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

[richieb1971]

It was my first 2014 upload so probably Feb 2014.

- 7:10 in you can see it at Bedford heading for the branch. I then drove to Old Linslade near Leighton Buzzard and saw it on the bridge.

 

[Andyjs247]

With all the discussion about Newton Longville loops no longer being required, I was wondering if there will still be the facility to loop something at Claydon once the HS2 depot is constructed? And if it is possible to reverse there eg to go from Bicester towards Aylesbury without blocking the main running lines.

Apologies if this has already been answered but I can’t find the detail from the latest EWR2 consultation. Thinking about it I think it may all have been included with the HS2 plans.

 

[wildcard]

• Immediately after that pedestrian tunnel a Tesco store has been built very close to the embankment

• I doubt the embankment at this point could accommodate another track, although Fenny Stratford did have two platforms in the past, so it must have done so in the past.

• I doubt a line could be drawn from the buffer stops on the Saxon Street Bridge to Fenny without passing into Tesco.

Google does show a derelict line of track running under the trees between the flyover line and the MK line as it passes Tesco - so I guess it could be squeezed in without having to address the section of embankment taken by the store . The bridge over Denbigh Way would probably need widening. At the time of the Google fly past the bite out of the embankment appears to be occupied by a waste skip and general Tesco rubbish - so perhaps its not essential for their operations . Could steel piling or a vertical concrete wall support rails close to the edge past the store ?

 

[DarloRich]

Google does show a derelict line of track running under the trees between the flyover line and the MK line as it passes Tesco - so I guess it could be squeezed in without having to address the section of embankment taken by the store

It shows piles of discarded track panels at a very funny angle not another line.

The bridge over Denbigh Way would probably need widening

The Saxon Street bridge is double track width. The pedestrian tunnel would need covering over.

At the time of the Google fly past the bite out of the embankment appears to be occupied by a waste skip and general Tesco rubbish - so perhaps its not essential for their operations . Could steel piling or a vertical concrete wall support rails close to the edge past the store ?

it is the issue with the width of the embankment at that point where the skip is. I do not think it is wide enough to take two tracks perhaps becuase it has been "nibbled" at some point. At the point described the embankment is at a very steep angle and the track seems close to the edge. That isnt to say work couldn't be done to accommodate two tracks just that it would be hard and expensive. There has obliviously been two tracks there in the distant past. There would also need to be track layout changes on the Bletchley side of the Saxon Street Bridge.

TO finish the picture: The Watling Street bridge is a double track width, the station "box" at Fenny could take two platforms (just) but might need some creativity and the level crossing would need to be replaced. As i said i am also concerned about the width of the embankment between the Grand Union and A5 bridges

 

[work-traveller]

With all the discussion about Newton Longville loops no longer being required, I was wondering if there will still be the facility to loop something at Claydon once the HS2 depot is constructed? And if it is possible to reverse there eg to go from Bicester towards Aylesbury without blocking the main running lines.
Apologies if this has already been answered but I can’t find the detail from the latest EWR2 consultation. Thinking about it I think it may all have been included with the HS2 plans.

Yes - 775m long loop, mainly expected to be for a) taking freight in/out of FCC's facility at Calvert, b) freight regulation on OXD and c) freight reception to the HS2 IMD.

 

[The Planner]

Doubt it will be used for A as thats moving and will have its own reception roads and access from the north and south.

 

[work-traveller]

Doubt it will be used for A as thats moving and will have its own reception roads and access from the north and south.

I was thinking of the case for freight to/from the Bicester direction, which would need to do this. Freight to/from Bletchley or Aylesbury would have more than adequate facilities via the new Greatmoor Sidings.

 

[snowball]

According to the April Modern Railways page 9, Rob Brighouse, Chairman of E-W Rail Co, has suggested using a new alignment between MK and Bedford instead of the existing Bedford-Bletchley line!

 

[TheDavibob]

According to the April Modern Railways page 9, Rob Brighouse, Chairman of E-W Rail Co, has suggested using a new alignment between MK and Bedford instead of the existing Bedford-Bletchley line!

Running through MK?

 

[mr_jrt]

Return of the Newton Pagnell branch?

...on a serious note though, talk about creating a bottleneck!

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's about the only sensible way you could get such a thing in (most of its route is still there as a cycleway).

 

[A0wen]

That's about the only sensible way you could get such a thing in (most of its route is still there as a cycleway).

No chance - it was only ever a single line in any case, plus there's no obvious route through Newport Pagnell nowadays.

I imagine they're looking at the alignment of the Marston Vale line in which case branching off that in the Woburn Sands / Aspley Guise area and heading due north east could give you a fast, straight line to Bedford it would also give a path away from the Marston Vale stoppers - where you'd hook up to the MML / continue to Sandy is the next question though.

I suppose the other option would be to suggest the reopening of the Northampton - Bedford line (yes I am joking), but I fully expect some eejit to appear shortly to expound how that would be a brilliant idea - disregarding the fact it would make EWR trains have both a massive detour and slower journey time.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I suppose the other option would be to suggest the reopening of the Northampton - Bedford line (yes I am joking), but I fully expect some eejit to appear shortly to expound how that would be a brilliant idea - disregarding the fact it would make EWR trains have both a massive detour and slower journey time.

Is that route still intact?

 

[Doctor Fegg]

Reasonably unobstructed I think, though you'd need to bridge the roundabout at the north end of Olney.

(But, no.)

 

[A0wen]

Reasonably unobstructed I think, though you'd need to bridge the roundabout at the north end of Olney.

(But, no.)

Erm - not sure it's as free as you think.

A few issues:

Northampton council wants a bit of the track bed for a new road to link Becketts Park / Midsummer Avenue - the area where Avon etc are - with Cotton End.

The route was through what is now Brackmills Industrial Estate - good luck with reinstating the level crossings that would need.

Olney - as you mention.

You can add in that to do MK - Bedford via Northampton would take at least an hour - current MK - Northampton is c 20 mins, the best times on the old Northampton - Bedford line was about 50 mins.

 

[D365]

I attended an EWR talk recently where they discussed the planned route for “Phase 2”, nowhere did they discuss any kind of consideration a new line between MK and Bedford. In fact they were positively enthused about the Bletchley flyover.

 

[Andyjs247]

Bletchley Flyover gets you on to the WCML slows but the problem has always been how to serve MK Central without a reversal. I think there is potential for a new line through Milton Keynes itself. The planners left space for dual carriageways but not all the grid roads are dualled - the H4 Dansteed Way for example. I don’t know the area well enough but it seems there is space through the built up area to put in a new railway alignment from the WCML slows north of MKC which then heads off to the east towards Bedford - if there is the will. Big “if” mind you.

 

[A0wen]

Bletchley Flyover gets you on to the WCML slows but the problem has always been how to serve MK Central without a reversal. I think there is potential for a new line through Milton Keynes itself. The planners left space for dual carriageways but not all the grid roads are dualled - the H4 Dansteed Way for example. I don’t know the area well enough but it seems there is space through the built up area to put in a new railway alignment from the WCML slows north of MKC which then heads off to the east towards Bedford - if there is the will. Big “if” mind you.

Unlike you, I do know MK reasonably well.

There is nowhere you could branch off tge WCML north of the station and work your way out of MK until you reach the Wolverton area - the old Newport branch being the obvious one but that was only ever single line and ends in a housing area in Newport.

Trying to run north of MK - Haversham / Linford is a no no as that's all flood plain and regularly floods from the Ouse.

The only viable option is as I stated i.e. branch off the Marston Vale around Aspley Guise and build a fast straight line to Bedford where there are few things in the way.

Building railways through MK itself isn't viable.

 

[mr_jrt]

Is the curvature bad enough on the MV that a new line would be required? A small laser-targeted intervention around Ridgmont might have helped, but junction 13 of the M1 makes that more complicated, unfortunately. The line from the MV's MML crossing down to Millbrook is really straight as-is though, with gentle curves through Lidlington, so I don't think a new line would wash its face. Perhaps a larger deviation around the north side of Ridgmont/Brogborough could suffice, if required (though it would cost you the stations at Apsley Guise and Ridgmont). That should give a much straighter route, abet I suspect the railway was built where it was for a reason (and I don't have a topographical map to hand!)

 

[edwin_m]

Is the curvature bad enough on the MV that a new line would be required? A small laser-targeted intervention around Ridgemont might have helped, but junction 13 of the M1 makes that more complicated, unfortunately. The line from the MV's MML crossing down to Millbrook is really straight as-is though, with gentle curves through Lidlington, so I don't think a new line would wash its face. Perhaps a larger deviation around the north side of Ridgemont/Brogborough could suffice, if required (though it would cost you the stations at Apsley Guise and Ridgemont). That should give a much straighter route, abet I suspect the railway was built where it was for a reason (and I don't have a topographical map to hand!)

The 1:50000 and 1:25000 Ordnance Survey mapping on Bing is very useful for this kind of discussion!

Having access to contours, the line in the Ridgmont area looks to be hugging the lower slopes of the high ground. Going further south into the hills would mean more earthworks and further north may have been a marshy valley bottom at the time the line was built.

Going north of Brogborough looks unlikely, as unless it was a very long diversion the curves would be just as tight as on the existing route, not to mention several major road bridges for the M1 and the roads linking to J13. I guesstimate the existing curve to be about 1200m radius, which should allow about 70mph with appropriate cant, and I can't see avoiding this being worth the huge expense involved.

 

[philjo]

The article in Modern Railways mentioned that the large number of level crossings between Bletchley and Bedford was one of the reasons an alternative route had been suggested as the level crossings have an impact on the line speed.
How feasible would it be to run a route that could serve Cranfield University?
I suspect any alternative route would be linked to supporting any other planned housing development in the area.

 

[mr_jrt]

Some of those level crossings look trivial to close - the one at Ridgmont, in particular. Lidlington looks like a much harder proposition as it would effectively cut the town in half. If the will was there (and the money!) I suspect you could get rid of most of them without much issue.

 

[edwin_m]

Going by OS and aerial maps only, I think Apsley Guise is possibly more tricky than Lidlington but all the others look to have enough space around them for a bridge, although some would require a few hundred metres of new road to go behind nearby buildings. There's probably scope to upgrade these two and get rid of all the others - certainly nowhere near the cost of building a new line!

 

[a good off]

Going by OS and aerial maps only, I think Apsley Guise is possibly more tricky than Lidlington but all the others look to have enough space around them for a bridge, although some would require a few hundred metres of new road to go behind nearby buildings. There's probably scope to upgrade these two and get rid of all the others - certainly nowhere near the cost of building a new line!

The original Bedford to Cambridge section was pretty much devoid of level crossings with liberal use of hump backed bridges.

 

[jimm]

If the Act of Parliament authorising that section said they had to build bridges, that's what they had to do.

The Buckinghamshire Railway must have got an Act through for Bedford-Bletchley without a requirement for bridges, but for whatever reason the Bedford & Cambridge Railway didn't.

And the Board of Trade made sure the companies stuck to their obligations when lines were built.

The Act for the branch line from Kingham to Chipping Norton said there should be bridges where two roads crossed it. The company tried to pull a fast one to save money and put in level crossings. Result - the Board of Trade Inspector refused to authorise use of the line until they built bridges instead.

Two were thrown up in a matter of weeks, with rather short approach embankments either side, creating two of the most hump-blacked bridges around, that are a pain to drive over to this day.

 

[KingDaveRa]

I've recently been pondering, what becomes of the station at Quainton road? I.e., it's part of the Bucks Railway Centre right now, and right on the route, but all the maps and plans mention Winslow to Aylesbury Vale Parkway, and no mention of Quainton. So will the station basically be ignored and the track upgraded, or will they make use of it for the village and railway centre?

 

[swt_passenger]

There’s a bit about Quainton Rd in one of the TWA application documents here:
Section 3.4 page 19, it won’t allow me to copy and paste unfortunately.
https://consultations.networkrail.co.uk/communications/east-west-rail-western-section-phase-2-round-2/supporting_documents/Draft Planning Statement 2 Aylesbury Vale District Council.pdf
Reads as though it will be fenced off and not used.

 

[work-traveller]

New single track through the station, being aligned to the Up platform. Platforms (which are still owned by Network Rail) will be fenced off with something sympathetic. I think there'll also be fencing between the renewed mainline and the BRC sidings to both sides.

 

[A0wen]

New single track through the station, being aligned to the Up platform. Platforms (which are still owned by Network Rail) will be fenced off with something sympathetic. I think there'll also be fencing between the renewed mainline and the BRC sidings to both sides.

The BRC are really being squeezed - EWR on one side and HS2 on the other and sadly I can't see them managing to reinstate either of the lines which would have given them a decent running line i.e. Quainton - Verney Junction or the Brill tramway.

They were really unluckly in that BR never closed Aylesbury - Calvert as that would have given them a ready made line of decent length - which I believe was their original hope.

 

[swt_passenger]

New single track through the station, being aligned to the Up platform. Platforms (which are still owned by Network Rail) will be fenced off with something sympathetic. I think there'll also be fencing between the renewed mainline and the BRC sidings to both sides.

Also includes cutting back the up platform face by 240 mm to improve the condition of the platform face, as it is described in the TWA application.