East-West Rail (EWR): will it happen and how should it be done?

[richieb1971]

He meant Kempston Hardwick brickworks which closed early 80s. The park is on that land not that of Stewartby. As for the rest....

 

[Steve Harris]

He meant Kempston Hardwick brickworks which closed early 80s. The park is on that land not that of Stewartby. As for the rest....

Well, with so many errors it's hard to work out what he/she ment to be honest.

 

[richieb1971]

I had some correspondence with Tom Wootton "Mayor of Bedford" who passed on information who passed it onto Jon Shortland, both attendees of the presentation last week.

I will share the answers here to my questions - Which were -

1) The bridges north and south of Bedford station, along with the bridge at St Johns station. Will these bridges require a rebuild in the current model? Bearing in mind both mainline bridges were modified for the electrification program on the midland mainline not long ago. Certainly the bridge north of the station needs further modification, will make the incline mighty steep for 2 extra tracks, cyclists will not be happy and the steepness will mean any cars trailing those cyclists will be piling up cars on the double roundabout. It's kind of crazy to imagine it.

2) If 2 tracks at Jowitt sidings currently stabling 12 car trains are used for EWR, where are the 2 trains going to stable? I've heard south of the station, but that in itself creates a reverse move in the station. It's not economical. Stabling ideally needs to be north of the station, or the GTR trains need to start in London rather than Bedford.

3) There has been no model of Bedford station forthcoming that describes how car park capacity loss from the expansion will be handled. How will it be handled? I've heard a rumor that a station mezzanine similar to "Reading" is on the cards? Bedford will need more parking not less.

4) I prefer the BFARe route myself (albeit the triangle junction would be west of Kempston hardwick) as I believe Bedford needs a triangulation junction to give more options (including an east to north curve that is not mandated in the current plans). I believe a "Tamworth" style station at Wixams using the BFARe alignment is the best option.

Using Wixams for expansion which is not boxed in like Bedford solves so many problems.
Not to mention that Wixams in its current state has many issues with 22:00 cutoff on trains,
maintenance windows meaning no trains stopping at Wixams due to 2 platforms only.
The fact that Wixams catchment area includes Kempston/Houghton Conquest/Stewartby/Marston Moretaine and Wooton (44000). If forced to go via Bedford these passengers might even need to pass Wixams to get home. Does Bedford really want extra passengers that could have gotten off at a more convenient station but is forced to use Bedford? Moving the catchment to Wixams is a good move, not a bad one.

Jon Shortland -

Our role will be to respond to the statutory consultation(s) on the final proposals put forward by EWR Co, which we now expect to start in June. Until we receive their actual proposals, we cannot determine our own position. However, with regard to your questions 1 – 4, I would respond as follows:

1. We do not currently anticipate that the southern bridge (Ford End Road) will need to be altered, based on the route put forward by EWR in their Route Update Announcement. The northern (Bromham Road) bridge will not need any further works unless EWR insist on six tracks through the Poets area. As you know, we oppose this and believe that four tracks can do the job.
2. EWR Co are proposing that the stabling capacity currently available in the Jowett Sidings is relocated to the area currently occupied by the breakers’ yard between the Cauldwell Sidings and the MML slow lines. This will involve trains running north into Bedford Midland at the start of service, but this would actually be less of a shunting move than they undertake from Jowett now.
3. EWR Co have not yet produced their final car parking solution for Bedford Midland, but I understand that they agree with you and are seeking to provide more spaces than are currently available.
4. The creation of a “Tamworth-style” station at the Wixams does not appear possible now that the land to the north of the station has the B&M warehouse in situ plus planning permission having been granted for a similar facility for Aldi. The current BFARe proposal runs further north than the site of the proposed Wixams station on the MML.

I am happy that Ford end road bridge is fit for purpose, looking at it the angle seems a bit off for 2 tracks but it does seem like it could work. If Bromham road bridge goes to 6 tracks it will mean a very steep incline for cyclists on the road bridge and the previous build did not provision for cyclists at all, even though it was lobbied.

Jowitt sidings being replaced by Cauldwell depot for at least 2 12 car trains is probably the best solution with whats currently possible. Makes you wonder why its not being done now if its a better solution and still requires the driver change ends 2 times and its much further away on a busier line.

The car park solution is a bit of a conundrum as well. If you look at this picture from the 1970's-1980's there is much fewer car park spaces due to the extra tracks. Everything in the left hand side of this picture directly looking forward is now car parking - It should be noted however that if 6 tracks are built they will align somewhere in the middle of the picture as the tracks are shifted to the right these days through the signal box.


Today, the same perspective shows me that about 3 rows of parking will be eaten by the extra 2 tracks.


As for Q4, it is worrying that Wixams station will be boxed in by the time its built. Leaving no room for expansion going forward if the requirement is there for it. Also will be surrounded by warehouses with planning permission already given for Aldi.
It is amazing that a car auction is across the road from the proposed Wixams site, already a super huge car park in its own right, right next to the MML. There is room there for 1000's of cars.


Just so forum members are aware, this is what I believe is that station site in the upper yellow, and the Car auction site in the lower yellow - (Aldi isn't on the map yet, not sure where thats going).


Obviously Wixams isn't on EWR, but the new park demands a bit of joined up thinking with 1 mile separating the 2 lines at the closest point, with the park being right in the middle.

 

[Poets Lad]

First time poster, long time reader.

Regarding a Bfare routing or variation south through Wixams, they now have an extra hinderance (Apart from Elstow, or Aldi in Wixams, etc) in that the land Universal has just bought sits between MML and the MVL, so to go south of Bedford you need to cross this land.

Universal helps with the use case for EWR but practically rules out the southern routes.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Forget Bedford. I say that EWR should run from Ridgemont to Letchworth, crossing the MML between Ampthill and Flitwick. 15 miles as the crow flies. Add a third platform at Letchworth to allow 2-4 tph Thameslink trains to terminate without conflicts to release capacity on the line from Hitchin to Cambridge South (and with skip stopping at the minor stations or additional passing loops if necessary).

Have you looked at a map between Ampthill and Flitwick? They are essentially one town now, with only a (busy) roundabout separating them. There is nowhere, other than underground, to put a railway without causing mass destruction of homes and businesses.

 

[Nottingham59]

Have you looked at a map between Ampthill and Flitwick? They are essentially one town now, with only a (busy) roundabout separating them. There is nowhere, other than underground, to put a railway without causing mass destruction of homes and businesses.

Unless Google Maps is out of date, there seems to be a 200m wide gap between the built up areas. Plenty of space to run a modern concrete beam viaduct with trough sections to act as sound barriers.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Where is this 200m gap?

 

[Nottingham59]

Where is this 200m gap?

this is one route where you could put the viaduct, using spans of 32m (and one of 24m). These are the standard lengths used on China's high speed lines.



EDIT: So you might have to relocate a brand new Aldi, built since the satellite image was taken. No great loss, in the grand scheme of things.

 

[flitwickbeds]

We waited 5 years for the flipping Aldi to be built. We won't give it up that easily!

The fields where your line ends on the right/east is also a football training centre. Pretty sure viaduct legs won't work positioned in the middle of a football pitch!

EDIT - also slightly out of your screenshot to the west, but on track with your proposed line, is a new crematorium and memorial garden being built off Fordfield Road.

EDIT 2 - You said this was "one" route. What are the other(s)?

 

[Magdalia]

Unless Google Maps is out of date, there seems to be a 200m wide gap between the built up areas. Plenty of space to run a modern concrete beam viaduct with trough sections to act as sound barriers.

The trouble with google maps is that it only shows 2 dimensions when you need to think in 3.

In particular pay attention to the fact that the WCML, the MML and the old Bedford-Hitchin line all pass through the Greensand ridge in tunnels.

The northern face of the ridge is steep, as anyone who has been to Ampthill Park will know.

Next time you travel on the train to London, take a look out of the window between Bedford and Flitwick.

 

[Nottingham59]

The trouble with google maps is that it only shows 2 dimensions when you need to think in 3.

In particular pay attention to the fact that the WCML, the MML and the old Bedford-Hitchin line all pass through the Greensand ridge in tunnels.

The northern face of the ridge is steep, as anyone who has been to Ampthill Park will know.

Next time you travel on the train to London, take a look out of the window between Bedford and Flitwick.

So? You avoid the steep northern escarpment if you head over towards Ridgmont. The line will need a cutting, where the A507 label is, to get under the road anyway.

If the line crosses the MML 10m above grade (i.e. 75m ASL), and crosses the A507 10m below grade (95m ASL), then it needs to climb 20m in around 4km, at 1/200.
Image from https://en-gb.topographic-map.com/map-kb57/England/

EDIT:
Here's another possible route, this time on 40m spans, with minimal disturbance to existing properties. You'd have to move a couple of football pitches, but that's not much more than buying the next field, mowing and rolling the grass and painting white lines.

 

[Magdalia]

The Levelling Up Department made a new announcement about Cambridge on 26 March, which is here:

Cambridge Delivery Group: Establishing a Growth Company

www.gov.uk

Cambridge Delivery Group: Establishing a Growth Company​

Published 26 March 2024

The document includes this in paragraph 4:

• Leading development: through large scale land assembly, major infrastructure projects, and ensuring maximum recovery including through planning contributions.

And this in paragraph 6:

The operation of the Growth Company will continue to be underpinned by cross-department governance which brings together relevant departments to consider key issues, including maximising the benefits of East-West Rail.

This follows on from the "Case for Cambridge" document published as part of the budget earlier this month.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65f1d8edff11704896615973/The_Case_for_Cambridge_March_2024.pdf

The Case for Cambridge March 2024

Which said this on page 30:

Deliver East West Rail, radically improving connectivity to other innovation and economic centres in Bedford, Milton Keynes and Oxford, and making sure we bring the full benefits of this new line to the city of Cambridge.