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

[civ-eng-jim]

That looks quite steep!! Will trains be able to get up that?

It's approximately 1 in 110 and reduces to 1 in 260 in the middle of the new platforms.

 

[Brissle Girl]

The section of the flyover that crosses the West Coast Mainline is being completely demolished and replaced with a simple portal structure, as set out in the (now approved) screening opinion application.

So a 123 page Environmental Impact Assessment report to rebuild part of an existing flyover because it needs repair after 60 years. A good example when faced with the "why does everything cost so much" question that regularly comes up.

 

[cle]

I thought there was only going to be a single platform now?

 

[fgwrich]

That looks quite steep!! Will trains be able to get up that?

It's the same angle as it is now, which means trains have got up it

I suspect perspective is causing it to look steeper.

Indeed, most of the climbing has already been done by that point.

@toby_farman You might be interested in these videos on YouTube showing the flyover area from the cab of a 150. I've started the first one from the Station, although the video itself starts from Fenny Stratford station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What was a 150 doing going round there? A railtour?

 

[Bald Rick]

So a 123 page Environmental Impact Assessment report to rebuild part of an existing flyover because it needs repair after 60 years. A good example when faced with the "why does everything cost so much" question that regularly comes up.

You need that for any development of that size, not just railways!

 

[The Planner]

I thought there was only going to be a single platform now?

Not sure where that one has come from, always been two.

 

[cle]

When there was talk for a high-level platform on the bridge itself, is that line to be singled (and maybe the confusion is that?)

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

When there was talk for a high-level platform on the bridge itself, is that line to be singled (and maybe the confusion is that?)

Always was doubled and was going to be doubled

 

[swt_passenger]

When there was talk for a high-level platform on the bridge itself, is that line to be singled (and maybe the confusion is that?)

There was a discussion in this thread a couple of years ago that became confused between the double track on the flyover route and the remaining single track section towards Bedford. But I haven’t looked for it again. I tend to stick with what I read in published documentation, and I’m sure The Planner is right on this, it’s always been described as a two platform station in anything official...

 

[Bletchleyite]

There was a discussion in this thread a couple of years ago that became confused between the double track on the flyover route and the remaining single track section towards Bedford. But I haven’t looked for it again. I tend to stick with what I read in published documentation, and I’m sure The Planner is right on this, it’s always been described as a two platform station in anything official...

I'm almost certain I saw an official drawing very early on showing a single platform on one trackbed and the track on the other, but it was a long time ago and I might be remembering wrongly.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

I'm almost certain I saw an official drawing very early on showing a single platform on one trackbed and the track on the other, but it was a long time ago and I might be remembering wrongly.

As far as i remember it has always been double track with two platforms.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Definitely two tracks going back in - The double junction with the lines towards Fenny Stratford is being moved about 150-200metres north and the handing of it switched round so the normal route is towards Milton Keynes. At present, the EWR design ties into the twin track towards Fenny Stratford just before it singles at the bridge over Saxon Street. There are no doubt studies happening for twin tracking between both Bletchley Low Level and High Level towards Bedford.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Definitely two tracks going back in - The double junction with the lines towards Fenny Stratford is being moved about 150-200metres north and the handing of it switched round so the normal route is towards Milton Keynes. At present, the EWR design ties into the twin track towards Fenny Stratford just before it singles at the bridge over Saxon Street. There are no doubt studies happening for twin tracking between both Bletchley Low Level and High Level towards Bedford.

The single track bit is only short, to just past Fenny Stratford, so this wouldn't be too costly if they did. That said it would require a second platform at Fenny.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

And a few single-track bridges replaced - Saxon Street, River Ouzel and the A5. (I think some of this is covered in a Marston Vale thread....)

 

[edwin_m]

Definitely two tracks going back in - The double junction with the lines towards Fenny Stratford is being moved about 150-200metres north and the handing of it switched round so the normal route is towards Milton Keynes. At present, the EWR design ties into the twin track towards Fenny Stratford just before it singles at the bridge over Saxon Street. There are no doubt studies happening for twin tracking between both Bletchley Low Level and High Level towards Bedford.

Does this mean that the platforms go where it was previously four tracks and therefore the viaduct doesn't need widening so much?

 

[Ianno87]

What was a 150 doing going round there? A railtour?

I think a route learner during one of the Bletchley blockades back in 2012. The only way on/off Marston Vale was reversing via the flyover as access via the station was not possible.

 

[civ-eng-jim]

Does this mean that the platforms go where it was previously four tracks and therefore the viaduct doesn't need widening so much?

Essentially yes and presumably so the high level platforms are as close to the low level station as possible. In Bletchleylite's post (#3837) with the artist impression, the platform in the foreground relative to the canopy/footbridge link isn't proposed (as far as I can see on the track drawings) but only a ~110m long platform is beyond. At the canopy area, that is the interface between the viaduct and a retained embankment. This is as far north as the high level platforms could go as the viaduct is used as an underpass between platforms 7 and 8.

 

[cle]

Thanks for the responses. Good outcome.

Will the platform 7 face be used for anything? Assuming that a Marston service continues as is (vs a reversal to MKC), it'd still only need one. More WCML inners?

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

Thanks for the responses. Good outcome.

Will the platform 7 face be used for anything? Assuming that a Marston service continues as is (vs a reversal to MKC), it'd still only need one. More WCML inners?

what do you mean? Marston vale services will run to the existing platforms as at present. Platform 7 and 8 will be used for the New EWR services

 

[swt_passenger]

If you follow my suggestions as to how to find the TWA application drawings of the Bletchley high level layout (in post 3797), it can be seen on Page 46 of the pdf that the that the majority of the platform length is within the gradually widening embankment for the existing junction position. There are then ramps and refuge areas extending northwards.

However a “cheap and cheerful” summary is that the north end of the platforms is almost exactly alongside the SE corner of the CEMEX factory building that’s clearly shown on Google‘s satellite view.

 

[47500]

That looks quite steep!! Will trains be able to get up that?

Well BR Std 9F's managed it with heavy Iron Ore Trains.

 

[Bletchleyite]

what do you mean? Marston vale services will run to the existing platforms as at present. Platform 7 and 8 will be used for the New EWR services

The artist's impression shows a "platform 7" on the presently disused side of the present platform 6 island (making the flyover 8 and 9). May well be just an artist's error though.

 

[swt_passenger]

The artist's impression shows a "platform 7" on the presently disused side of the present platform 6 island (making the flyover 8 and 9). May well be just an artist's error though.

Well, I’d definitely go with error, because the proper engineering drawings clearly use 7 and 8 for the new platform numbers...

 

[cle]

Yes that’s what I was referencing.

 

[DarloRich]

What was a 150 doing going round there? A railtour?

Is it footage off the 950?

 

[swt_passenger]

What was a 150 doing going round there? A railtour?

Is it footage off the 950?

There seems to be three separate videos of the various moves and part 3 of 3 includes shots of the units taken from the ballast with a 153 at the south end of a mixed train. (153 + 150 I expect?)
According to a comment on that video it was a positioning move to get the units onto the Marston Vale Line during resignalling that meant the normal route wasn’t available.

 

[DarloRich]

And a few single-track bridges replaced - Saxon Street, River Ouzel and the A5. (I think some of this is covered in a Marston Vale thread....)

IF the section from Bletchley / Fenny to Bow Brickhill is to be doubled tracked the Saxon Street & A5 bridges need replacing. The old stone bridge over the Ouzel is a double width bridge as is the canal bridge. Are these up to modern standards is the question!

 

[Bletchleyite]

IF the section from Bletchley / Fenny to Bow Brickhill is to be doubled tracked the Saxon Street & A5 bridges need replacing. The old stone bridge over the Ouzel is a double width bridge as is the canal bridge. Are these up to modern standards is the question!

OK, so a bit more expensive than I thought!

Don't know if it's needed, anyway. We're only talking adding one more TPH each way to that section - there must be loads of lines like that with one fast and one slow per hour that manage perfectly fine.

 

[swt_passenger]

OK, so a bit more expensive than I thought!

Don't know if it's needed, anyway. We're only talking adding one more TPH each way to that section - there must be loads of lines like that with one fast and one slow per hour that manage perfectly fine.

And it’s been confirmed many times that no redoubling of that section is intended. We’re getting into speculation territory here...