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

[Class 170101]

However there's actually quite a lot of flexibility, as EWR could take power from the WCML, MML and ECML where they meet, and extra feeders could be built alongside those main lines instead (or perhaps the existing ones could be upgraded). Slightly more awkward if EWR remains separate from NR, but it ought to be possible to include some kind of meter at the connections so NR can charge EWR for what they use.

GOB was wired this way and if it is possible draw feeds from GWML, WCML, MML and ECML then thats all to the good but I would have thought the distances between each of them might be too great and it may also require substation renewal of existing sites to boost supply as more trains will need to be covered from existing sites. It should be noted that the GOB wiring I believe only allows two electric locomotives to operate at any one time due to no independent supply on the line.

Metering is used on many trains now especially newer ones so as to allocate costs more accurately.

 

[edwin_m]

GOB was wired this way and if it is possible draw feeds from GWML, WCML, MML and ECML then thats all to the good but I would have thought the distances between each of them might be too great and it may also require substation renewal of existing sites to boost supply as more trains will need to be covered from existing sites. It should be noted that the GOB wiring I believe only allows two electric locomotives to operate at any one time due to no independent supply on the line.

Metering is used on many trains now especially newer ones so as to allocate costs more accurately.

The distance between feeds on the AC system is typically in the tens of miles and can be increased further by adopting an autotransformer system. So there's quite a lot of flexibility especially if EWR is treated as part of the wider network electrically speaking - it's possible the previous feeder sites where chosen on the assumption it would be self-contained.

Agreed trains often now measure their own consumption but the existing meters wouldn't be able to work out how much of that power they were buying from NR and how much from EWR on a journey such as Oxford to MK which uses both. Hence the need for a meter to count how much energy is being "sold" from NR to EWR.

 

[InTheEastMids]

However there's actually quite a lot of flexibility, as EWR could take power from the WCML, MML and ECML where they meet, and extra feeders could be built alongside those main lines instead (or perhaps the existing ones could be upgraded). Slightly more awkward if EWR remains separate from NR, but it ought to be possible to include some kind of meter at the connections so NR can charge EWR for what they use.

I have a theory.
EWR Western Phase 2 is supposed to open in 2024. They want diesel trains for 4-6 years.
Perhaps the basic idea is to use existing or other planned grid connections.
Assuming Oxford is wired by 2024 (big assumption), could you feed the whole of EWR Western section, including down to Aylesbury from GW, MML and WCML grid connections?

HS2 Phase 1 is due to open sometime around 2029.
Perhaps the intention is to electrify EWR from Oxford to Bedford in the late 2020s, with a section between Bicester and Bletchley being fed from HS2 infrastructure.
I think there will be 400/25 kV grid substation North-West of Quainton, alongside the EWR/HS2 alignment.
Perhaps the HS2 substation is the enabler for EWR electrification.

 

[Mikey C]

Surely within that time period there will also be plans for some form of Chiltern electrification too? It would be bizarre to have electric trains running from Bicester to Bedford, but not on the far busier lines into Marylebone (and indeed Snow Hill) where the pressure to remove diesel trains (for air quality reasons) will be greatest?

 

[yorkie]

Can we please keep this discussion on the subject of East-West Rail: Progress and updates; if anyone wishes to discuss something else (such as proposals to electrify other routes, or to discuss ideas for what trains could be used or any other topic), please use a different thread in the appropriate forum section, thanks.

The forum has plenty of capacity for new threads; there is no need to cram loads of topics into one unwieldy mega thread

I have moved some posts into East West Rail goes shopping for trains? What are your thoughts/predictions? and some others into The case for electrifying the Chiltern mainline

 

[railfan100]

Seriously only a few countries could close a route and then only a fairly short number of decades later there is a frantic effort to open it again!!! Wake up people something is seriously wrong here, also when the 'new' route is opened it will not be as a new line is expected in many other countries (electrification) it will be operated by 3-car DMU vehicles it seems. Really only the most conditioned mind would not question deeper as to what really has gone wrong.

 

[swt_passenger]

Seriously only a few countries could close a route and then only a fairly short number of decades later there is a frantic effort to open it again!!! Wake up people something is seriously wrong here, also when the 'new' route is opened it will not be as a new line is expected in many other countries (electrification) it will be operated by 3-car DMU vehicles it seems. Really only the most conditioned mind would not question deeper as to what really has gone wrong.

Er, people have been questioning it here for nearly 6 years and 125 pages now...

 

[D365]

Seriously only a few countries could close a route and then only a fairly short number of decades later there is a frantic effort to open it again!!! Wake up people something is seriously wrong here, also when the 'new' route is opened it will not be as a new line is expected in many other countries (electrification) it will be operated by 3-car DMU vehicles it seems. Really only the most conditioned mind would not question deeper as to what really has gone wrong.

Whilst normally I would not be inclined to disagree, I'd question your choice of wording in this one...

 

[RT4038]

Seriously only a few countries could close a route and then only a fairly short number of decades later there is a frantic effort to open it again!!! Wake up people something is seriously wrong here, also when the 'new' route is opened it will not be as a new line is expected in many other countries (electrification) it will be operated by 3-car DMU vehicles it seems. Really only the most conditioned mind would not question deeper as to what really has gone wrong.

It is not a 'fairly short number of decades'. It is at least 5 and probably 6 by the time the Bedford-Cambridge section is up and running. 60 years is quite a long time - plenty will have changed between 1967 and 2027, as it did the 60 years preceding closure between 1907 and 1967! Re-opening of old lines is not totally unheard of in other countries too, when circumstances change that much.

I would not automatically expect a new (or rebuilt) line to be electrified, nor would they in many other countries. Horses for courses as usual.
There is nothing seriously wrong.

 

[Tobbes]

It is not a 'fairly short number of decades'. It is at least 5 and probably 6 by the time the Bedford-Cambridge section is up and running. 60 years is quite a long time - plenty will have changed between 1967 and 2027, as it did the 60 years preceding closure between 1907 and 1967! Re-opening of old lines is not totally unheard of in other countries too, when circumstances change that much.

I would not automatically expect a new (or rebuilt) line to be electrified, nor would they in many other countries. Horses for courses as usual.
There is nothing seriously wrong.

I would not expect *any* reopening to be electrified, but this one is expected to carry signficant traffic, and will be electrified at both ends (assuming Oxford gets done soon), creating an unnecessary diesel island. Given the air quality issues in London alone, I expect Chiltern will be electrified in the late 2020s/early 2030s, making it even odder that EWR will sit un-electrified. Much better, surely, for it to be electrified from the beginning.

 

[si404]

This diesel 'island' of course is part of a massive diesel continent. And those unelectrified tracks are where the services will spend more time off the new track.

The whole thing will be built for easy electrification in the future, but the line will only be built if it's built without wires. It'll get wired up when the other line through Bicester is done and not before.

Demanding bells and whistles and project scope creep are the way to stop the progress that has been made. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

 

[Tobbes]

This diesel 'island' of course is part of a massive diesel continent. And those unelectrified tracks are where the services will spend more time off the new track.

The whole thing will be built for easy electrification in the future, but the line will only be built if it's built without wires. It'll get wired up when the other line through Bicester is done and not before.

Demanding bells and whistles and project scope creep are the way to stop the progress that has been made. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I don't doubt that the perfect can be the enemy of the good, but merely in this case how long will the gap be between EWR opening throughout (2027/28?) and Chiltern mainline being wired? If the gap is small, I struggle to see why you wouldn't electrify the railway before it becomes operational (I presume it is cheaper to do that than operate around a live railway!).

 

[si404]

Bicester - Bletchley is due to open 2023 unless things have recently changed. We might have Chiltern electrification plans published by then, but we'd never have them finalised and approved before E-W Rail is open.

If the timeframe was the much longer one you are working with then it might be a possibility that electrification would happen so soon after opening.

 

[Tobbes]

Bicester - Bletchley is due to open 2023 unless things have recently changed. We might have Chiltern electrification plans published by then, but we'd never have them finalised and approved before E-W Rail is open.

If the timeframe was the much longer one you are working with then it might be a possibility that electrification would happen so soon after opening.

Fair enough, I was think Oxford - Cambridge throughout (2027/28, optimistically), in which case it would seem a bit odd if Oxford electrification and the Chiltern electrification are done/well on the way not to wire up EWR throughout at that point.

 

[RT4038]

Fair enough, I was think Oxford - Cambridge throughout (2027/28, optimistically), in which case it would seem a bit odd if Oxford electrification and the Chiltern electrification are done/well on the way not to wire up EWR throughout at that point.

Why is it odd? Even with Oxford electrification and Chiltern electrification, there will be diesel services to Oxford (from Worcester and Leamington), and Cambridge (from Ipswich, Norwich and Peterborough). Diesel services on secondary routes (which EW rail will be) in between electric trunk services are not uncommon in many other countries too. I agree with post #3731 - bells and whistles may increase the costs to the extent of making the initial scheme seem too expensive. The political game has to be played.

 

[railfan100]

Why is it odd? I agree with post #3731 - bells and whistles may increase the costs to the extent of making the initial scheme seem too expensive. The political game has to be played.

Since when has electrification in 2020 been 'bells and whistles' I know the UK is a country in which a platform might cost a number of million due to an exaggerated cost base., all whilst the former BR would do it for a fraction of such cost. An electrified line is not something special, especially in a country that closed this line and now considers it 'urgent' to open and repair the damage that is self inflicted...

 

[Brissle Girl]

I'd much rather the line is built now and electrified later than not built at all. I agree it's very regretful that electrification was dropped, but I gather that the project will future proof electrification, so much less disruption with bridge rebuilds etc.

 

[RT4038]

I know the UK is a country in which a platform might cost a number of million due to an exaggerated cost base., all whilst the former BR would do it for a fraction of such cost. An electrified line is not something special, especially in a country that closed this line and now considers it 'urgent' to open and repair the damage that is self inflicted...

With so many main lines needing electrification, this secondary route is not a priority. The line was closed, in a completely different era to now, because so few passengers used it. Sixty years is a long, long time for things to change. Electrification in itself is not special, but the costs are. The former BR was electrifying lines in a different era of construction and safety standards, incomparable to now.

 

[railfan100]

Electrification in itself is not special, but the costs are. The former BR was electrifying lines in a different era of construction and safety standards, incomparable to now.

Considering BR in the cash limited 80's (when rail was low priority) managed to electrify the ECML in full what is differing now except the exaggerated cost base and inefficient system we have? The current system seems to quote 7 figures to build a concrete platform, I can only come to the term 'cognitive dissonance' when I think why people would expect this line to be diesel in 2030 which may well be the year it opens for passenger business, quite incredible really....

 

[si404]

since when has electrification in 2020 been 'bells and whistles'

Since whenever they started looking at schemes in 2020? You can't go 'since when' and then specify this year - it doesn't make sense and makes it clear you are making a point based more on rant than reason.

Since when has electrification of new build been the default, rather than an extra expense only done if there were very specific reasons?

 

[RT4038]

Considering BR in the cash limited 80's (when rail was low priority) managed to electrify the ECML in full what is differing now except the exaggerated cost base and inefficient system we have? The current system seems to quote 7 figures to build a concrete platform, I can only come to the term 'cognitive dissonance' when I think why people would expect this line to be diesel in 2030 which may well be the year it opens for passenger business, quite incredible really....

Except BR electrified the ECML on the cheap - the wires have kept falling down ever since, and the northern part of the route has power supply constraints. Construction standards were less onerous then, as was the Health & Safety regime; the tightening up of these apparently all for the greater good, and not necessarily at the behest of the rail industry. The same goes for your concrete platform, and if you want two opposite each other there will likely be a lift for disabled access to add to your bill. Sorry, but you live in 2020 in a First World country, not some time in the past of distant memory.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Except BR electrified the ECML on the cheap - the wires have kept falling down ever since, and the northern part of the route has power supply constraints. Construction standards were less onerous then, as was the Health & Safety regime; the tightening up of these apparently all for the greater good, and not necessarily at the behest of the rail industry. The same goes for your concrete platform, and if you want two opposite each other there will likely be a lift for disabled access to add to your bill. Sorry, but you live in 2020 in a First World country, not some time in the past of distant memory.

Much of that is true, although there is a recognition that one of several problems with the Great Western electrification was the grossly over-engineered specification, which resulted in a large part of the cost overrun. Any discussion of that is for another thread (which I suspect already exists), but those mistakes are unlikely to be made again. (That’s not to say that wouldn’t be different ones of course!)

 

[Tobbes]

Since when has electrification of new build been the default, rather than an extra expense only done if there were very specific reasons?

It's a fair point, but the better question is "since decarbonisation of transport is government policy, why would you build non-electrified lines?"

 

[Roger B]

It's a fair point, but the better question is "since decarbonisation of transport is government policy, why would you build non-electrified lines?"

That is a good question. Others would include:

• What is the most effective way of decarbonising each route? Installing OHLE is a fairly carbon-intensive process - although less-so when considered over its expected lifespan. But other options are becoming increasingly practicable - including battery operation over relatively short distances, especially where traffic is light / less frequent.
• What is the decarbonisation priority of each route - electrification resources: people, equipment, materials, etc are finite. A route's priority should consider not solely the benefits for that route alone, but wider network benefits - eg reducing diesel running 'under the wires' on other parts of the network.

A rolling programme of ongoing electrification, based upon route priorities and utilising standardised components where possible, is surely the best way to move forward. This would support maintaining and further developing and expanding a skilled workforce and would provide confidence for supply chains, all of which would help to manage costs and to avoid some of the horrendous over-runs that have been experienced in the recent past.

 

[Tobbes]

That is a good question. Others would include:

• What is the most effective way of decarbonising each route? Installing OHLE is a fairly carbon-intensive process - although less-so when considered over its expected lifespan. But other options are becoming increasingly practicable - including battery operation over relatively short distances, especially where traffic is light / less frequent.
• What is the decarbonisation priority of each route - electrification resources: people, equipment, materials, etc are finite. A route's priority should consider not solely the benefits for that route alone, but wider network benefits - eg reducing diesel running 'under the wires' on other parts of the network.

A rolling programme of ongoing electrification, based upon route priorities and utilising standardised components where possible, is surely the best way to move forward. This would support maintaining and further developing and expanding a skilled workforce and would provide confidence for supply chains, all of which would help to manage costs and to avoid some of the horrendous over-runs that have been experienced in the recent past.

I agree with all of that @RogerB, and I'm perfectly happy with the rolling programme. One thing that strikes me about EWR is what kind of route will it ultimately be: it is being marketed as a regional connectivity proposal (hence three-car DMUs) but I expect (& I can't quantify it) that what we will end up with is a considerably more important route than that with some unexpected flows (NB, not necessarily direct services) eg East Anglia-MKC; Cambridge-Liverpool/NW England/West of Scotland via Bletchley; similarly, I expect the Oxford-MKC service to be a winner. Hunches nonetheless, but it will be fascinating to see how it develops.

 

[Ianno87]

It's a fair point, but the better question is "since decarbonisation of transport is government policy, why would you build non-electrified lines?"

A DMU replacing an equivalemt number of road vehicles would still be net decarbonisation.

 

[BrianW]

Re Tobbes: One thing that strikes me about EWR is what kind of route will it ultimately be
Was it thought it might provide a route to and from significant container ports like Southampton and Felixstowe to connect with just about all the main lines radiating from London to 'the North'? To be built to whatever that Loading Gauge is, and with bridges high enough for 25Kv 'safety'?
Also thereby facilitating diversion opportunities for trains to/from London from 'the North'?
And finally (for now!) having lived in Oxford, I never understood why anyone would want to travel from there to 'the other (light blue) place' (aka Cambridge). A guy had plans for an air service from Oxford (London) Airport- it never took off (haha)- no demand.

 

[Ianno87]

Re Tobbes: One thing that strikes me about EWR is what kind of route will it ultimately be
Was it thought it might provide a route to and from significant container ports like Southampton and Felixstowe to connect with just about all the main lines radiating from London to 'the North'? To be built to whatever that Loading Gauge is, and with bridges high enough for 25Kv 'safety'?
Also thereby facilitating diversion opportunities for trains to/from London from 'the North'?
And finally (for now!) having lived in Oxford, I never understood why anyone would want to travel from there to 'the other (light blue) place' (aka Cambridge). A guy had plans for an air service from Oxford (London) Airport- it never took off (haha)- no demand.

That air service was total pie in the sky - basically some kid with ambitions as big as his opinion of himself.

The lack of demand between Oxford and Cambridge is largely down to the poor / faffy journey time currently on offer. And EWR is just as much about connecting other places to Oxford/Cambridge for commuting opportunities.

 

[BrianW]

EWR is just as much about connecting other places to Oxford/Cambridge for commuting opportunities.

I agree with that too, in that I think that's part of the thinking, the MP for Banbury (including Bicester), who opposed HS2 and I think still does despite being a DEFRA Minister now, said on her website:

The ‘Cambridge- Milton Keynes – Oxford Corridor’ is an area hosting some of the most productive, successful and fast growing cities within the United Kingdom, largely due to its world leading universities, high tech firms and highly skilled work force. The National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) were recently asked to provide the Government with proposals as to how to maximise the corridor’s continued economic growth, alongside securing its homes, jobs and environment.


The Corridor comprises of two key infrastructure developments- a road and a railway- both of which will run close to or through some of Victoria's constituency. She has been working closely with local authorities and partners at East-West Rail, Network Rail and Highways England to secure the best deal for her constituents.

I would imagine though that quite a lot of those potential commuters could do a lot of 'working from home', if indeed the houses are built despite the 'NIMBY' opposition.

Interesting times ahead I think for any proposed development- could see return of Austerity or investment. Not sure whether E-W qualifies as 'levelling up'.

 

[railfan100]

Except BR electrified the ECML on the cheap - the wires have kept falling down ever since, a The same goes for your concrete platform, and if you want two opposite each other there will likely be a lift for disabled access to add to your bill. Sorry, but you live in 2020 in a First World country, not some time in the past of distant memory.

Whilst the ECML wires do come down at times, this same 'cheap electrification' seems to be holding up reasonably well, also the early 1950's Picc to Hadfield catenary seems to be original in most sections so BR cannot have been that bad at electrification. We also taking about the same 'First World Country' that has worn out 35 year Class 150 units running around the North, some with significant body repairs.

It is incredible that despite the current inflated cost base of the UK rail network with many middle men taking their cut that more people are not complaining that DMU's will operate the route. Looking at the map and developments around the route can see many people taking this service at peaks times, people will drive to the new stations at St Neots\Tempsford and Cambourne and take the train to the Biomedical station at Cambridge South, has anyone tried to drive here from the West it is a painful route. The lack of strategic transport planning is quite incredible, everything seems short term.....