One of the questions is about the maps they released and the lack of detail on them, according to the lady this has been updated and on the east west website, i cannot see any difference except grey bits for houses or built up areas, there are still no road numbers or any other details added ?
That to me is a significant issue, which I understand is similar to Inverness. Caledonian sleepers allow one of Inverness's southerly premium platforms to be occupied all day by the Highlander sleeper stock, I am guessing it is so that traincrew are not required until a little before departure in the evening due to no shunting required out of a siding and into a platform. Because of this I understand Scotrail (national train company) are struggling to platform 2+5 HSTs on the southerly platforms.
Would it be bad if a passenger was on the train through the turnback? I know occasionally passengers ride the kennington loop, for example because they're not paying attention and forget to get off the train at Kennington, but it doesn't appear to be an issue. Why is the elizabeth line or thameslink at Bedford different?
That certainly is not a risk that I'd considered. I can see someone pulling the passenger alarm in such a situation.
And this is a major performance issue even if all the safety risks have been addressed adequately. A train sat down across the turnback junctions for even 10 minutes could be horribly disruptive, with delays possibly cascading into other service groups working into Paddington as well as the EL itself. I believe the signalling arrangements into and out of the turnback have been specified suitable for passenger operations, i.e full train detection, FPL or equivalent on points etc. There are still other risks clearly though.
There's only 1 track in from Bedford St Johns at the moment, the easternmost track is a goods/shunting loop. EWR will need to remodel the entrance to Bedford Midland to get two tracks in and maintain the appropriate protection from depot movements, most likely through the right-hand of the 3 arches over the current lines (where the line to the bay goes today).
Jowett Sidings would be relocated entirely. The bridge to the south will both be EWR tracks and the alignment wouldn't support the desired speed. The new EWR tracks would have different alignment and as such expectation is they can fit through existing arches.
I presume it’s to keep the route completely self contained between Harston and Bicester.
It also probably means the speeds can be kept higher, as the geometry of the pointwork to merge and split straight away would potentially pull EWR down a fair bit.
And avoids the need to fiddle about with the existing Bromham Road bridge which has only recently been rebuilt.
It would still need a new span though, so whether the existing one stays or goes isn't really a big issue.
The point is that four tracks mean you must either demolish and replace the current (recently built) span OR build a new span and then take property (i.e. demolition) north of Bromham Road to tie into the existing slows.
When building a new railway and it crosses and potentially makes another service suffer as a consequence and all of that is under the jurisdiction of the Dft you would think the dots are joined up.
The distance of the east side of the bridge to the nearest double mini roundabout isn't that far. Add another span and the road becomes significantly steeper. We asked for extra width last time for cyclists and they ignored it. I can see that cyclist huffing and puffing up there with 30 cars behind it with all manner of cars locked in at that double roundabout. Just saying it isn't an ideal place for what is suggested.
