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

[hooverboy]

3-cars does mean that the typical train heading to MK from Aylesbury would be longer than most of those heading to London, and - aside from a few peak trains - as-long as the rest.

A 3-car Turbo (such as can sometimes be seen heading south from Aylesbury) seats just shy of 300. This seem more than adequate initially. It will take some time for service to bed in and passenger numbers to increase beyond that.

As long as new-build platforms were built for longer trains, it isn't overly short sighted (and more not visionary than myopic). It's not that difficult to fix - unlike the lack of electrification which would need a lot more effort than getting hold of more/different stock.

the key word here is "initially"
I don't think it will be long at all before all of that capacity is taken up,which then provides zero slack in the system, overcrowding at peaks/cancellations etc.

4 car operation as normal would seem sensible, or at least some provision for running 2* 3 car in peak hours.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not being an industry expert, how reliable are electrified services compared to diesel? I'm sure the move from diesel is a good thing form many reasons (especially environmental) but it seems to my (uneducated) eye that overhead electric cables are a very fragile way of supplying power and there are regular reports of services being suspended due to the "wires being down".

Electric is far, far more reliable.

 

[Tobbes]

Electric is far, far more reliable.

Indeed, and do we have comparable figures on the reliability of the new caternary design (eg on the GWML) versus the older headspans on ECML, @Bald Rick ? I presume it's too early in the life of the new design for meaningful comparisons to be made?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not being an industry expert, how reliable are electrified services compared to diesel? I'm sure the move from diesel is a good thing form many reasons (especially environmental) but it seems to my (uneducated) eye that overhead electric cables are a very fragile way of supplying power and there are regular reports of services being suspended due to the "wires being down".

The counter to that is that EMUs are far, far more reliable than DMUs. Though there is something in it - in early GNER days Chris Garnett was seriously proposing a wholly diesel fleet for the East Coast.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, and do we have comparable figures on the reliability of the new caternary design (eg on the GWML) versus the older headspans on ECML, @Bald Rick ? I presume it's too early in the life of the new design for meaningful comparisons to be made?

I think portals as per the WCML are more reliable as they're somewhat overengineered.

 

[mwmbwls]

You might find this article to be of interest https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2019/09/27/back-to-portals/ concerning the conversion of headspan wiring to portals. Much of the original portal design was found to be over-engineered but had itself been derived from earlier 1,500v dc designs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You might find this article to be of interest https://www.railengineer.co.uk/2019/09/27/back-to-portals/ concerning the conversion of headspan wiring to portals. Much of the original portal design was found over-engineered but had itself been derived from earlier 1,500v dc designs.

Indeed. I wonder, for instance, how often the wires are down on the Hadfield line, that being ex-1500V kit with lighter 25kV wiring. I don't think I ever heard of it happening, not even once.

 

[MarkRedon]

I don't disagree. However the government wont pay for that so it isnt going to happen. That is what is important. I have to work with what is funded not what should be funded. That's the difference

As Voltaire said, "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" - the ideal is an enemy of the good. But would it not be strange to face a situation where around £3bn is to be spent (perhaps) on Bed-Cam, while limiting system capacity by not tackling difficult but not insurmountable pinch-points at Bedford and Bletchley? I still think that the utility of the whole EWR scheme would be greatly increased by routing all trains into and out of MKC, rather than depending on a fortuitous remnant like the Bletchley flyover. This whole scheme is justified by vague talk of one million new homes. If this comes to pass, the demand along the coridor would quickly swamp 3-car units - and justify land-take to get trains in and out of MKC in both directions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Thinking of the option of sending it all into MKC (and I can definitely sympathise for that - like the X5 MK will be core to the demand) pathing would be an issue, but could it be viable to free a path up to do this by terminating the MKC stoppers from Euston at Bletchley P5 as I think was the case years ago?

 

[DarloRich]

As Voltaire said, "le mieux est l'ennemi du bien" - the ideal is an enemy of the good. But would it not be strange to face a situation where around £3bn is to be spent (perhaps) on Bed-Cam, while limiting system capacity by not tackling difficult but not insurmountable pinch-points at Bedford and Bletchley? I still think that the utility of the whole EWR scheme would be greatly increased by routing all trains into and out of MKC, rather than depending on a fortuitous remnant like the Bletchley flyover. This whole scheme is justified by vague talk of one million new homes. If this comes to pass, the demand along the coridor would quickly swamp 3-car units - and justify land-take to get trains in and out of MKC in both directions.

Again: I dont disagree!

Again x2: this is what the government will pay for.

I suspect many here would waste years trying to argue for the ideal and not do anything until the ideal is reached ( the ideal having changed along the way!) rather than try to make what is funded a successful railway!

Be practical not perfect!

 

[si404]

the key word here is "initially"

The key phrase is actually "more than adequate".

I don't think it will be long at all before all of that capacity is taken up

On Oxford-MK, maybe a decade at quickest. On other routes quite a bit longer. When I said "initially" I meant "to begin with", in that it will actually fill up in the 60-year design period of the railway (which is about 2 train lifetimes), but won't be at the beginning. We're not looking at Crossrail where we were looking at the short trains (9-car rather than 11-car) being a problem within a decade of opening (now less as the opening has been delayed) - though that was going to be fixed by increased frequency before making the trains full-length.

I'd be highly surprised if Aylesbury-MK gets trains longer than 3-cars in the next 30 years, and if it does it would be because the route was electrified and they wanted a uniform longer stock. Sadly it's probably true for the line south of Aylesbury too, despite that being busier than the busier bits of E-W Rail will get in a generation.

4 car operation as normal would seem sensible, or at least some provision for running 2* 3 car in peak hours.

Wow, 4-car operation - dream big! Is this really what's about? 3-car is shockingly short-sighted, but add an extra car and it's somehow totally future-proof.

There's surely the ability on non-Bedford routes to double-up. ie Oxford-MK (the route that will actually have potential to be busy enough to go beyond 3-car). And that gives the busiest journeys 6-car, when you certainly won't see 8-car if the base unit was 4-car.

As an aside, the idea that 4-car is more normal than 3-car is questionable at best. Certainly with diesel. There's 81 4-car diesels in service or planned (a lot running intercity routes - Class 22xs), 345 3-car diesels in service or planned. Sure you sometimes get 2*2-car at peak times, but most of the 703 2-car diesels in service or planned run separate, rather than doubled most of the time.

 

[work-traveller]

So a lot more no than yes then, i know stuff is getting cut, but to take stuff out the LoD seems mad.

The legal issue here is you can only apply to compulsorily purchase land which you can demonstrate you have a valid and pressing need to purchase - i.e. a funded scheme that is being actively pursued, rather than a speculative proposal for the future.

I am lost for words that this service will have likely 3 car units in operation, has anyone ever heard of 'strategic planning' that signs the purchase orders? It is beyond short sighted, and really quite incredible to call it short term is an understatement and very flattering it is much worse than that....

The platform lengths of 106m is designed for a likely longest 4 car train - in the absence of there being a TOC to confirm what rolling stock they intend to deploy. Longer platforms at Winslow would be easily accommodated due to the straight alignment heading west. Longer platforms at Bletchley would require independently supported platform structures heading south/west, which would extend up to Buckingham Road. Also the track alignment coming off the flyover would require lifting considerably from what is currently planned. An earlier design proposal gives some idea of what that might look like.

 

[MikeT]

Does anyone on this forum really believe that the Oxford to Cambridge route will be up and running in their lifetime? I'm 71 and I doubt I will see passenger trains running a regular service from Oxford to Bedford. The Borders Line in Scotland opened only after 20 years of active campaigning. I do not see people marching on the streets of Bletchley and Bedford demanding better access to Oxford or Cambridge. The X5 bus (Oxford, Bedford, St Neots, Cambridge), although a half-hourly service, is full of pensioners like me who get free coach travel, and would not be convinced to pay to travel by train to Cambridge and then have another bus ride to the centre.
Yes, I would loved to be proved wrong and I am 100% behind the idea, but I am realistic.

 

[class26]

Electric is far, far more reliable.

and wouldn`t it be easier (and therefore cheaper) to electrify as the line was being built rather than wait until diesels were buzzing around at 100 mph ? Joined up thinking and all that !

 

[Ianno87]

Does anyone on this forum really believe that the Oxford to Cambridge route will be up and running in their lifetime? I'm 71 and I doubt I will see passenger trains running a regular service from Oxford to Bedford. The Borders Line in Scotland opened only after 20 years of active campaigning. I do not see people marching on the streets of Bletchley and Bedford demanding better access to Oxford or Cambridge. The X5 bus (Oxford, Bedford, St Neots, Cambridge), although a half-hourly service, is full of pensioners like me who get free coach travel, and would not be convinced to pay to travel by train to Cambridge and then have another bus ride to the centre.
Yes, I would loved to be proved wrong and I am 100% behind the idea, but I am realistic.

The X5 in peak hours carries full loads of full fare paying passengers, and the road queues to get into Cambridge each morning on the A421 are something else.

Filling trains won't be a problem, not to mention Oxford-Cambridge suppressed demand due to the difficulty of the current journey.

 

[MotorcycleAlan]

Does anyone on this forum really believe that the Oxford to Cambridge route will be up and running in their lifetime?

Good to see some reality here. Not quite as many years as you, but enough to know that announcements and delivery of infrastructure are often completely different beasts. In my adult life we got so close to a south Hampshire tram system linking Fareham, Gosport and Portsmouth (so called Phase 1 optimistically) that my office forecourt was compulsory purchased, and it still got scrapped. Nearby is the so-called south coast motorway - 30 miles built, not to mention Stonehenge where a tunnel has been on and off for 40 years. Younger members may trust politicians to deliver, but until you see spades on the ground nothing is certain to happen. And even then HS2?

 

[MarkRedon]

Does anyone on this forum really believe that the Oxford to Cambridge route will be up and running in their lifetime? I'm 71 and I doubt I will see passenger trains running a regular service from Oxford to Bedford. The Borders Line in Scotland opened only after 20 years of active campaigning. I do not see people marching on the streets of Bletchley and Bedford demanding better access to Oxford or Cambridge. The X5 bus (Oxford, Bedford, St Neots, Cambridge), although a half-hourly service, is full of pensioners like me who get free coach travel, and would not be convinced to pay to travel by train to Cambridge and then have another bus ride to the centre.
Yes, I would loved to be proved wrong and I am 100% behind the idea, but I am realistic.

Dear Mike,

Welcome to the forum.

This is page 124 of the forum entry for the East West Rail link. Phase 1, Oxford to Bicester (and Marylebone) opened in 2016. This week an order was made under the Transport and Works Act to authorise detailed design work on Phase 2, Bicester to Bedford, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury. Trains should be running on this section of the route in about four or five years' time, although there I might be being optimistic.

In the same fortnight, the outline corridor for the subsequent Phase 3, the so-called Central Section, was fixed as being option E, the favourite (and most expensive) option consulted upon last year. I am 65 and I firmly believe that I shall live to travel by train from Oxford to Bedford - I hope, about 2025 or even perhaps earlier. I am very hopeful that two to five years later I shall step off a direct train from Oxford at Cambridge Central. Phase 3 has not yet been funded, and there's a long way to go yet. But there is considerable political and business interest in this scheme, and we need more public-transport accessible housing in the Oxford - Milton Keynes - Cambridge arc.

The idea of building this railway first really emerged in proposals by a consortium of East Anglian councils in 1995, so the project is as old as the Borders Railway. It has a much, much stronger economic case than did the Borders Railway, which is today achieving its design and business objectives.

I wish you well as you wade through those 124 pages!

 

[Bald Rick]

and wouldn`t it be easier (and therefore cheaper) to electrify as the line was being built rather than wait until diesels were buzzing around at 100 mph ? Joined up thinking and all that !

That depends on your definition of ‘cheaper’.

In absolute cost, unquestionably cheaper to do it when the line was being built. Basically, you are not constrained to weekends and evenings, and therefore can pay the workforce less per hour AND they will be more productive. You also don’t have to pay for people to take possessions, and finally will avoid paying compensation to the train operator for not running a service. However, the latter of Hesse would be relatively insignificant on this route, possession managment costs might be 1%, and labour costs might be approx 30%, of which you might save a third. All told it might be 15-20% cheaper to do in advance.


However, if he initial volume fo traffic is insufficient to justify electrification, and 3 car units 4 times an hour is just under the typical level of traffic that makes a good case for electrification, then doing it later means borrowing less money now. Spending money now that could better spent later has a cost.

 

[duffield]

That depends on your definition of ‘cheaper’.

In absolute cost, unquestionably cheaper to do it when the line was being built. Basically, you are not constrained to weekends and evenings, and therefore can pay the workforce less per hour AND they will be more productive. You also don’t have to pay for people to take possessions, and finally will avoid paying compensation to the train operator for not running a service. However, the latter of Hesse would be relatively insignificant on this route, possession managment costs might be 1%, and labour costs might be approx 30%, of which you might save a third. All told it might be 15-20% cheaper to do in advance.


However, if he initial volume fo traffic is insufficient to justify electrification, and 3 car units 4 times an hour is just under the typical level of traffic that makes a good case for electrification, then doing it later means borrowing less money now. Spending money now that could better spent later has a cost.

There's also the issue that two of the three sections of the line from Oxford to Bedford *are* actually live railways, it's only about 1/3 of the line that could be electrified not under possession.

 

[mwmbwls]

That depends on your definition of ‘cheaper’.
However, if he initial volume fo traffic is insufficient to justify electrification, and 3 car units 4 times an hour is just under the typical level of traffic that makes a good case for electrification, then doing it later means borrowing less money now. Spending money now that could better spent later has a cost.

That statement contains an inherent assumption about continuing low interest rates. From their current levels the most probable trajectory is up.

 

[Bald Rick]

That statement contains an inherent assumption about continuing low interest rates. From their current levels the most probable trajectory is up.

Higher interest rates makes deferring expenditure even more attractive.

 

[MarkRedon]

I think that most sensible people would agree that among the major economic challenges for the UK are those of low labour productivity and comparatively poor and ageing infrastructure. Both require targeted investment, in areas such as education and transport. We have a fortunate juxtaposition at the present time of need on the one hand, and historically cheap availability of funds for investment on the other. This may not continue, although it seems that most economists do not expect a rapid increase in interest rates.

I would suggest a pragmatic compromise related specifically to East West would be the construction of all new and the reconstruction of all existing overbridges with sufficient clearance for electrification. It is measurably cheaper and less disruptive to make provision for a temporary diversion around a bridge being rebuilt when that diversion can be built at level across a closed railway line.

That said, an even more pragmatic point of view would say "let us build whatever we can now as quickly as we can – if this railway is as successful as we expect it to be, the demand to improve it will need a response". Unfortunately, taking as an analogy another very successful scheme, it has taken over 30 years to get to the point where the very successful Aire Valley electrification justifies investment in longer trains.

 

[Tobbes]

Higher interest rates makes deferring expenditure even more attractive.

Actually, if the expectation is that interest rates are going up and will be permanently higher, then the strong case is to borrow the money now at lower rates and get the job done.

 

[mr_jrt]

Depends if the rates are fixed or not, surely? if you issue bonds at 3% to pay for the work and rates go up to 5%, then yes, you've saved money as you're only paying the lower rate. If you borrow at 3% and the rate rises to 5% the only benefit is you had a short period at the lower rate and you got the new asset sooner.

 

[JonathanH]

Depends if the rates are fixed or not, surely? if you issue bonds at 3% to pay for the work and rates go up to 5%, then yes, you've saved money as you're only paying the lower rate. If you borrow at 3% and the rate rises to 5% the only benefit is you had a short period at the lower rate and you got the new asset sooner.

Government bonds have a fixed coupon and redemption of the original borrowing at the end of the period so no need for the government to worry about interest rates going up. The purchaser of the bond (ie the lender) needs to decide if the interest rate is attractive or not.

 

[Tobbes]

Government bonds have a fixed coupon and redemption of the original borrowing at the end of the period so no need for the government to worry about interest rates going up. The purchaser of the bond (ie the lender) needs to decide if the interest rate is attractive or not.

Yup....

 

[Bald Rick]

Government bonds have a fixed coupon and redemption of the original borrowing at the end of the period so no need for the government to worry about interest rates going up. The purchaser of the bond (ie the lender) needs to decide if the interest rate is attractive or not.

Yes, but.

As the guys in Treasury will tell you, the key measure is Weighted Average Cost of Capital (WACC), and in particular, the long term forecast WACC. This is, roughly, the average coupon rate on all outstanding government borrowing. The government doesn’t borrow for specific projects or specific expenditure. It borrows to cover the annual deficit (if there is one, which there is at present), and also borrows to refinance current debt that is due to be repaid.

Every extra pound borrowed today, even at the low rates we have today, is a pound less to repay existing debt. If interest rates rise, say, next year, then that extra pound has to be borrowed at a higher rate. If it hadn’t been spent it wouldn’t need to be borrowed at all.

What has been really testing the Treasury is that this period of ultra low rates has been consistently forecast to only last for 18-36 months in the future. For 10 years. So the Treasury has been cautious about borrowing on the basis that rates will go up, WACC rises, and the country has to suffer to pay the increased interest.

However, it appears that this cautionary approach might be relaxed very soon.

 

[hooverboy]

Government bonds have a fixed coupon and redemption of the original borrowing at the end of the period so no need for the government to worry about interest rates going up. The purchaser of the bond (ie the lender) needs to decide if the interest rate is attractive or not.

likewise with things like fuel costs.
These will usually be set/hedged at the beginning of a financial year/period of years to counteract fluctuations in the commodity price and exchange rate.

the average consumer is not so fortunate in this regard. any "shocks" be they currency or commodity related are passed almost imediately on by the vendor,and reluctantly repealed in order to maximise profits.

refinancing debt is not much different to remortgaging the house.
you either do it to cut down interest payments or make home improvements, or some combination thereof.

 

[Class 170101]

That's aside from the fact that the, now authorised, TWAO for East West Rail doesn't include land for substation sites - as had previously been calculated/identified when the Electric Spine project was part of the proposal.

Those sites will depend upon where the national power network is.

 

[edwin_m]

Those sites will depend upon where the national power network is.

However there's actually quite a lot of flexibility, as EWR could take power from the WCML, MML and ECML where they meet, and extra feeders could be built alongside those main lines instead (or perhaps the existing ones could be upgraded). Slightly more awkward if EWR remains separate from NR, but it ought to be possible to include some kind of meter at the connections so NR can charge EWR for what they use.