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

[richieb1971]

Sorry Darlo, I don't always use the correct terms. Perhaps manned station, or perhaps one that has parking facilities, a hot dog van and some long distance trains stopping at it.

Councillors have looked previously at Sharnbrook and Oakley as locations that should be supported by the MML. I think some folks further up north near Rushden have stated they would like a station too.

In regards to Sharnbrook and Oakley, there is room at the old locations to put stations if they are simple affairs, but no room for parking unless you convert a few fields. Its whether or not those places want commuters in their tidy esque garden villages or not, which I would assume they don't.

The best place to build a station is parallel to the A6.



A junction there would allow a considerable size station. That contour going off to the left between the dirt and the green striped field used to be the junction for the Bedford to Northampton railway. So once upon a time a signal box and a railway was resident on this land.



This location isn't bad, just a tad south of the old station.

Oakley is about 2 miles north of Bedford Midland, maybe 3 miles.

 

[70014IronDuke]

...
The best place to build a station is parallel to the A6.

View attachment 60922

I had wondered about this, but I'm not aware of exactly how the new buildings and roads impact on the MML. When I knew it, it was all agricultural land. Having the station near Clapham could attract some local traffic along with commuters to the Smoke.

Oakley is about 2 miles north of Bedford Midland, maybe 3 miles.

I thought Oakley was around the 54 milepost mark, but my memory could be playing up. The Clapham site would be somewhere around milepost 52, I should think.

I wouldn't think funding (or local willingness to accept) two new stations, ie Clapham/Oakley and Sharnbrook, would be made available in the present timeframe of the things needed to relieve BDM and make it suitable for E-W rail use. (Had these stations not closed, of course, I expect they, along with Irchester, would be busy, "essential" bits of the transport infrastructure today.)

 

[richieb1971]

My proposal was 2 sidings near bromhams lower farm road which was the access point for the Northampton railway signal box. On the east side slightly south.

 

[DarloRich]

@richieb1971 & @70014IronDuke - could we not extend all TL services to Kettirng or Corby rather than build another station in Bedford. It will have about 17 at this rate!

My proposal was 2 sidings near bromhams lower farm road which was the access point for the Northampton railway signal box. On the east side slightly south.

is that on the fast line side of the tracks?

 

[70014IronDuke]

@richieb1971 & @70014IronDuke - could we not extend all TL services to Kettirng or Corby rather than build another station in Bedford. It will have about 17 at this rate!

Not sure if you're being totally serious here. But, just to note:
a) this would not be another station "in" Bedford, it would be a BED North Parkway (whatever actuall name give to it) It would relieve BDM of TL turnarounds and relieve roads into/out of Bedford, most especially in the peaks.

b) Extending all TL trains to Corby would be a serious overkill. However, I suspect one day there will be at least two new stations between Wellingboro and Bedford on the slows, with TL extended to Wellingboro. But such forward planning will not happen within the context of the E-W railway build. (That is, assuming the Bedford - Cambridge section does happen within the next decade or so.)

A new, 'cheap' station at Clapham/Oakley might get funding, as it would have a decent economic case, I'd have thought, if the alternative was expensive - and less than ideal - major modifications to BDM.

is that on the fast line side of the tracks?

Slow lines. East = further from Fenny Stratford than you'd like to walk, DR

 

[DarloRich]

Not sure if you're being totally serious here. But, just to note:
a) this would not be another station "in" Bedford, it would be a BED North Parkway (whatever actuall name give to it) It would relieve BDM of TL turnarounds and relieve roads into/out of Bedford, most especially in the peaks.

b) Extending all TL trains to Corby would be a serious overkill. However, I suspect one day there will be at least two new stations between Wellingboro and Bedford on the slows, with TL extended to Wellingboro. But such forward planning will not happen within the context of the E-W railway build. (That is, assuming the Bedford - Cambridge section does happen within the next decade or so.)

A new, 'cheap' station at Clapham/Oakley might get funding, as it would have a decent economic case, I'd have thought, if the alternative was expensive - and less than ideal - major modifications to BDM.

I was being slightly factious. As I said I don't know that area well. Bedford does get clogged up with terminating trains so logically they have to go somewhere else. Personally I would like "somewhere else" to be cheap. I am not too concerned where "somewhere else" actually is

Slow lines. East = further from Fenny Stratford than you'd like to walk, DR

thanks - I read Northampton and assumed the fast line side.

 

[WymoWanderer]

Sorry Darlo, I don't always use the correct terms. Perhaps manned station, or perhaps one that has parking facilities, a hot dog van and some long distance trains stopping at it.

Councillors have looked previously at Sharnbrook and Oakley as locations that should be supported by the MML. I think some folks further up north near Rushden have stated they would like a station too.

In regards to Sharnbrook and Oakley, there is room at the old locations to put stations if they are simple affairs, but no room for parking unless you convert a few fields. Its whether or not those places want commuters in their tidy esque garden villages or not, which I would assume they don't.

The best place to build a station is parallel to the A6.

View attachment 60922

A junction there would allow a considerable size station. That contour going off to the left between the dirt and the green striped field used to be the junction for the Bedford to Northampton railway. So once upon a time a signal box and a railway was resident on this land.

View attachment 60923

This location isn't bad, just a tad south of the old station.

Oakley is about 2 miles north of Bedford Midland, maybe 3 miles.

Problem with option 1 is that new bridges would have to be built over the A6 for access to the site. That adds significant cost. Option 2 does not have those issues and also is nearer to Oakley and Clapham for walking / cycling commuters.
What ever happens we need a station between Bedford and Wellingborough with good access and reasonable ticket pricing (unlike Wellingborough).
FYI using Google Maps measuring, Lovell Road, Oakley is 3.8km North of Bedford station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Problem with option 1 is that new bridges would have to be built over the A6 for access to the site. That adds significant cost. Option 2 does not have those issues and also is nearer to Oakley and Clapham for walking / cycling commuters.
What ever happens we need a station between Bedford and Wellingborough with good access and reasonable ticket pricing (unlike Wellingborough).
FYI using Google Maps measuring, Lovell Road, Oakley is 3.8km North of Bedford station.

Building railway stations to solve a ticket pricing issue is of course not a sensible course of action

 

[WymoWanderer]

Building railway stations to solve a ticket pricing issue is of course not a sensible course of action

Indeed! But have you seen the price differential between BDM and WEL tickets.

Quick check - peak Travelcard from BDM £51.60, from WEL - £108.
WTF!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed! But have you seen the price differential between BDM and WEL tickets.

Quick check - peak Travelcard from BDM £51.60, from WEL - £108.
WTF!

That's because Anytime tickets are regulated on former NSE operators, but not on former InterCity operators. Doesn't make it OK of course.

 

[richieb1971]

Sidings to go east of railway between mml slows and A6 buffers touching lower farm road bridge.

 

[richieb1971]

Pic for reference.

 

[DarloRich]

Sidings to go east of railway between mml slows and A6 buffers touching lower farm road bridge.

View attachment 60953 Pic for reference.

thanks - not the worst idea I have ever seen on here! Assuming you can fit in 12 car units there are a couple off issues to consider off the top of my head:

• Access - road access doesn't look great.
• Flooding - I assume it is on the flood plain so will need a berm of some sort eating into your available space
• Flooding - how far along do the flood arches run after the metal bridge? You cant branch off the main line until after those and that eats up some of your space
• Levels - what are the land levels like? Is the railway not on a small embankment at that point?
• Pylons - aren't there some pylons in that area. They might have to move.
• nature reserve - are both sides of the line covered?
• Bedford bypass - This isn't where the new road bridge has gone is it? ( is that south of the river?)

 

[Mordac]

Why do you think ‘the pendulum has swung too far to the side of NIMBYs’?

The principles of the process haven’t changed for decades. What has changed is that we are building a lot more railways, and there are a lot more people affected by them.

I know they haven't changed for decades, and my comments were not specifically restricted to railways. They apply to all sorts of development. Critically, the UK also has not come close to matching housing demand for decades, nor to develop its infrastructure to the level of other comparably wealthy countries.

 

[richieb1971]

Darlo,

This is the area. I took this from my youtube video (before OHLE was in place). Using the 66 as a reference point of distance I believe can fit 12 cars.

I know nothing of flood planes, in 10+ years i've been going to this site i've never seen any flooding at all.

 

[Aictos]

I was being slightly factious. As I said I don't know that area well. Bedford does get clogged up with terminating trains so logically they have to go somewhere else. Personally I would like "somewhere else" to be cheap. I am not too concerned where "somewhere else" actually is

The problem at Bedford is Bedford North Siding is only accessible from Platform 1 so trains from London that terminate on Platforms 2/3 have no way of accessing it.

I am aware that Kettering has engineering sidings on the other face of Platform 1, I know this is a tad drastic but could not they be converted as a possible turnback location?

Only issue will be is there enough time for a train to terminate at Bedford or Wellingborough then run onto Kettering to turnback?

Would it not be better for the Gatwick Airport to Bedford services to be extended to take advantage of this turnback which would help platforming around the terminators at Bedford.

Also are there any plans with Bedford St Johns to take advantage of the EWR project?

 

[bspahh]

Darlo,

This is the area. I took this from my youtube video (before OHLE was in place). Using the 66 as a reference point of distance I believe can fit 12 cars.

I know nothing of flood planes, in 10+ years i've been going to this site i've never seen any flooding at all.

Measuring from Google Earth, the straight bit of siding from your annotations would be 325m long, which should be plenty.

This is from the Flood Risk Map https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map

Bromham_flood_risk

• bspahh
• 1 Apr 2019

From https://flood-warning-information.service.gov.uk/long-term-flood-risk/map

 

[richieb1971]

Just to note the southbound signal is perfectly placed a few yards north of the bridge. Junctions are available south of here for trains to enter in all platforms. There is road access from bromham albeit on private land which is currently used as works access to the temporary storage site for the ohle. And let's not forget this is all irrelevant if routes a b or c are chosen for EWR.

 

[deltic08]

I have just been watching videos of Marston Vale route and viaduct at Bletchley.. Apart from tortuous single lines at both ends it seems a fine route and could be upgraded for higher speed.

Cannot the bay platform be enlarged at Bedford into two platforms? It appears to be only a car park next door at present. Failing this, rebuild St Johns station on the proposed triangular junction towards Sandy to avoid reversal at Bedford Midland with a shuttle between both Bedford stations.

All bridges on the route are flat deck so I presume they are high enough for electrification therefore as both ends are electrified, electrification would be all plain line and relatively cheap.

What is all the fuss about level crossings? I can't see a problem.

 

[edwin_m]

I have just been watching videos of Marston Vale route and viaduct at Bletchley.. Apart from tortuous single lines at both ends it seems a fine route and could be upgraded for higher speed.

Cannot the bay platform be enlarged at Bedford into two platforms? It appears to be only a car park next door at present. Failing this, rebuild St Johns station on the proposed triangular junction towards Sandy to avoid reversal at Bedford Midland with a shuttle between both Bedford stations.

All bridges on the route are flat deck so I presume they are high enough for electrification therefore as both ends are electrified, electrification would be all plain line and relatively cheap.

What is all the fuss about level crossings? I can't see a problem.

The bay at Bedford is too short for the trains likely to use it on EWR. There is a plan to extend it through where the ticket office is, but nothing is agreed, and this would probably depend on the route option chosen to go east and what service pattern results from it.

Flat deck bridges are good for gauge enhancement for big containers as they have room at the upper corners, but electrification clearance depends on the height available in the middle and there's no reason for that to be any better than for an arch bridge.

Level crossings are emerging as one of the main impediments to service improvements. Running more or faster trains increase the safety risk and often triggers an expensive upgrade to a more sophisticated design. The risk assessment itself is quite expensive so there is a temptation to defer this until quite late in the process, when any extra cost it identifies may bust the budget.

 

[richieb1971]

The Old St Johns isn't going to see another railway. Its vastly over developed. The entrance to it is a cul de sac . Going east the railway would pass Cardington Road which would need its bridge back, would then pass through a park/marina and only then would you escape any complexities. Granted after that its quite a bit of plain sailing.

The original plan through Wixams is great, and a not so nice plan is going through BDM unless lots of issues can be ironed out.

 

[deltic08]

The bay at Bedford is too short for the trains likely to use it on EWR. There is a plan to extend it through where the ticket office is, but nothing is agreed, and this would probably depend on the route option chosen to go east and what service pattern results from it.

Flat deck bridges are good for gauge enhancement for big containers as they have room at the upper corners, but electrification clearance depends on the height available in the middle and there's no reason for that to be any better than for an arch bridge.

Level crossings are emerging as one of the main impediments to service improvements. Running more or faster trains increase the safety risk and often triggers an expensive upgrade to a more sophisticated design. The risk assessment itself is quite expensive so there is a temptation to defer this until quite late in the process, when any extra cost it identifies may bust the budget.

To my eye they are all rebuilds ie since 1960 when all rebuilds have to have sufficient clearance for electrification. It is nothing to do with gauge enhancement.

As for level crossings, keep them and keep the 60mph line speed until electrified and then update them.

The Old St Johns isn't going to see another railway. Its vastly over developed. The entrance to it is a cul de sac . Going east the railway would pass Cardington Road which would need its bridge back, would then pass through a park/marina and only then would you escape any complexities. Granted after that its quite a bit of plain sailing.

The original plan through Wixams is great, and a not so nice plan is going through BDM unless lots of issues can be ironed out.

I thought the idea was to use the original rout out of Bedford irrespective of what is in the way?

 

[richieb1971]

I thought the idea was to use the original rout out of Bedford irrespective of what is in the way?

Nope.

Plan A is to get the western section done, with trains terminating at MK and Bedford Midland with the first wave of EWR services. At least until EWR extends further eastwards to Cambridge.

Plan B gets complicated as it has offered up 5 official options. 3 of them use a new alignment where EWR branches off the Marston vale somewhere around Stewartby or Kempston Hardwick, takes a hard turn right (Eastwards) and take an alignment parallel to the A421. On some options it goes as far north as St Neots, other options go as far south as Sandy. Then you have a sub argument that Wixams wants a station and that EWR want a Bedford south parkway where the EWR meets the MML. Since they would be close together I said they should be one and the same station and with or without me saying the powers that be have unofficially agreed with this.

Plan B has 2 routes on offer which include Bedford Midland, branch of east somewhere near Oakley or north there off. None of these options would include the old st Johns since it wouldn't be on the alignment at all. This is where I have suggested Bedford Midland isn't able to cope with EWR throughout the day. It could on certain parts of the day, but with announced Hs2 freight using Croft Quarry and Mountsorrel in Leicestershire its almost a given that up to 20 trains a day will use the MML. Then you have the stopping Corby trains in the peak as well on top of the Thameslink trains which if 12 cars do 2 reversals to get into Jowitt sidings. All on a line which would be part of EWR.

 

[edwin_m]

As for level crossings, keep them and keep the 60mph line speed until electrified and then update them.

As per my post you quoted, the risk depends on the number as well as the speed of trains so any significant increase could trigger level crossing works.

This is where I have suggested Bedford Midland isn't able to cope with EWR throughout the day. It could on certain parts of the day, but with announced Hs2 freight using Croft Quarry and Mountsorrel in Leicestershire its almost a given that up to 20 trains a day will use the MML. Then you have the stopping Corby trains in the peak as well on top of the Thameslink trains which if 12 cars do 2 reversals to get into Jowitt sidings. All on a line which would be part of EWR.

I think we're all agreed that major work would be needed at Midland for EWR to pass through rather than just terminating/reversing there (even that probably involves some work). I assume that is allowed for in the costs of those route options that do so.

 

[Jorge Da Silva]

According to the latest issue of RAIL (issue 876) there is a study into capacity at Oxford to accommodate 4 additional trains per hour on top of the two existing services provided by Chiltern Railways. I know 2 go to Milton Keynes and 1 goes to Bedford but where is the other one going? My guess is that it could be Cambridge but I would have thought more services would go to Cambridge than that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

According to the latest issue of RAIL (issue 876) there is a study into capacity at Oxford to accommodate 4 additional trains per hour on top of the two existing services provided by Chiltern Railways. I know 2 go to Milton Keynes and 1 goes to Bedford but where is the other one going? My guess is that it could be Cambridge but I would have thought more services would go to Cambridge than that.

The current plans indeed do only have one train per hour going through past Bletchley avoiding MKC, and as this will be a minority flow compared to journeys involving MKC this does make sense.

I thought it was 2 x MKC, 1 x Bedford/Cambs - perhaps the 4th is just future capacity.

 

[DarloRich]

There have been works train, orange people and RRV's on Blethcley flyover over the last few days. It looks like this morning they were loading out scrap rail. Any ideas what work is being done and why

 

[Bletchleyite]

There have been works train, orange people and RRV's on Blethcley flyover over the last few days. It looks like this morning they were loading out scrap rail. Any ideas what work is being done and why

I think it just needs a general refurb?

 

[DarloRich]

I think it just needs a general refurb?

agreed, although both lines on the flyover must still be in situ to allow for the trains to run

 

[eastdyke]

There have been works train, orange people and RRV's on Blethcley flyover over the last few days. It looks like this morning they were loading out scrap rail. Any ideas what work is being done and why

Without knowing the detail of what is happening at this time, there is an overview of works required at the Flyover in powerpoint form by Andy Free, Alliance Head of Engineering Assurance. Originally presented to The Institution of Civil Engineers, Herts and Beds Section, 15th March 2018.
Bletchley Flyover from slide 48 on:
https://www.ice.org.uk/getattachmen.../East-West-Rail-Programme-slides-(1).pdf.aspx

Edited to add:
The final line of the presentation at slide 64 is:

Significant uncertainty around Bletchley Flyover