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

[Bald Rick]

There are stone wagons, including side tippers. There are road/rail diggers and Land Rovers. There are well wagons for diggers and JCB's that can take them to each site, where they can trundle along the second trackbed doing their work. Lorries can use the trackbed in between level crossings and be carried by train as well. Lay the second track from the existing one, like singling a line but in reverse. There are ways around 'problems' if they want there to be.

Indeed.

But how do you build the track bed if there is no railway nearby?

 

[Pigeon]

From the ends.

And between Bicester and Bletchley, there already is a railway. That's what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. To be sure things would be a lot easier if they hadn't left it to rot for so long that people began stealing the track, but that just makes things even more ridiculous.

How did the Victorians manage it? - they got on with it, instead of messing around for decades holding studies about whether to have a consultation about whether to establish a focus group to look into hiring a consultant to hire some more consultants to produce a report on the potential ecological and social impact if one of the horses hauling construction traffic should happen to drop one outside Ada Bloggs's front gate.

 

[jimm]

Wouldn’t it be more useful to present their case at the TWA inquiry?

Stopping a huge railway project on the basis of a year of heavy and light load traffic coming and going seems a weak argument.

I would have thought most of the load can be carried by train.

Where exactly do the councils say they want to stop the project?

Here is the relevant section of the county council agenda for next Tuesday.

Perhaps people might care to read this, which sets out clearly what the council's members are being recommended to do, such as raising these issues at the TWAO inquiry - or not, if they receive reassurances in the meantime that satisfy them, rather than relying on an inevitably sketchy news report.

12.

East West Rail Link PDF 181 KB

Report by Director for Planning and Place (CC12).

East West Rail, linking Oxford to Cambridge and beyond, has been supported by Oxfordshire over the course of its development since 1995. The Council is a Stakeholder and agreed financial contributor to the project. Strategically, the case and need for East West Rail has never been more important, as it is an essential infrastructure element of the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge corridor as well as supporting the wider growth and connectivity agenda in Oxfordshire and across England’s Economic Heartland.

A Transport and Worls Act Order has now been submitted for phase 2 of the Western section, between Oxford and Bedford, which requires the approval of the Secretary of State. A Public Inquiry into the scheme due to be held in February/March 2019.

Whilst the County Council is a strategic supporter of the project and the benefits it would bring, there are significant concerns about some aspects of the proposals as set out in the Transport & Works Act, and it is proposed that the Council objects to these aspects of the scheme at the Public Inquiry. Objection at a Transport & Works Act Inquiry by the Council, as a Statutory Body, requires approval by Full Council under the terms of the Transport & Works Act regulations. The purpose of this report is to seek that approval.

COUNCIL is RECOMMENDED to:

(a) confirm its position as objecting to the Transport and Works Act Order on Highways / Transport and Ecology Grounds, on the basis of the points set out in Annex 2 to this report; and

(b) with agreement from the Cabinet Member for the Environment, authorise officers to withdraw either or both areas of objection on the basis of satisfactory further information or updated proposals submitted by the East West Rail Alliance in response to these objections and to conclude such legal agreement(s) with Network Rail as they consider necessary to protect the County Council’s interests.

Additional documents:

• CC_DEC1118R04 - East West Rail Link - Annex 1 , item 12. PDF 217 KB
• CC_DEC1118R05 - East West Rail Link - Annex 2 , item 12. PDF 241 KB

http://mycouncil.oxfordshire.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=116&MId=5423

From the ends.

And between Bicester and Bletchley, there already is a railway. That's what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. To be sure things would be a lot easier if they hadn't left it to rot for so long that people began stealing the track, but that just makes things even more ridiculous.

How did the Victorians manage it? - they got on with it, instead of messing around for decades holding studies about whether to have a consultation about whether to establish a focus group to look into hiring a consultant to hire some more consultants to produce a report on the potential ecological and social impact if one of the horses hauling construction traffic should happen to drop one outside Ada Bloggs's front gate.

And naturally you would be demanding 'they' should just get on with it if such a project involved sending heavy traffic down a narrow lane outside your house, would you?

You do realise that in several cases where 'there already is a railway' not very far from the Bicester-Bletchley line, that major remedial work on the formation of the existing fully operational railway lines was needed in order to improve them, do you?

Such as for the redoubling of Oxford-Bicester and the ongoing battle to keep the embankments between Bicester and Princes Risborough fit for 100mph running, even after extensive remedial work for the redoubling there, and the redoubling of parts of the Cotswold Line and Swindon-Kemble, etc.

If only it was as simple as just relaying some track.

 

[mwmbwls]

For tracklaying yes. But you need all the formation in place first, and that’s the heavy stuff.

I agree - it is both heavy and detailed. Looking at the published photographs upthread it looks as though, in places, the track might have been slewed from its original two track formation to a more central location to allow for minimal maintenance after rationalisation. This allowed subsequent mechanised ballasting techniques level which overtime would impact on overbridge clearances (although the latter will, IIRC, be future-proofed against eventual electrification). Because the new track bed will have a life-cycle stretching in decades I should imagine that the civil engineers will want to have a close look at the condition of the track bed, drains and embankments. The Mark 1 eyeball still remains a tool of choice for civil engineers here. The "Project Evergreen" Phase1 - redoubling the line from Bicester to the flying junction south of Banbury- ran into problems stemming from the original infill materials used when building the GW&GC railway and also from more recent degradation from trees,animals etc. Am I correct in thinking that working clearances with regard to the spacing of double track formations have also changed? The ICE lecture mentioned that half a million tons of muck would need to be excavated and a similar amount shipped in.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree - it is both heavy and detailed. Looking at the published photographs upthread it looks as though, in places, the track might have been slewed from its original two track formation to a more central location to allow for minimal maintenance after rationalisation. This allowed subsequent mechanised ballasting techniques level which overtime would impact on overbridge clearances (although the latter will, IIRC, be future-proofed against eventual electrification/). Because the new track bed will have a life-cycle stretching in decades I should imagine that the civil engineers will want to have a close look at the condition of the track bed, drains and embankments. The "Project Evergreen" Phase1 - redoubling the line from Bicester to the flying junction south of Banbury- ran into problems stemming from the original infill materials used when building the GW&GC railway and also from more recent degradation from trees,animals etc. Am I correct in thinking that working clearances with regard to the spacing of double track formations has also changed? The ICE lecture mentioned that half a million tons of muck would need to be excavated and a similar amount shipped in.

I don’t know the detail, but that all sounds about right.

Whilst the Victorians did a great job building railways with the tools they had (effectively Irishmen with spades), the materials they often used for the earthworks and formation wouldn’t pass today’s engineering codes, which is why so much is spent on keeping earthworks and formation in reasonable condition.

 

[mwmbwls]

Nomenclature is all important to avoid confusion!
Can you point to where the sections have been re-defined please?
AFAIK the section from Bedford/Milton Keynes to Bicester/Aylesbury is still known as Western Section Phase 2, Bedford-Cambridge as Central Section and East of Cambridge as Eastern Section.

As to onward consideration of Bedford-Cambridge I am still of the view that we need to know more of where the developments postulated by The National Infrastructure Commission will actually get built. The known developments to which you refer are but chicken feed in comparison to those.

Apologies - Mwmbwls fwmbwls the nomenclature. I stand corrected.

East West Rail Sectional map by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

I would not disagree with your second point. Perhaps an updated variant of the DfT's December 7th document will fill the gap in due course

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/the-case-for-east-west-rail-western-section-phase-2

 

[mwmbwls]

Indeed and mwnbwls should perhaps note that he is referring to an Inquiry, not an 'enquiry'.

Again Mwmbwls fwmbwls - I stand corrected.

 

[mwmbwls]

Has this link to the Anonymous Widower site been cited in previous discussions?

https://anonw.com/2016/03/30/is-cambridge-university-being-pragmatic-about-the-east-west-rail-link/

 

[Pigeon]

And naturally you would be demanding 'they' should just get on with it if such a project involved sending heavy traffic down a narrow lane outside your house, would you?

As opposed to what - giving my support to all the delaying movements and calls for further inquiries etc, in the hope that by the time it got off the ground I wouldn't be living there any more? Or just making it go past someone else's house instead? Why should my house be so special?

Not that that was what I said, anyway...

You do realise that in several cases where 'there already is a railway' not very far from the Bicester-Bletchley line, that major remedial work on the formation of the existing fully operational railway lines was needed in order to improve them, do you?

And nor does that have anything to do with what I said.

 

[MML]

From the ends.

And between Bicester and Bletchley, there already is a railway. That's what makes the whole thing so ridiculous. To be sure things would be a lot easier if they hadn't left it to rot for so long that people began stealing the track, but that just makes things even more ridiculous.

How did the Victorians manage it? - they got on with it, instead of messing around for decades holding studies about whether to have a consultation about whether to establish a focus group to look into hiring a consultant to hire some more consultants to produce a report on the potential ecological and social impact if one of the horses hauling construction traffic should happen to drop one outside Ada Bloggs's front gate.

Hahaha, that last bit is so true.
Millions spent in consulting, consultants and consultations and still not a train in sight.
Perhaps the best way to mitigate risks is to do nothing, apart from fleece the tax payer out of more money.
The Victorians would have had it built by now, admittedly without a yellow vest or risk register or project manager anywhere to be seen.

 

[jimm]

As opposed to what - giving my support to all the delaying movements and calls for further inquiries etc, in the hope that by the time it got off the ground I wouldn't be living there any more? Or just making it go past someone else's house instead? Why should my house be so special?

Not that that was what I said, anyway...

Have you actually read what the council agenda item is about? It is linked to matters to be discussed the public inquiry - so it will not delay anything further, as the issues in question will be addressed at that public inquiry.

An inquiry that will look at lots of other things, like doing away with Victorian railway features like lots of foot and farm crossings, but doing it in a proper, official way and providing alternative routes, as opposed to just sending in the bulldozers and telling anyone who dares to raise any concerns to take a hike, which seems to be your approach.

And nor does that have anything to do with what I said.

It does actually, once you leave behind your Victorian fantasy of an army of navvies invading the Buckinghamshire countryside for about five minutes flat to just slap down some missing track so trains can run again.

There are all sorts of reasons why progress has been painfully slow. Once we set aside the political and financial aspects and get down to the civil engineering, a rather important one is the state of the formation - whether you like it or not. Someone has to go and out inspect every last inch of the cuttings and embankments to make sure they are strong enough and stable enough to have a railway reinstated - and plan and carry out remedial action as necessary.

So what I said it about other routes close by is indeed relevant.

I would suggest you go away and find some photos of the Oxford-Bicester line in the period up to 2012 and then find some of the line as it is now - then you might actually grasp the amount of work that is needed to get from an operating railway, in the shape of a 40mph single-track line on iffy embankments, to a modern double-track 100mph line able to handle high-frequency services - never mind a formation that has been disused for 25 years plus.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There are all sorts of reasons why progress has been painfully slow. Once we set aside the political and financial aspects and get down to the civil engineering, a rather important one is the state of the formation - whether you like it or not. Someone has to go and out inspect every last inch of the cuttings and embankments to make sure they are strong enough and stable enough to have a railway reinstated

I've walked along parts of the route. The embankments and cuttings are most certainly not strong and stable enough to support a railway.

 

[DarloRich]

@jimm & @Bald Rick - you are wasting your time. Expertise is not required. Posters are not interested in reality. They have crayons and the ability to shout "MAKE IT SO".

 

[wildcard]

My view ( as an outsider ) that delays to infrastructure projects can usually be traced back to the Governments/Local authorities refusal or inability to commit to long term finance to complete the scheme. Engineering, environmental or planning issues are a minor contributor. Monies are allocated for sometimes a short a period as the next financial year . There is an annual bun fight between the Treasury and the spending depts. - how can anyone plan anything when future funding is so uncertain. Politicians over react to the funding crisis of the moment - whether its the NHS , cuts to the Armed forces, Police , Prisons, Universal credit. Of course delay beggars cost inflation. Rising costs lead to forecasted overspends . So the funding cycle has to be rewound - which leads to more delay and yet further price rises.
Look at the sad case of the Croxley Link/Metropolitan line extension. The plans were finalised and work started on relocating utilities but the 20+ year delay has broken the budget. Herts CC have seen £150M + go down the drain all caused by arguments over who pays and how much.

 

[bspahh]

Look at the sad case of the Croxley Link/Metropolitan line extension. The plans were finalised and work started on relocating utilities but the 20+ year delay has broken the budget. Herts CC have seen £150M + go down the drain all caused by arguments over who pays and how much.

For the Ely Southern bypass, the project was fast tracked through the Invitation to Tender and Detailed Design stages. When it came to building across the flood plain, they found they had to use much deeper foundations than they had planned, and the project cost went from £36m to £49m. https://cllrdavidjenkinscom.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/palmer-ely-bypass-oct18.pdf

 

[Bald Rick]

For the Ely Southern bypass, the project was fast tracked through the Invitation to Tender and Detailed Design stages. When it came to building across the flood plain, they found they had to use much deeper foundations than they had planned, and the project cost went from £36m to £49m. https://cllrdavidjenkinscom.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/palmer-ely-bypass-oct18.pdf

There’s a saying in Civil Engineering: you pay for your ground investigations whether you do them or not...

 

[eastdyke]

For the Ely Southern bypass, the project was fast tracked through the Invitation to Tender and Detailed Design stages. When it came to building across the flood plain, they found they had to use much deeper foundations than they had planned, and the project cost went from £36m to £49m. https://cllrdavidjenkinscom.files.wordpress.com/2018/10/palmer-ely-bypass-oct18.pdf

A politically motivated piece?
At least it was opened on time.
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/r...rking/transport-projects/ely-southern-bypass/

A contract for the detailed design, technical approval and construction of the bypass was tendered in line with procurement regulations and the contractor VolkerFitzpatrick was appointed in summer 2016.

So the project was Design and Build by Volker-Fitz.? Perhaps they have done rather well.

This project has been funded by Cambridgeshire County Council (£21m), East Cambridgeshire District Council (£1m), Network Rail (£5m) and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (£22m Growth Deal including £16m from DfT).

And if Network Rail did not have to pay more than their original committment of £5million they have done rather well too? (to get closure of the limbo bridge and level crossing).

 

[Bald Rick]

At least it was opened on time.
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/r...rking/transport-projects/ely-southern-bypass/

On time by what measure? It was first proposed in the 1980s, and I know Cambridgeshire had worked up plans for it over a decade ago.

 

[eastdyke]

On time by what measure? It was first proposed in the 1980s, and I know Cambridgeshire had worked up plans for it over a decade ago.

On time from finally having money committed to construction. [Albeit apparently light by £13m].

 

[bspahh]

A politically motivated piece?

Definitely.

However, Palmer left himself open to the attack by ignoring professional advice. Perhaps he might learn. I'm not so sure.

Personally, it worked out well. Its much nicer to walk to Ely station now that the through traffic has been diverted. If they had done more surveys, then the project would have been pared back, and things like the foot bridge across the river might have been dropped. I live close enough to be able to use that.

The losers are the Cambridgeshire tax payers who are going to be paying back the loans for the overspend, and aren't going to use the foot bridge.

 

[eastdyke]

The losers are the Cambridgeshire tax payers who are going to be paying back the loans for the overspend, and aren't going to use the foot bridge.

Oh, I don't know. They have the road, Turners (Soham) will be happy.
And there will be more knowledge about 'bottomless fenland' when it comes to planning and costing similar constructions at the North end of Ely

 

[camflyer]

Oh, I don't know. They have the road, Turners (Soham) will be happy.
And there will be more knowledge about 'bottomless fenland' when it comes to planning and costing similar constructions at the North end of Ely

Good to see the Ely bypass finally opened. The next road improvement scheme needed in the area is the A14/A142 junction which grinds to a halt at peak times. Unfortunately it is just (by a few hundred metres) over the border into Suffolk and out of Mayor Palmer's empire. The junction is used by dozens of Turners lorries every day so you'd think they might be persuaded to contribute to the upgrade costs.

 

[geoffk]

If there is to be development in the Quainton area then its more likely that the planned passive provision for a station on Queen Catherine Road near Steeple Clayton would come into play rather than a new built at Quainton ( say north of the current location ). I wouldn't want the old station to be heavily modernised , no public money would be spent on enlarging it in a period fashion - so new build or leave it alone in my view . I hope whatever platform barriers are going to be installed are removable - to allow for heritage filming and the like. I guess the bubble car specials ( or any form of heritage service to Aylesbury or further ) will no longer be possible and no chance of a reopened Brill tramway to the A41. BRC will be limited in what they might wish to do - lack of funds precludes most ambitions anyway.

There's an article on East-West Rail in the latest "Today's Railways", which refers to the main line platforms at Quainton Road having fencing installed. I know this is not a major source of traffic but surely the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre will want trains to stop there on opening days as there will be visitors from both Aylesbury and Milton Keynes.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's an article on East-West Rail in the latest "Today's Railways", which refers to the main line platforms at Quainton Road having fencing installed. I know this is not a major source of traffic but surely the Buckinghamshire Railway Centre will want trains to stop there on opening days?

I think EWR will basically kill the BRC, sadly.

 

[aylesbury]

Quainton will be changed but it will still be there shame the extension up the route to Verney Jctn which would have reinvented the place.

 

[The Ham]

Both need building. Any suggestions of road spending o thos board causes melt down but overlooks the fact the railway receives c.13bn and highways around 4.5bn

I assume that those are gross figures of government spending (i.e. before any income from the railways).

 

[The Ham]

How did they manage to build thousands of miles of railway across remote countryside when there were no proper roads? Any excuse not to do it. And as for the expressway, it will never happen. Just years of consultations, inquiries, reports and amendments just like Stonehenge and many other major projects.

I don’t know the detail, but that all sounds about right.

Whilst the Victorians did a great job building railways with the tools they had (effectively Irishmen with spades), the materials they often used for the earthworks and formation wouldn’t pass today’s engineering codes, which is why so much is spent on keeping earthworks and formation in reasonable condition.

A lot of the original railways would likely have just used what was there, which included dumping excess materials near where they were stuff and/or excavating more material from alongside the railway.

Now whilst it is possible to undertake soil stabilisation to reduce the amount of road traffic that does still require an area to process the material as well as move it back and forth along side the works area.

All of which can add to the cost of construction, so tends to be left to the contractor to work out of it's a viable option.

 

[DarloRich]

I assume that those are gross figures of government spending (i.e. before any income from the railways).

Yes it is. Also I think they are per annum figures.

 

[The Ham]

Yes it is. Also I think they are per annum figures.

Thanks.

Which then relates to a net figure of £6.1 billion. Of which nearly 1/3 is spend on HS2 and the vast majority (about £4 billion) of the rest is on enhancements. Leaving something like about £250 million for day to day subsidy excluding any improvement spending.

 

[Andyjs247]

Thanks.

Which then relates to a net figure of £6.1 billion. Of which nearly 1/3 is spend on HS2 and the vast majority (about £4 billion) of the rest is on enhancements. Leaving something like about £250 million for day to day subsidy excluding any improvement spending.

It must be remembered that those figures for roads relate to the strategic road network of motorways and trunk roads - some 4,300 miles in England. There is a lot more that Highways England doesn’t manage and which is funded at a more local level.