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

[Jorge Da Silva]

Bedford Midland has to be served, it is a major town on the route and it needs to be the interchange with East Midlands services. If they use a Bedford South, will East Midlands call there and Bedford. I suspect Midland will suffer a loss of frequency. How does Wixams fit in to this? Could that be combined with a Bedford South?

I assume ‘Bedford South’ would be at Wixams.

 

[eastdyke]

..... 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.

I have now had a chance to skim the Technical Report published yesterday.
The timings currently quoted for the fastest journeys Cambridge-Oxford are 76-83mins, subject to option. The timings exclude stops at Cambridge (South) and Bassingbourn, whether or not that they include for a stop at Cambourne is unclear (relevant options only for latter 2).
I would be very pleased if similar timings make it to a future public timetable, but I think that when Operations Managers have their say timings quoted will be relaxed a little. Of course it is quite possible that a couple of trains a day could headline the timings (like 'Norwich in 90') but I wouldn't count those.
By the time services are running the pressure for a 'right time railway' is likely to be higher than it is now. A very big risk to performance will be interaction with other services, especially in The Vale between Fenny Stratford and Flyover Junction Summit.
Then I spotted this at paragraph 5.20:

For all route options, additional infrastructure works would be required for the Marston Vale Line to provide sufficient capacity for EWR services between Oxford and Cambridge once the EWR central section has been delivered. These additional works are not expected to affect the current route of the Marston Vale Line.

Anybody know exactly what that entails?

PS Spotted a couple of things that raised the eyebrows:
That 'Lousey Bush' is a nature reserve - well it would be wouldn't it?
That 'The Midland Main Line' is an existing railway line running from London to Leeds and Manchester through Bedford

 

[DaveN]

Bedford Midland has to be served, it is a major town on the route and it needs to be the interchange with East Midlands services. If they use a Bedford South, will East Midlands call there and Bedford. I suspect Midland will suffer a loss of frequency. How does Wixams fit in to this? Could that be combined with a Bedford South?

From the Technical Report, when describing all the proposed routes that involve Bedford South:

"EWR could diverge from the Marston Vale line around Stewartby near Bedford. It could then serve a new split-level ‘Bedford South’ station to the south of the A421, which could alternatively be located near Wixams (i.e. the EWR track and platforms could sit above the Midland Main Line). This could provide a direct interchange with Thameslink services along the Midland Main Line and other Midland Main Line services through a further interchange at Bedford Midland."

They are implicitly saying that East Midlands services would not stop there.
There doesn't seem to be any acknowledgement of the fact that Wixams station (Midland Mainline) funding has been agreed by Bedford Borough council and the developer.

 

[DaveN]

The other thing that struck me from the technical report (page 42)

"In summary, all routes perform well against the strategic objectives for the EWR central section by providing fast journey times between key urban areas and significant opportunities for stimulating growth, housing and employment. Routes B, C, D and E are significantly more expensive than Route A but could be justified if the potential opportunities to support additional growth and housing that have been identified could be realised."

So route A it is then....

 

[TheDavibob]

The other thing that struck me from the technical report (page 42)

"In summary, all routes perform well against the strategic objectives for the EWR central section by providing fast journey times between key urban areas and significant opportunities for stimulating growth, housing and employment. Routes B, C, D and E are significantly more expensive than Route A but could be justified if the potential opportunities to support additional growth and housing that have been identified could be realised."

So route A it is then....

Yeah, A has both the best opportunities for generating money (through not-yet-existant housing) and is cheap and straight, it's clearly (from a brutish economic point of view) the best route. From a transport point of view there are various sacrifices, and this consultation feels mostly like them trying to justify route A.

 

[camflyer]

The other thing that struck me from the technical report (page 42)

"In summary, all routes perform well against the strategic objectives for the EWR central section by providing fast journey times between key urban areas and significant opportunities for stimulating growth, housing and employment. Routes B, C, D and E are significantly more expensive than Route A but could be justified if the potential opportunities to support additional growth and housing that have been identified could be realised."

So route A it is then....

Route A is the quickest and cheapest between Oxford and Cambridge and allows for future development so it would be the easy choice to make. However, I'm sure there will be a lot of lobbying from the residents of Cambourne for a link as many will be commuters to Cambridge and who would prefer a proper rail connection rather than a busway.

I just don't know enough about the local geography and politics of Bedford to form an opinion between the Midland and South options. I've only been to the town once and that was when I got lost on the bypass.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Isn’t Route A the one the NIC recommended? Having looked at the options properly I am persuaded by either Route A or B. Route A is the fastest and easiest where as Route B is similar but serves Cambourne (home to 10,000 people).

 

[eastdyke]

Isn’t Route A the one the NIC recommended? Having looked at the options properly I am persuaded by either Route A or B. Route A is the fastest and easiest where as Route B is similar but serves Cambourne (home to 10,000 people).

But Bassingbourne is recommended by the NIC for the development of 43,000 new dwellings by 2050 (routes A,C,D).
Guess who a major landowner is at Bassingbourn, Cambourne needs some sort of miracle

 

[philjo]

The main problem with route A is that is is proposing to relocate Sandy station further south. The EW line at that point will be very close to Sandy Heath - A SSSI and HQ to the RSPB. It would also be moving the station away from the main population in Sandy - most of the town is to the north west of the current station.
Moving the station further South also makes it closer to Biggleswade station.

I think route B would be better as it would move Sandy station further north, closer to the main population and would also serve the 10,000+ population in Cambourne. A lot of the school/commuter flow from Cambourne will be into Cambridge.

 

[camflyer]

But Bassingbourne is recommended by the NIC for the development of 43,000 new dwellings by 2050 (routes A,C,D).
Guess who a major landowner is at Bassingbourn, Cambourne needs some sort of miracle

Well, South Cambs district council are sure to have a big say on the consultation since much of the route will go through their area and their office just happens to be in Cambourne....

 

[DaveN]

Another thing that the consultation doesn't mention re the Bedford South option, is that the space between the A421 and Wixams is occupied by the comparatively recently used Elstow Landfill site; or is it OK to build a railway on these?
Maybe we have to wait until the route alignment is consulted on in 2021?

 

[edwin_m]

It seems the route options that use the former line eastwards out of Bedford have disappeared without (on a quick skim) any explanation. These would have the advantage of allowing services between Bedford Midland and Cambridge via a reinstated triangle at St Johns. All the options serving Midland now loop round the north of Bedford, and the others have a station to the south for at least part of the way to Sandy a route somewhere to the south of the original one.

 

[jfowkes]

It seems the route options that use the former line eastwards out of Bedford have disappeared without (on a quick skim) any explanation. These would have the advantage of allowing services between Bedford Midland and Cambridge via a reinstated triangle at St Johns. All the options serving Midland now loop round the north of Bedford, and the others have a station to the south for at least part of the way to Sandy a route somewhere to the south of the original one.

Assuming you're talking about just the section in Bedford itself, I thought those options had long been discounted on the basis of the work required in to reinstate the trackbed/alignment being too expensive and disruptive, significant opposition to removing the foot/cyclepath, and Cardington Road crossing the alignment on the level?

 

[edwin_m]

Assuming you're talking about just the section in Bedford itself, I thought those options had long been discounted on the basis of the work required in to reinstate the trackbed/alignment being too expensive and disruptive, significant opposition to removing the foot/cyclepath, and Cardington Road crossing the alignment on the level?

That may well be the answer. I was a bit surprised not to see it mentioned though (unless I missed it) because people like me are bound to ask the question.

 

[swt_passenger]

That may well be the answer. I was a bit surprised not to see it mentioned though (unless I missed it) because people like me are bound to ask the question.

Is it possible it’s been considered adequately publicised in an earlier consultation? Often you have to read earlier reports in sequence to get the full story...

 

[JamesT]

https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-...entral-Section-Engineering-Summary-Report.pdf is a report from a few years ago which went through the various corridors, eventually picking corridor C. My understanding is that since then they've been analysing routes within that corridor which has led to the recent proposals.

 

[MadCommuter]

That may well be the answer. I was a bit surprised not to see it mentioned though (unless I missed it) because people like me are bound to ask the question.

Cardington Road LC is a big problem, as would be access to Priory Country Park. Further east there are many housing developments built on the old alignment.

Regarding the Bedford South option, I'm pleased to see that would be combined with Wixams if it goes that route goes ahead. But with a further interchange penalty at Midland, its ludicrous. The route has to go via Midland.

 

[cle]

Is there any indication as to grade separation/links with both MML and ECML?

Frequency could be boosted across the individual segments if more local/smaller regional services could run - for example from Bletchley (current MV platforms) to Corby/Leicester, or Cambridge North/Newmarket line to Peterborough up the ECML (if turn-outs faced that way). Not any good terminating spots south of Bedford or Sandy which are before London...

 

[edwin_m]

As pointed out, the options with a "Bedford South" are unlikely to have any direct connection to the longer-distance services. I hope in that case there is capacity for a service from Oxford to beyond to Bedford Midland as well as the services that continue towards Cambridge. Leicester and Nottingham to Oxford and Reading is very indirect and slow by rail compared with road. A through train to Leicester and Nottingham would be even better.

 

[Class 170101]

A southern approach into Cambridge clearly favours destinations towards Ipswich / Norwich and Kings Lynn. A Northerly approach into Cambridge would favour destinations towards Stansted Airport and London Terminals. Which one would stack up economically in that sense?

 

[Tobbes]

A southern approach into Cambridge clearly favours destinations towards Ipswich / Norwich and Kings Lynn. A Northerly approach into Cambridge would favour destinations towards Stansted Airport and London Terminals. Which one would stack up economically in that sense?

Umm, redeveloped station at Stansted is the obvious target....

 

[Class 170101]

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.

I got the impression it was getting the two parts either side of Cambridge to link up with all the other track restrictions en-route. In any event you have restricted junctions at Trowse Swingbridge, Trowse Jn, Ely North Jn, Cambridge itself, Stansted North to East Jn Stansted Tunnel and finally Stansted Airport Station itself. A nice challenge for a train planner to get them all to fit sweetly.

 

[camflyer]

Umm, redeveloped station at Stansted is the obvious target....

The station at Stansted is big enough. The problem is with the capacity of the lines into it. In fact for a station of its size, it is very underused.

 

[Tobbes]

The station at Stansted is big enough. The problem is with the capacity of the lines into it. In fact for a station of its size, it is very underused.

Yes, forgive me - i meant the track capacity, including the junctions and a second tunnel.

 

[bspahh]

Umm, redeveloped station at Stansted is the obvious target....

https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-...tem-2-Terms-of-Reference-Annex-A-schedule.pdf has changes to the terms of reference for the East West Rail Consortium

‘The core focus of the Consortium is the delivery of an East West Rail Link that delivers a step-change in east-west connectivity, linking Oxford, Milton Keynes, Cambridge, Ipswich and Norwich. As well as this core purpose, by linking major national rail routes East West Rail will also enable better northsouth connectivity across the whole of the corridor.

Revised wording makes it clear that the core focus of the Consortium includes the linkages to/from Ipswich and Norwich thereby making it clear that the eastern section is a core part of the project.

Entering Cambridge from the North costs more, and would need a turn around to get to Ipswich and Norwich. If it also needs extra development at Stansted to work, that makes it even less likely.

 

[camflyer]

Yes, forgive me - i meant the track capacity, including the junctions and a second tunnel.

Lots of information on rail strategy in Stansted's most recent development plan - though of course most of it is outside of their direct control.

https://live-webadmin-media.s3.amazonaws.com/media/3378/stn-surface-access-sdp.pdf

Says that the single tunnel is sufficient for now but they will safeguard the option of a second tunnel and longer platforms
New routes to the Midlands and East of England
Calls for Crossrail 2 extension to the airport

 

[MadCommuter]

https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-...tem-2-Terms-of-Reference-Annex-A-schedule.pdf has changes to the terms of reference for the East West Rail Consortium



Entering Cambridge from the North costs more, and would need a turn around to get to Ipswich and Norwich. If it also needs extra development at Stansted to work, that makes it even less likely.

So if they are wanting to link major rail routes, they have to go to Bedford Midland.

 

[si404]

So if they are wanting to link major rail routes, they have to go to Bedford Midland.

And Milton Keynes!

Bedford South will serve Bedford better than Bletchley serves MK. And, like MK, there's no reason why E-W Rail can't have branching services accessing Bedford from the west (and there's the possibility for services accessing both from the east too). As cle says, having branching local services helps boost frequency. They also connect in the wider region rather than only caring about places directly on the line.

 

[camflyer]

I'm not sure how you put an East-West heavy rail link through Milton Keynes. Maybe convert H6 into a railway line?

MK is ideally placed halfway between Oxford and Cambridge and between London and Birmingham. It's just a shame that E-W road and rail links weren't considered when the town was being planned.

 

[si404]

I'm not sure how you put an East-West heavy rail link through Milton Keynes. Maybe convert H6 into a railway line?

Build a new build rail line around the northern edge of the urban area - just as they plan with Bedford in the options that serve Midland.

If being on a branch is good enough for MK, it's definitely good enough for Bedford. Ideally neither should be, but Bedford South is far from the end of the world.