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

[snowball]

What does it say for those that do not have it ?

My impression was that the MR article doesn't say anything that hasn't been said in this thread.

 

[mwmbwls]

What does it say for those that do not have it ?

1: Rebuild of Oxford underway - expansion of through tracks
2: Following from point 1 - EWR may be extended later to Cowley
3: Services from Aylesbury on ice
4: No electrification
5:Two trains per hour Oxford Milton Keynes
6: Two trains per hour Oxford Bedford Cambridge
7: Two trains per hour Bedford Cambridge
7: Passing loops between Oxford and Bletchley
7: £103 million benefit expected from Housing Growth along route
8: Project regarded as being of National Significence therefore a public enquiry will be held under the Planning Act 2018. This will be managed by the Planning Inspectorate. IIRC - This will be held in Milton Keynes.

EWR have a number of explanatory videos on You Tube.

Not necessarily. If they're not building additional Fast Line platforms the capacity constraints on IC trains will remain, and connectivity between EWR and Leicester/Nottingham/Sheffield isn't really a big priority.

But they are. Network Rail propose to slew the up fast line and widen the existing fast line platform making it double faced as opposed to the current northbound (down) line. A nifty piece of engineering that will not require new access stairs/lift.

Additional platform at Bedford proposed

A new platform on the Up Fast line at Bedford is the main proposal is the Bedford Area Strategic Advice document produced by Network Rail and published in July

www.modernrailways.com

 

[jfowkes]

Not necessarily. If they're not building additional Fast Line platforms the capacity constraints on IC trains will remain, and connectivity between EWR and Leicester/Nottingham/Sheffield isn't really a big priority.

HS2 might change that though. Moving a lot of traffic for those destinations (except Leicester?) off the MML.

 

[zwk500]

But they are. Network Rail propose to slew the up fast line and widen the existing fast line platform making it double faced as opposed to the current northbound (down) line. A nifty piece of engineering that will not require new access stairs/lift.

Paywall, so are NR having 2 Down Fast platforms or are they just moving the fast lines to their own island? 1 is vastly different to the other for capacity.

 

[snowball]

Paywall, so are NR having 2 Down Fast platforms or are they just moving the fast lines to their own island? 1 is vastly different to the other for capacity.

The Network Rail document in question is here and has been discussed previously in this thread from post #116 onwards.

 

[edwin_m]

Paywall, so are NR having 2 Down Fast platforms or are they just moving the fast lines to their own island? 1 is vastly different to the other for capacity.

From the link above:

The preferred option is to realign the Down Fast line and extend the current platform 4 out over the alignment of the current Down Fast to create an island platform while retaining the existing 125mph linespeed on the Down Fast.

 

[Basil Jet]

7: Two trains per hour Bedford Cambridge

Presumably one per hour will be an extension of the existing historic Bletchley - Bedford service, or will Bedford have trains terminating from the east and the west?

 

[tspaul26]

Presumably one per hour will be an extension of the existing historic Bletchley - Bedford service, or will Bedford have trains terminating from the east and the west?

Not decided yet

 

[richieb1971]

Whats that supposed to be the M1? I get the congestion argument but yeah.. ok.

I got a response from EWR regarding Bedford, it stated that its taking longer than they planned to put together some answers.

This was around Jowitt sidings capacity, car parking and mitigation of damage control for the road bridges.


4tph on EWR seems like a lot of rolling stock and drivers required. If it takes 70 odd minutes end to end that means a minimum of 6 trains shuttling back and forth?

 

[cle]

Equally, it's a lot of railway - especially Bedford-Cambridge, which currently isn't slated to have freight on it - to build for just 2tph.

I'd expect the Marston gets absorbed into the pattern - maybe as one of the Bedford-Cambridge services. They were originally Bletchley-Cambridge 2tph I recall, so 1 (run from the current MV platforms, out of the way) - would be workable. And run slow to Bedford I suppose. The Oxford services, and thus 3tph on MV, could therefore be faster.

 

[Magdalia]

I'd expect the Marston gets absorbed into the pattern - maybe as one of the Bedford-Cambridge services. They were originally Bletchley-Cambridge 2tph I recall, so 1 (run from the current MV platforms, out of the way) - would be workable. And run slow to Bedford I suppose. The Oxford services, and thus 3tph on MV, could therefore be faster.

Current plans for level of service were set out in the report published in May, see this from page 46:

A key insight from our work on Theory of Change and through the ACP allowed us to establish an updated service pattern for EWR, what we’ve termed the 4-3-4 pattern, which underpins our preferences for infrastructure along the route. This is four trains per hour from Oxford, two of which would progress to Milton Keynes and two would continue to Cambridge; a further two trains per hour, travelling between Bedford and Cambridge; plus a service between Bletchley and Bedford, which could be replaced by extending one of the BedfordCambridge trains to Bletchley to further improve connectivity for the Marston Vale. The total number of trains needed between Bedford and Cambridge to meet the predictions in the Theory of Change was determined to be four each hour – two originating in Oxford and two originating in Bedford

There is a diagram representation of this in the document but I haven't worked out how to quote something that isn't text!

That seems to be what EWR is proposing. This is the "proposed train service pattern":
View attachment 135998
Was the 4tph between Bedford and Cambridge always in the plans?
And is there the capacity on the WCML slows to acommodate 2tph from Oxford.

Somebody much more clever than me managed to do it in #5702 here.

 

[bspahh]

Current plans for level of service were set out in the report published in May, see this from page 46:



There is a diagram representation of this in the document but I haven't worked out how to quote something that isn't text!

This is from page 47 of the route-update-report.pdf

 

[tspaul26]

This is from page 47 of the route-update-report.pdf
View attachment 138928

Please bear in mind that this is indicative: the final service calling pattern has not yet been determined.

 

[adrock1976]

This is from page 47 of the route-update-report.pdf
View attachment 138928

Looking at the Oxford - Bletchley section of the diagram above, is it intended for Islip to be solely served just by the London Marylebone - Oxford via High Wycombe trains?

I ask this as Islip is not shown on the diagram (between Oxford Parkway and Bicester).

 

[The Planner]

Looking at the Oxford - Bletchley section of the diagram above, is it intended for Islip to be solely served just by the London Marylebone - Oxford via High Wycombe trains?

I ask this as Islip is not shown on the diagram (between Oxford Parkway and Bicester).

As it stands, yes.

Please bear in mind that this is indicative: the final service calling pattern has not yet been determined.

Considering how much head scratching 2tph at Oxford is causing, 4 is going to be interesting and will definitely need a Bicester London Road level crossing solution!

 

[The exile]

Bedfordians want the benefits without the disruption.

Which is a very succinct definition of NIMBYism.

 

[richieb1971]

Which is a very succinct definition of NIMBYism.

There is scale and balance though. You don't use a rocket launcher on a hunting trip.

 

[cle]

This is from page 47 of the route-update-report.pdf
View attachment 138928

further two trains per hour, travelling between Bedford and Cambridge; plus a service between Bletchley and Bedford, which could be replaced by extending one of the BedfordCambridge trains to Bletchley to further improve connectivity for the Marston Vale.

This does imply that a Bedford-Cambridge could merge with the Marston Vale stopper. Might mean the Bedford bay could go, if needed for the works - and as I mentioned, at Bletchley, it could still terminate at p6/7 and not be in the way of EWR. Gives the shacks a service beyond Bedford too, if useful.

I'm not sure that Woburn, Ridgmont and Stewartby all need 3tph though. One 'fast' (60mph) service might be appealing.

Oxford - that is 6tph minimum towards Bicester. Very curious to know if there will be two bays (p zero?) after the through road is made, or if they think it can be done without? Or other plans, like Cowley, Didcot shuttle (hope wires kill this plan) - or Reading/Swindon+ if a path could be found.

 

[12LDA28C]

Looking at the Oxford - Bletchley section of the diagram above, is it intended for Islip to be solely served just by the London Marylebone - Oxford via High Wycombe trains?

I ask this as Islip is not shown on the diagram (between Oxford Parkway and Bicester).

Bearing in mind that for many years, Islip passengers only had an infrequent shuttle from Bicester Town to Oxford then they are doing rather better these days to have a direct service to London. It would be easy enough to change onto EWR at Bicester Village for any passengers requiring Bletchley / MK and beyond.

 

[adrock1976]

As it stands, yes.

Considering how much head scratching 2tph at Oxford is causing, 4 is going to be interesting and will definitely need a Bicester London Road level crossing solution!

Bearing in mind that for many years, Islip passengers only had an infrequent shuttle from Bicester Town to Oxford then they are doing rather better these days to have a direct service to London. It would be easy enough to change onto EWR at Bicester Village for any passengers requiring Bletchley / MK and beyond.

Thanks both.

 

[mwmbwls]

This is from page 47 of the route-update-report.pdf
View attachment 138928

Are the new Bletchey Platforms bi directional?

 

[zwk500]

Are the new Bletchey Platforms bi directional?

You will be able to reverse coming from Oxford to head back towards there in either platform, but not through working.

 

[Verulamius]

Oxford - that is 6tph minimum towards Bicester. Very curious to know if there will be two bays (p zero?) after the through road is made, or if they think it can be done without? Or other plans, like Cowley, Didcot shuttle (hope wires kill this plan) - or Reading/Swindon+ if a path could be found.

The Economic and Technical report on the EastWestRail.co.uk website has this commentrary for Oxford

To understand the current situation and way forward at Oxford, it is important to consider the interfaces and interdependencies in the context of increasing EWR services to 4tph in each direction. Figure 19 below shows the different infrastructure interventions proposed at Oxford and the parties that are assumed will be responsible for delivering them. The following section describes interventions by other parties and the approach that EWR Co would need to take should these not be pursued.

There are two key interfacing projects being delivered by Network Rail that need to be considered as part of unlocking the capacity constraints:
• Oxford Phase 2 – construction of platform five at Oxford station, a new western entrance and other infrastructure works. These works are being promoted by Network Rail to increase platform and station capacity at Oxford station. This allows for growth but does not enable EWR services beyond the 2tph introduced by CS1. Network Rail has secured the necessary consents and funding to proceed to construction and this is considered a committed Project. These works are expected to complete in December 2024. It is the base assumption that these works will be completed before the introduction of EWR services.
• Cowley Plus – introduction of passenger services to the Cowley Branch, providing platform capacity by facilitating turnback of services from the north, which would otherwise have terminated at Oxford station and occupied platforms. It results in the introduction of a new revenue raising route and the construction of new infrastructure, including two new stations, which would support the Oxford Business and Science Parks and future residential development. This project is promoted by Network Rail with capacity expected to come online between 2026-2030, which would be in line with the opening of EWR. Network Rail is currently working on the business case to secure funding to develop this, meaning that this is not considered to be committed infrastructure

Oxford – Current Proposal
10.2.4 Taking Network Rail’s proposals into consideration, EWR Co has identified that additional turnback capacity is required south of Oxford to increase platform capacity to enable four EWR tph. Further timetable modelling and capacity analysis work is being undertaken in collaboration with Network Rail to validate which EWR infrastructure interventions are required. Some of the potential interventions are outlined below.
Increasing Platform Capacity at Oxford Station
10.2.5 If Cowley Plus goes ahead, it may be sufficient to enable the required platform capacity without an EWR intervention. However, as Cowley Plus is not yet a committed project a potential option to address this in the absence of a Cowley Plus project would be for EWR Co to develop an alternative proposal known as the South Oxford Turnback.
South Oxford Turnback
10.2.6 This is a turnback facility to the South (i.e. towards London) of the platforms that extends the Up Oxford Relief line. This would allow trains to be turned without using platform capacity.
10.2.7 This would be designed to be complimentary to Cowley Plus, should there be a need to proceed in advance of that project, which would allow Network Rail to build the Cowley Plus infrastructure from the end of the South Oxford Turnback.
Increasing Capacity at Oxford North Junction
10.2.8 Currently, Oxford North junction has insufficient capacity to accommodate four EWR tph. As traffic increases, there would not be sufficient infrastructure capacity to accommodate the additional trains. EWR Co is working collaboratively with Network Rail to identify if it is possible to achieve additional capacity through timetable harmonisation101.
10.2.9 At Oxford North Junction, an infrastructure intervention may not be required for EWR, if timetable harmonisation is sufficient to enable four EWR tph.
10.2.10 However, in case the timetable harmonisation does not unlock sufficient capacity then two potential infrastructure interventions have been identified for Oxford North Junction:

• Four Track Option – An EWR Co proposed enhanced running project, which optimises the use of all four existing tracks north of Oxford through installation of five mainline crossovers.
• Partial Fifth Track – An EWR Co proposed partial fifth track that re-joins the Up Oxford Relief north of Walton Well Road bridge to reduce the scope of works and the negative impacts of a full fifth track.

 

[richieb1971]

Gadgetbahnen and somebody who doesn't know MK very well ahoy!



(Feel free to start a thread on MK local transport and I'll have some views but I have a feeling they'll not be like yours!)

MkC is a road based transport system. Everything moves by road. I am someone that if I have to travel on the road for any part of my journey I just take the car from my driveway. Job done. Most folk think like me except for London commutes.

 

[bspahh]

The Cambridge Independent has an interview with Beth West, the East West Rail CEO

She says:

“Nobody wants a diesel train on a new railway. We are working really hard to look at what the options are going to be to make this an electrified railway. The technology is evolving rapidly in terms of trains.

“We are looking at whether or not it’s going to be fully electrified with wires, if it’s going to be a bi-mode so you’ve got a wires and battery combination, and we’re just working hard to come up with the right solution – and it may involve financing that as well in order to get that delivered.

“You have my commitment that we’re working our socks off to make sure it is not a diesel railway.”

and

She said communities would have further details about the design of the scheme, along with how EWR Co intends to limit the heights of proposed embankments dubbed the ‘Great Wall’ by campaigners.

A proposed 12-metre-high flyover will land just 200 metres from Lorna Sorrentino’s home in Harston, from which she can currently see as far as Foxton, Chapel Hill and Bassingbourn.

Lorna told the Cambridge Independent: “I own the bit of land where the flyover is going to land and two years ago this landed on my lap – a nice map with a huge red drawing across it. I’m going to be 200 metres from this two-mile, 12-metre high embankment and it’s going to be noisy.”

Ms West explained that the assumption made ahead of the non-statutory consultation in 2021 was that the railway will go over all roads.

She said: “Then we saw that the embankments were going to be really, really high. So we’ve looked at that assumption again and said maybe that’s not the right assumption in all cases.

“There are going to be some places where we will go over roads, some places we will go under roads or build a road bridge over the railway, so that we can have less of an impact on those heights.

“That’s one thing that I think we’ve done already – to bring down that visual impact that people are really concerned about.”

It also covers the Northern and Southern routes into Cambridge.

 

[fishwomp]

The Cambridge Independent has an interview with Beth West, the East West Rail CEO

She says:
"

“You have my commitment that we’re working our socks off to make sure it is not a diesel railway.”

Thanks for posting. TBH, I'd rather everyone got on with building a railway rather than risking it being culled due to cost. So, stop working on non-diesel, start working on the day job of building the railway.

"[..] I’m going to be 200 metres from this two-mile, 12-metre high embankment and it’s going to be noisy.”

and this embankment sounds designed to create opposition.. straight out of 'how to win friends and influence people..'

 

[tspaul26]

Thanks for posting. TBH, I'd rather everyone got on with building a railway rather than risking it being culled due to cost. So, stop working on non-diesel, start working on the day job of building the railway.

Got to sort out traction in order to complete and consent the design for the infrastructure.

and this embankment sounds designed to create opposition.. straight out of 'how to win friends and influence people..'

It is required if a grade separated junction is used because obviously the track levels have to be altered to accommodate it.

Even if there was no embankment the NIMBYs would switch to something else.

 

[Magdalia]

and this embankment sounds designed to create opposition.. straight out of 'how to win friends and influence people..'

It is required if a grade separated junction is used because obviously the track levels have to be altered to accommodate it.

Not necessarily! EWR can run at or near to ground level between Harston and Foxton, with grade separation achieved by shifting the up Royston line higher up the side of Rowleys Hill and putting the down line over EWR on a flyover.

As an aside, there is already a Great Wall of Cambridgeshire which is called the M11. It is on a high embankment where it crosses the existing railway near Little Shelford. I don't hear the residents of the local villages complaining about that.

Even if there was no embankment the NIMBYs would switch to something else.

You're right there!

Another key point in the article is the expectation of a statutory consultation in the first half of 2024.

 

[tspaul26]

Not necessarily! EWR can run at or near to ground level between Harston and Foxton, with grade separation achieved by shifting the up Royston line higher up the side of Rowleys Hill and putting the down line over EWR on a flyover.

This particular woman would still end up with embankment near her.

Or a lengthy viaduct, I suppose.

There’s also the issue of the river crossing and, then, the A10.

There are ecological factors which drive the overall height in this area as well.

As an aside, there is already a Great Wall of Cambridgeshire which is called the M11. It is on a high embankment where it crosses the existing railway near Little Shelford. I don't hear the residents of the local villages complaining about that.

Indeed.

Another key point in the article is the expectation of a statutory consultation in the first half of 2024.

If that actually happens then I’ll eat my head - with my hat on it.

 

[zwk500]

It is required if a grade separated junction is used because obviously the track levels have to be altered to accommodate it.

Is a GSJ actually required at that location though? With the 4-tracking through Shepreth Branch Junction to Cambridge (City/Main) could a flat junction and sensibly timed paired moves not suffice? It's not as if it would be the busiest flat junction in the world, and you can protect the corridor while getting the damn thing built.