Trains from Bicester can go back to Bicester from Bletchley P7 as that will be a signaled route. You can do that move you are suggesting on the flyover, but only as a shunt from P8 to P7. You would need an extra route from MV6 signal at Fenny Stratford to go bi-di into P7 on the flyover to reverse.
Not sure what MV is but I presume you are referring to a train between MK and Bedford. There would probably be a concern about the gradient on the new platforms, as standards prefer less than 1 in 500 for places where crew have to leave the train. I think an exception could be made subject to risk assessment. But as P5 could be used today, and P6 could probably be made reversible if really necessary, there is a reasonably practicable alternative that eliminates the risk.
MV = Marston Vale. The high level platforms will be on a 1 in 261 gradient looking at the signalling plans.
I don’t think you can say that, because whatever was to happen at Bletchley there would presumably still be no terminating platform capacity at Milton Keynes...
Why would the train sit in the platform? you send it off down to Denbigh Hall South Jn to wait a WCML slot and the following Cambridge goes into the station.
Milton Keynes is also a major employment centre, So you have flow in both directions at peak times. Few people get on or off in Bedford, most travel through.
My post you quoted was in response to a suggestion that the railway might go no further east than an ECML interchange. You appear to have mixed it up with (arguably off-topic) discussion about the bus.
Taken together, these tell us 'something' about origins, destinations, flow patterns at present. Slowing up on projects is entirely understandable just now with great uncertainty about 'returns' of passengers, whether commuters, shoppers, tourists, students, and of revenues, incl freight; let alone government 'support' for 'investment'.
I did not say that the railway should not go any further east than the ECML. What I said was that the Eastern section be built in two sections with the Bedford-ECML section built first followed by the much harder to build ECML-Cambridge section. The X5 bus is very much interlinked with the EastWest Route. Which shows curret traffic flows.
I think the bus service say relatively little about how many people will use the train between MK and further east, simply because it's unlikely that the train will get any nearer to MK than Bletchley.
Bicester - Calvert needs to be done by October 2021 (from memory...)
Depends on the argument on who is building the overbridge over HS2, can't remember if that is solved yet.
The physical demolition contracts are separate to the new build.
Before they start large volumes of HS2 construction work, I presume they'll need rail access to the Calvert railhead and future maintenance depot which itself is probably one of the first things they build. That needs EWR pretty much complete from at least one of Bletchley, Bicester (including the overbridge) or Aylesbury (which they're realigning a large section of so could be the last of all).
It is all aggregate and other fill in first apparently, you don't need a railhead for that as they can do what FCC do and just JCB it out the wagons. FCC will close for a while until their new facility is built further south and HS2 will take the waste paths for their use during that period.
In case you were wondering - I was - FCC is the company which runs the Calvert waste site. Their website, which is at https://www.fccenvironment.co.uk/, claims that "FCC Environment is one of the UK’s leading waste and resource management companies."
I expect re-siting the waste handling facilty won’t need a separate full planning application as it will be included in the HS2 Act?
Apologies if I wasn't clear. I wasn't suggesting that the whole railhead was built before anything else, but they'd need a siding or two to unload trains, a run-round and, most importantly for this thread, a connection to the rest of the rail network!
Thank you very much - that is very clear insofar as the FCC operation continuation is concerned.I expect re-siting the waste handling facilty won’t need a separate full planning application as it will be included in the HS2 Act?
Ah, following up, it was a TWA Order:
seems they came up with a different solution to what was allowed by the HS2 Act, using a TWA order.HS2 Greatmoor Railway Sidings: Transport and Works Act order
Approval to construct railway sidings adjacent to the Aylesbury Link Railway.www.gov.uk
But the principle is the same, it subsumes the requirement for a normal planning application to the local authority...
I believe the intention is to retain connections to the classic network so engineering materials can be brought in at Calvert and moved along HS2 to wherever needed. It's a pretty sensible way to move bulk materials when the destination is by definition rail-connected, and it's pretty difficult to move a long welded rail any other way. With three routes in, all relatively uncongested compared with others in the area, Calvert is the ideal place for this. However I expect the total anticipated volume on completion with be much lower now they have gone for slab track so there is no ballast to replace.