Oxford could be any less than 100 minutes. Is that good enough?
The document referred above was published by DfT jointly with East West Railway Company, presumably to fill a gap in the suite of documents included in the TWAO submission.
IMO the document does not demonstrate that the proposals for Western Section Phase 2 (in particular the use of the Vale Route) are at all consistent with the full East West Rail being an inter-regional railway enabling both efficient long distance travel avoiding London as well as future proofing for use as a high speed commuter railway to serve one million new homes in the CaMkOx arc. (Not to mention the very vague references to use of the route for freight!)
But then as taxpayers and travellers are we happy with that? I'm not.
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
No service patterns proposed.
I would put 2tph between Oxford Cambridge, 1tph between Bedford and Cambridge and 1tph Milton Keynes Cambridge
swt_passenger
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 7 Apr 2010
- Messages
- 32,879
Bournemouth to Manchester via Trent Valley became Basingstoke to Manchester at one stage, (Western RUS?) but was additional to the existing via New St service. But I’m pretty sure The Planner has posted that it wasn’t possible when analysed.
Yes, but as I said in my OP, there's been a purge of information in prep for the upcoming consultation, so it was as good as I can find.
As for your (literally) bold claim that trains would take more than 100 minutes to do an Oxbridge run: I think the journey time increase is due to rolling stock descope from 100mph to 75mph, rather than infrastructure descope (so sub-80 would still be possible with better trains). However, lets just assume 75mph. 30 miles is 24 minutes, stopping twice (Sandy and Cambridge South) is 2 or 3 minutes including deceleration and acceleration times, only going as far as Bedford South Parkway, or Bedford St Johns trims some time off that 66 minutes from Oxford to Bedford. A 90-minute ballpark is reasonable to assume with the descoping and there's no reason why trains would need to take more than 100 minutes.
It always struck me as one of the 'creative' journeys that you might see in RUSs where they float something radical just to get a reaction about the concept. The West Midlands & Chilterns Route Study has a few (Leeds-Coventry via Nuneaton, Manchester-Birmingham via Cannock).*
I could see something like it, post-HS2 (when there's more capacity on the WCML) being an extension of a Reading-Oxford-MK E-W service, perhaps via Northampton, to somewhere on the WCML the far side of Birmingham. But the modelled service itself? Not really.
*Speaking of which, its E-W Rail 2043 unconstrained service pattern had 3 fast services on the western bit: Paddington...Oxford...Milton Keynes Central, Bristol Temple Meads...Bedford...Leeds, and South West...E-W Rail...Nottingham
Don't you need to worry a bit about it as capacity will need to be available to potential future services originating in Cambridge or further east?
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,374
I do not agree with services terminating at Bletchley. Marylebone to Milton Keynes via Aylesbury and Cambridge / Bedford should not terminate at Bletchley but at Milton Keynes.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Who said they would be? The only thing likely to terminate at Bletchley is the all-stations hourly[1] local service from Bedford.
Edit: Oh, post 2342...never seen that proposal before and it certainly isn't a recent one.
[1] Early proposals were for it to go a bit Parly with only a few stoppers a day but more recent ones retain the present service near enough as is.
67018
Member
I suspect the locals’ concern was about people turning up, finding the very smal car park full, and dumping their cars all over the village.
The road to the A34 is a perfectly respectable 50mph road - indeed it probably moves quicker than the A34 at peak times - and most of the 20mph is beyond the station when coming from that direction.
A better train service might also be a pretext for building a lot more houses too, which would be locally unpopular. (I wonder if this will be a consideration at Winslow too)
Just had a look at the map, and of course you're right! That's the Bletchingdon Road, which I'd forgotten about (I was thinking about coming into the village along the Kidlington Road when I made my comments!), which is accessible from either direction on the A34 (you can only get to Kidlington Road when heading southbound).
Re housing, I wonder if there are local plans in place at Islip Parish / Cherwell District councils. With the big developments going on at Bicester, as well as Oxford's Northern Gateway Area, both fairly nearby, I'd imagine that building much at Islip would be very unlikely to happen in any case in the near to medium term, since it steps on the toes of those two flagship projects … and having more trains stopping at Islip going to Bicester Village and Oxford (Parkway) would give good access to the employment there … making it possible for Islip's residents to avoid commuting by car. Who knows what the thinking really was …
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 17,653
Id be surprised if the majority of residents of Islip are worried about public transport connections as they won't be short of a bob or two there.
I'm not sure I quite see the logic of that … taking the train from Oxford to Cambridge is far, far, more expensive than driving (in any remotely sensibly economical car), and so I reckon it's only those that aren't short of a bob or two that can afford to use the train anyway
Well, if you’re a student or academic you probably won’t have a car,and if you’re travelling for work you won’t worry about the cost. Plus there’s nowhere to park in Oxford or CambridgeI'm not sure I quite see the logic of that … taking the train from Oxford to Cambridge is far, far, more expensive than driving (in any remotely sensibly economical car), and so I reckon it's only those that aren't short of a bob or two that can afford to use the train anyway
That's a rather flippant remark. The residents of Islip fought Chiltern long and hard over the number of trains calling there that would allow them to get in and out of Oxford, which at one point Chiltern was proposing to slash back to the bare minimum based on the old FGW service requirement - never mind the notable increase in custom seen at Islip throughout the period when the enhanced Oxford-Bicester Town timetable was operating before the line shut for rebuilding. With a dozen or so trains each way every day, using the train for the commute/shopping, etc was a no-brainer for the locals.
No matter how many bob anyone has in their pockets, they are not immune from getting stuck in the congestion on the roads in and out of Oxford if they use a car, and the train via Bicester is also a pretty useful way to get to London and back from Islip, which is why passenger numbers there are at a record level, according to the latest station usage stats, even if there are only eight direct Oxford trains each way now.
I expect that if the eventual East West timetable is structured in such a way as to provide some quick same-platform interchanges at Bicester, then one or two people from Islip might use the train to get to Milton Keynes as well.
Yes people don’t use public transport because they’re poor!
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Something of a generalisation but no doubt true to some degree. Others will have a car but will prefer the train on environmental grounds or because they can do some work instead of wasting time driving.
The Royston Crow seems to have learned that one of the five corridors (not routes, so we've lost a couple of years somewhere) to be considered in the consultation will be the northern route favoured by the CamBedRailRoad campaign group. See https://www.royston-crow.co.uk/news/bedford-to-cambridge-rail-corrider-1-5850011 where they report CBRR's Philip Paxman as saying:
If part of the strategic justification for EWR is to join up new housing with employment centres, it seems sensible to me to leave the northern corridor - linking already-existing minor centres - to road and stick with a southern corridor for rail. They join Cambridge from the south and make putative onward routes such as Norwich more straightforward. I am assuming that EWR into Cambridge will force four-tracking if that has not already happened.
“This would be [a] major departure from the official line adopted since July 2016 that only four routes, all in the C-corridor, running from Bedford via Sandy to join the East Coast Main Line at Shepreth, were under consideration and that, of those routes, Bassingbourn Barracks is both best performing and preferred.
“As advocates of a Northern route shadowing the Expressway and providing a sustainable travel alternative to the established and large new developments dependent on congested A421, A428 and A14 corridor, we do very much hope EWRCo have shifted their ground and will indeed put forward a Northern route option for public consultation.”
“As advocates of a Northern route shadowing the Expressway and providing a sustainable travel alternative to the established and large new developments dependent on congested A421, A428 and A14 corridor, we do very much hope EWRCo have shifted their ground and will indeed put forward a Northern route option for public consultation.”
If part of the strategic justification for EWR is to join up new housing with employment centres, it seems sensible to me to leave the northern corridor - linking already-existing minor centres - to road and stick with a southern corridor for rail. They join Cambridge from the south and make putative onward routes such as Norwich more straightforward. I am assuming that EWR into Cambridge will force four-tracking if that has not already happened.
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
Today or next week?
I can see advantages and disadvantages of both a northern and southern approach to Cambridge (heck, if money was no object I'd do both!) but I'm at the stage now where I just want a decision to be made. I could live with either. Through routes to Newmarket, Ipswich and Norwich is an essential part of EWR so the logistics of providing this will clearly be a big part of the decision. The advantage (for me) of a northern approach would be better connections at Cambridge North. I know a lot of people who commute in to the Science Park/Business Park area from the east and this would make the train a viable option compared to driving.
Four-tracking on the southern approaches is a requirement to do an Addenbrokes/Cambridge South station properly. EWR just adds to the need.
Jorge Da Silva
Established Member
I would do both if money was no object as well. Another advantage of a northern route is a potential service to Stansted?
TWAO enquiry starts in Milton Keynes on the 6th February - Bicester - Bletchley - Bedford & Milton Keynes, Aylesbury- Bletchley - Milton Keynes.
https://www.royston-crow.co.uk/news/bedford-to-cambridge-rail-corrider-1-5850011
Most recent article here but note the fuzzy dates.
Again it comes down to the competing demands of what people want EWR to be - is it supposed to be a express Cambridge to Oxford service, a ECML-GWML bypass of London or a local commuter service?
As things stand there is not room for a second service to Stansted from the north - the hourly Norwich to Cambridge was due to be extended to Stansted all day from May 19 but been deferred UFN apparently as not possible to path it at Stansted peak time. The off peak shuttle from Camb will continue. it sneaks in and out with only a couple of mins turnaround at Stansted, far too little for a long distance service.
But it would merit it if could be made to work, usage at Stansted has doubled since 2013, and the non-London service is terrible, other than the few Camb shuttles just the hourly painfully slow dinky 2/3 car XC to Birmingham. It certainly merits more direct services to more destinations.