• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
More on why there won't be a northern approach to Cambridge


Hopefully that will settle the matter - although we all know it won't

The proponents of the northern approach also propose a North to East chord at Coldham Lane to avoid the "reversal problem" to reach Ipswich. Unfortunately that goes straight through the middle of Coldhams Common, which is a very popular local green space. Which strangely enough they forget to point out.

I too feel this argument is going to run and run, in spite of the (in my view) pretty obvious advantages all round of the southern approach (which EWR's consultation articulates well).
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
The proponents of the northern approach also propose a North to East chord at Coldham Lane to avoid the "reversal problem" to reach Ipswich. Unfortunately that goes straight through the middle of Coldhams Common, which is a very popular local green space. Which strangely enough they forget to point out.

I too feel this argument is going to run and run, in spite of the (in my view) pretty obvious advantages all round of the southern approach (which EWR's consultation articulates well).

Indeed - just imagine the uproar if a new rail line was proposed across Coldhams Common to build this "simple chord".

No problem, let's replace the busway! ;)

Strangely, they don't mention how they would put a heavy rail line across Milton Road to get to Cambridge North using the busway alignment.

Plus, if you convert the busway to rail then a number of places (such as the Regional College/Science Park) would lose their current busway stop.

It's all classic Nimbyism - "it's far too complex to do the project here so they should do it somewhere else where I'm sure it will be easy even though I have no idea how"
 

ABB125

Established Member
Joined
23 Jul 2016
Messages
3,746
Location
University of Birmingham
Could it be because the houses are not being built on the floodplain?

The image below is an extract from the Environment Agency flood risk map. The dark and light blue areas represent flood zones 3 and 2 respectively (in popular parlance, ‘floodplain’).

The dark blue shading with white diagonal stripes denotes areas benefitting from flood defences.

The ‘thousands of houses at Northstowe’ would almost all be in the white area north, east and southeast of Longstanton which is not an area with likelihood of flooding, with a very small quantity located on the area benefitting from flood defences to the northeast of Longstanton.

The yellow marker shows roughly where the new station would be with the railway (northern approach) running from the southwest to the northeast right across the extensive area of floodplain.

There is a further issue in that (unlike houses) building a long embankment across a floodplain traps flood water, often exacerbates flood risk nearby or further upstream and can have serious effects on water flow and ecology downstream. This requires significant infrastructure interventions such as drainage and viaducts in order to avoid and mitigate these impacts.

i.e. mucho expensive



And must also get over the guided busway near Oakington as well!
Thanks - clearly some misrepresentation by the locals commenting in the newspaper (what a surprise...).
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
The proponents of the northern approach also propose a North to East chord at Coldham Lane to avoid the "reversal problem" to reach Ipswich. Unfortunately that goes straight through the middle of Coldhams Common, which is a very popular local green space. Which strangely enough they forget to point out.

Indeed - just imagine the uproar if a new rail line was proposed across Coldhams Common to build this "simple chord".

Coupled with the fact that it would be damn near impossible to secure consent to build it due to its status as common land.

And of course, none of those trains would serve the main Cambridge station.
Plus, if you convert the busway to rail then a number of places (such as the Regional College/Science Park) would lose their current busway stop.

And there is also the small matter of the busway services from St Ives and Huntingdon: do they terminate at Oakington “all change please” or go onto the normal road network and get snarled up in ordinary traffic, thus undoing one of the main aims of the busway to get the buses off the normal road network?!

It's all classic Nimbyism - "it's far too complex to do the project here so they should do it somewhere else where I'm sure it will be easy even though I have no idea how"
It’s ludicrous: on the one hand they say ‘there’s not much demand for trains to Norwich and Ipswich so reversing at Cambridge is fine’ and on the other they advocate running extra trains from Norwich and Ipswich that don’t call at Cambridge at all because there’ll be loads of demand.

I’d have more respect for them if they were simply honest and said ‘I don’t want a railway built near me’
 

BrianW

Established Member
Joined
22 Mar 2017
Messages
1,369
Could it be because the houses are not being built on the floodplain?

The image below is an extract from the Environment Agency flood risk map. The dark and light blue areas represent flood zones 3 and 2 respectively (in popular parlance, ‘floodplain’).

The dark blue shading with white diagonal stripes denotes areas benefitting from flood defences.

The ‘thousands of houses at Northstowe’ would almost all be in the white area north, east and southeast of Longstanton which is not an area with likelihood of flooding, with a very small quantity located on the area benefitting from flood defences to the northeast of Longstanton.

The yellow marker shows roughly where the new station would be with the railway (northern approach) running from the southwest to the northeast right across the extensive area of floodplain.

There is a further issue in that (unlike houses) building a long embankment across a floodplain traps flood water, often exacerbates flood risk nearby or further upstream and can have serious effects on water flow and ecology downstream. This requires significant infrastructure interventions such as drainage and viaducts in order to avoid and mitigate these impacts.

i.e. mucho expensive



And must also get over the guided busway near Oakington as well!
Good to see this well-argued contribution; thank youtspaul26. Planners, including railway planners do their best to consider everything. Geotechnics and hydrology (happy to be corrected if not the right terms) are vital considerations. The derailment at Carmont has rightly sensitised us to the dangers of earthworks in relation to rainwater. I am also calling to mind one of Michael Portillo's jaunts, to I think Tewkecbury, where an embankment to a disused railway was being removed as it had held back water, of which the Rivers Severn and Avon carry a lot.

I also understand people complaining and using the tools available to them to look after their own interests- Councillors, MPs, consultation proceses- I would if it were my house or greenhouse or view affected.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
I also understand people complaining and using the tools available to them to look after their own interests- Councillors, MPs, consultation proceses- I would if it were my house or greenhouse or view affected.
That I don’t have too much of a problem with as it’s honest.

It’s the NIMBY pretense that ‘this alternative is obviously much better so everyone at project X must be a moron [and it just happens to be further away from my house]’ that really annoys me.

The only thing I’ve seen suggested thus far that might merit further consideration has been the idea of an intermediate station between Cambourne and Cambridge South to serve the villages in between, but I daresay the NIMBYs would then be up in arms over that as well!
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
That I don’t have too much of a problem with as it’s honest.

It’s the NIMBY pretense that ‘this alternative is obviously much better so everyone at project X must be a moron [and it just happens to be further away from my house]’ that really annoys me.

The only thing I’ve seen suggested thus far that might merit further consideration has been the idea of an intermediate station between Cambourne and Cambridge South to serve the villages in between, but I daresay the NIMBYs would then be up in arms over that as well!

I can't see much justification for another stop. That area of South Cambs is already well served with stations which is one of the reasons why it is such a popular area to live and Cambourne is going to be easy access to the surrounding villages for services westwards.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
An excellent idea, and reopen the line from Cambridge to Huntingdon.
It was never Cambridge - Huntingdon per se, it was two separate railways. And St Ives - Huntingdon was a pre Beeching closure. It was lightly engineered and had several speed restrictions.

I doubt you'll ever make a case for replacing the busway with a heavy rail line.
 

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,396
More on why there won't be a northern approach to Cambridge

think my favourite argument for northern approach is ”10,000 houses are to be built, and a busway has been built on a flood plain, what’s stopping EWR?”. Screenshot provided by @tspaul26 of a flood risk map around Longstanton shows why the former were possible and why EWR won’t be possible.

Also this argument about the lunacy of a new build railway bypassing said houses - the aforementioned busway is suddenly completely unfit for purpose?

Several arguments that don’t stack up on their own, let alone in combination with each other.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,530
Also this argument about the lunacy of a new build railway bypassing said houses - the aforementioned busway is suddenly completely unfit for purpose?
The new ‘Northstowe’ station wouldn’t even be anywhere near Northstowe, but south of Oakington. Most of Northstowe would be an hour’s walk or more away.

Whereas the busway services will go right through the middle of the town and pick people up much closer to their homes.

Unless the NIMBY thinking is that people will catch the bus to the station and then change onto the train. The problem with that is if you are going into Cambridge then for the north and centre it will be quicker door-to-door simply to stay on the bus.

And if you want to head to south Cambridge or destinations further west (such as Cambourne and Bedford) then the bus from Northstowe to Cambridge North station takes about 15mins on a segregated route where connections can then be had.

And if EWR Eastern Section goes ahead you would then have through running from Cambridge South, Cambridge and Cambridge North to other destinations such as, potentially, Norwich, Kings Lynn, Wisbech and Peterborough with no reversals required en route, unlike the northern approach that is being proposed.

Finally, this argument about a station at Northstowe would entail completely ignoring the traffic authority’s response to the 2019 consultation which specifically said that it wasn’t needed. In effect, the NIMBYs are saying that EWR Co should completely ignore the expert consultation feedback!
 
Last edited:

Trainee9

Member
Joined
29 Jul 2020
Messages
82
Location
Milton Keynes
At the Bletchley viaduct, a second giant yellow crane has arrived and been assembled. Otherwise there had been no significant or obvious change since last Sunday, other than some fencing atop one of the 'box' walls.
 

alexx

Member
Joined
17 Sep 2015
Messages
95
Some new track has appeared close to the new bridge works at Charbridge Lane, Bicester. Bit random?
 

Attachments

  • B570DAC9-6FC9-49A6-AD6E-D7B2392664C8.jpeg
    B570DAC9-6FC9-49A6-AD6E-D7B2392664C8.jpeg
    3.6 MB · Views: 166

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,263
Some sort of training exercise, perhaps?

Some new track has appeared close to the new bridge works at Charbridge Lane, Bicester. Bit random?

There’s nothing to suggest it isn’t the first proper track being laid. The tracks were renewed for quite a distance under the Chiltern lines as part of the Oxford Bicester upgrade, and IIRC almost reached the site of that new footbridge. But the last bit was lifted again a year or so back when this project started up. I’d have thought it’s probably the obvious place to start any track laying.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
It could be both. It’s certainly to spec for the final track, but equally could be a trial stretch - more to check out the logistics and enable further works than training.
 

alexx

Member
Joined
17 Sep 2015
Messages
95
There’s nothing to suggest it isn’t the first proper track being laid. The tracks were renewed for quite a distance under the Chiltern lines as part of the Oxford Bicester upgrade, and IIRC almost reached the site of that new footbridge. But the last bit was lifted again a year or so back when this project started up. I’d have thought it’s probably the obvious place to start any track laying.
Interestingly it’s gone from a single fence layer to double layer also. There appears to be enough space on the end of that track to put a buffer stop, so I was thinking maybe it’s for deliveries in the meantime?
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,605
Location
Nottingham
There’s nothing to suggest it isn’t the first proper track being laid.
My guess would be that they're laying down enough track to accommodate one of those track construction machines (see post #5064) clear of the live railway. With a full load of continuous rail sections ready to go, those machines must be several hundred metres long.
 

DavidGrain

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2017
Messages
1,233
Presumably the track will be laid from the Bicester end as that is the only point at which there is rail connection until the Bletchley viaduct is in place.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
My guess would be that they're laying down enough track to accommodate one of those track construction machines (see post #5064) clear of the live railway. With a full load of continuous rail sections ready to go, those machines must be several hundred metres long.
The new track construction machines don’t carry the rail with them. That is laid on the ballast bed in advance. However it is conceivable that it has been laid to enable long welded rail deliveries to be made.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
Presumably the track will be laid from the Bicester end as that is the only point at which there is rail connection until the Bletchley viaduct is in place.
In the shorter term the focus is getting the section Bicester - Calvert sectional operation for HS2 material deliveries hence starting relaying from Bicester. Calvert - Bletchley is 1-2 years behind that.
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,605
Location
Nottingham
The new track construction machines don’t carry the rail with them.
True. But the other style of track-laying machine shown in the second video of post #5064 does transport the lengths of continuously welded rail behind the machine. It will be interesting to see which version of machine the contractors for EWR use.

But anyway, I agree the track that is being been laid seems to be about the length you'd expect to be able to accommodate a train carrying 400m sections of CWR.
 
Last edited:

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
But anyway, I agree the track that is being been laid seems to be about the length you'd expect to be able to accommodate a train carrying 400m sections of CWR.

CWR is generally supplied in strings 216m long.

That technique used on Borders is a bit of an oddity. The NTC is much better.
 

swt_passenger

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Apr 2010
Messages
31,263
CWR is generally supplied in strings 216m long.

That technique used on Borders is a bit of an oddity. The NTC is much better.
For the Balfour Beatty machine, I was wondering how, (or if), the foot of the rail is protected, assuming they have to pull it along the ballast? Presumably for a renewal the delivery train can position it outside the existing tracks beforehand, but it looks to be a weak aspect of the new construction process...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top