East West Rail project [to be] examined by Transport Committee [on March 6th 2024 from 09:30]

[Adrian1980uk]

This is one of those project where there is rationale to say it's worth doing, particularly the Cambridge to MK corridor but there isn't necessarily the economic figures to back it up by prediction.

 

[Class 170101]

Parliamentlive.tv

Transport Committee

parliamentlive.tv

Watching this, in the last few minutes, at the end of the proceedings they are still going on about battery trains replacing diesel trains citing the GWR trial being able to do 86 miles with EWR being 84 miles (indictative).

See from about 11:42 to 11:47 in referred video.

 

[tspaul26]

The point of exploring battery-electric traction is that it allows for discontinuous electrification, thus reducing the upfront capital cost and reducing the disruption to existing lines as well.

For example, you can scope out the cost of replacing bridges if extra clearance is required (because you run on battery for those stretches) and you don’t need to re-wire the whole show if joining existing electrified lines - you isolate the EWR electrification apparatus from the ‘mainline’.

You can then integrate the systems in the future during a periodical renewal.

 

[Class 170101]

I got the distinct feeling that battery traction was being suggested by the minister vas a means of avoiding the expenditure of electrification altogether otherwise why would he mention 84 miles for EWR vs the 86 miles for the GWR battery train?

 

[richieb1971]

Bedford was already a big junction station once upon a time with bay platforms for Northampton and Hitchin. All that is happening is that what was once taken away is being replenished again.

Bedford is not a cheap place to live, it is far too close to Milton Keynes and commutable to London. A 3 bed home starts at around £380k and most of the homes that Bedford is getting are massive homes climbing to the £600k range. Considering the average salary is £20 an hour or less, none of those homes are for locals. I don't know Cambridge that well, but if their parking fees are anything to go by i'd assume its as high or even higher for homes. I don't know what salaries are going to be for folk going to Cambridge to work, but if your depending on salaries to pay those mortgages they must be 100k a year or more for 1 or 2 earners. Bedford town center is a graveyard, but that doesn't relate to cheap property, at least not new builds.

I'm all for Bedford being a great interchange station if it all fits, gets the investment to make it happen and its not a 5 year stop gap until its not fit for purpose anymore.

The only shortcomings for me are no East-north curve on EWR anywhere, which is not really doable if Bedford is a through station (in the Bedford area). They could allow provision for it north of Bedford but i'm already asking questions about how the A6 will be traversed over or under it on a tight curve. And of course it will miss Bedford completely.

I am also concerned about the parking at Bedford, which seems to me to be tight with even the best of minds working on it. As is the problem of Jowitt sidings getting eaten up by 2 EWR lines.

So for Bedford to be this great interchange station it needs -

More parking
More terminus platforms for Thameslink
Parking for 12 car trains that currently reside in Jowitt sidings (x2). Currently 4 sidings available, 2 tracks eaten by EWR in the future.

If Thameslink need to move to Cauldwell walk, thats a good mile and a half of the up slow being accomodated for this and will require the driver to walk the length of the train to reverse it into Bedford station.

This is Cauldwell walk, Bedford is north of this location -





I've marked the notable areas. The top right yellow used to be sidings for what I believe to be vegetable traffic in the 60's and early 70s. I believe it to be mothballed and owned by network rail. If the current alignment through St Johns station stays, it could be used for the 12 car trains. But like I Say its mothballed would require investment. Could easily be adapted as a freight loop as well. EWR alignment is going to move west of the current alignment through the car park next to St johns (in alignment with the river bridge a bit north of there)

As illustrated - (I will admit it seems they want to spend money on alignments that give the most minimal of benefits)



So I would say there are better options, if money is on the table. Surely keeping the MML clear of 12 car empty stock is a priority?

Of course you could tell EMR that Thameslink is getting the Corby runs and be done with it. Looking at Kettering stables, it looks like 12 cars fit. It would be helpful if the 2 slows north of Bedford had increased line speed for that purpose.

I know i'm going off on a tangent, but these are viable options.

 

[swt_passenger]

I got the distinct feeling that battery traction was being suggested by the minister vas a means of avoiding the expenditure of electrification altogether otherwise why would he mention 84 miles for EWR vs the 86 miles for the GWR battery train?

Of course he would think that, because they’re all naive and gullible idiots.

 

[tspaul26]

I got the distinct feeling that battery traction was being suggested by the minister vas a means of avoiding the expenditure of electrification altogether otherwise why would he mention 84 miles for EWR vs the 86 miles for the GWR battery train?

It might well be able to, subject to where other projects reach in the meantime.

The key point is that you don’t have to decide to electrify the whole job up front either way, noting that the ‘it’s easier to electrify when trains aren’t running’ argument doesn’t apply to most of the route which already has or will have trains running.

Of course he would think that, because they’re all naive and gullible idiots.

You might very well think that: I couldn’t possibly comment.

 

[richieb1971]

Battery runs from Reading seem to be going well.

 

[tspaul26]

Bedford was already a big junction station once upon a time with bay platforms for Northampton and Hitchin. All that is happening is that what was once taken away is being replenished again.

But not quite in the same way, given that the former LNWR services did not call at Bedford Midland.

Bedford is not a cheap place to live, it is far too close to Milton Keynes and commutable to London. A 3 bed home starts at around £380k and most of the homes that Bedford is getting are massive homes climbing to the £600k range. Considering the average salary is £20 an hour or less, none of those homes are for locals. I don't know Cambridge that well, but if their parking fees are anything to go by i'd assume it’s as high or even higher for homes. I don't know what salaries are going to be for folk going to Cambridge to work, but if your depending on salaries to pay those mortgages they must be 100k a year or more for 1 or 2 earners.

This is where Tempsford, Stewartby and the Marston Vale come into the picture.

And the latter in particular was a key factor in the decision to continue with a southern approach into Cambridge. It’s not just about Bedford!

Bedford town center is a graveyard, but that doesn't relate to cheap property, at least not new builds.

That’s why EWR is important in terms of unlocking regeneration potential.

I'm all for Bedford being a great interchange station if it all fits, gets the investment to make it happen and it’s not a 5 year stop gap until it’s not fit for purpose anymore.

This is partly why EWR Co has continued to propose six tracks north of Bedford station: four tracks require operational restraints to be built in from day one.

The only shortcomings for me are no East-north curve on EWR anywhere, which is not really doable if Bedford is a through station (in the Bedford area).

What would this curve be used for?

I am also concerned about the parking at Bedford, which seems to me to be tight with even the best of minds working on it.

The quantum of parking is not an issue, and certainly not for the longer term.

As is the problem of Jowitt sidings getting eaten up by 2 EWR lines.

The Jowitt sidings are operationally inconvenient even now.

So for Bedford to be this great interchange station it needs -

More parking

If it’s for interchange, why is more parking required?

More terminus platforms for Thameslink

This forms part of the emerging package for the station area and is why segregated EWR infrastructure represents a clear improvement.

Parking for 12 car trains that currently reside in Jowitt sidings (x2). Currently 4 sidings available, 2 tracks eaten by EWR in the future.

Two 12-car trains: something of the tail lamp wagging the locomotive, here.

If Thameslink need to move to Cauldwell walk, thats a good mile and a half of the up slow being accomodated for this and will require the driver to walk the length of the train to reverse it into Bedford station.

This is why a final decision has not been made. It may well turn out that both sets of sidings are closed and consolidated elsewhere.

I've marked the notable areas. The top right yellow used to be sidings for what I believe to be vegetable traffic in the 60's and early 70s. I believe it to be mothballed and owned by network rail. If the current alignment through St Johns station stays, it could be used for the 12 car trains. But like I Say it’s mothballed would require investment. Could easily be adapted as a freight loop as well.

This undermines the placemaking and regeneration benefits of EWR which are more important in terms of the strategic case for the project.

EWR alignment is going to move west of the current alignment through the car park next to St johns (in alignment with the river bridge a bit north of there)

As illustrated - (I will admit it seems they want to spend money on alignments that give the most minimal of benefits)

Would you care to explain this comment please?

What do you understand the benefits to be?

So I would say there are better options, if money is on the table.

What better options?

And they must perform no worse than WWR CO’s proposal in order to be a go-er.

Surely keeping the MML clear of 12 car empty stock is a priority?

Is it? Why?

Of course you could tell EMR that Thameslink is getting the Corby runs and be done with it. Looking at Kettering stables, it looks like 12 cars fit. It would be helpful if the 2 slows north of Bedford had increased line speed for that purpose.

I know i'm going off on a tangent, but these are viable options.

 

[richieb1971]

Would you care to explain this comment please?

- First 16 seconds. The new alignment through St Johns saves about 1 or 2 mins I guess. Not really sure why the current alignment with new track can't be used.

 

[mr_jrt]

FWIW, whilst I broadly agree with most of what's proposed for Bedford, I was wondering a bit about the changes proposed for the St Johns section. Feels to me that you would get better outcomes for Bedford by doing both options - not either/or. Move St Johns as proposed (with any passive provision of 8/12 car platforms on the northern side toward Midland), and then also add a new station to serve the south, i.e. somewhere around where the Hillesden play area is.

 

[richieb1971]

Where is hillesden?

 

[eldomtom2]

The point of exploring battery-electric traction is that it allows for discontinuous electrification, thus reducing the upfront capital cost and reducing the disruption to existing lines as well.

For example, you can scope out the cost of replacing bridges if extra clearance is required (because you run on battery for those stretches) and you don’t need to re-wire the whole show if joining existing electrified lines - you isolate the EWR electrification apparatus from the ‘mainline’.

You can then integrate the systems in the future during a periodical renewal.

I got the distinct feeling that battery traction was being suggested by the minister vas a means of avoiding the expenditure of electrification altogether otherwise why would he mention 84 miles for EWR vs the 86 miles for the GWR battery train?

Battery runs from Reading seem to be going well.

Isn't freight meant to be a key benefit of East West Rail? Battery freight is pretty much nonexistent...

 

[A0wen]

Bedford is not a cheap place to live, it is far too close to Milton Keynes and commutable to London. A 3 bed home starts at around £380k and most of the homes that Bedford is getting are massive homes climbing to the £600k range.

The evidence doesn't support you:

House Prices in Bedford

The average price for a property in Bedford is £328,109 over the last year. Explore Rightmove house prices to find out how much properties sold for in Bedford.

www.rightmove.co.uk

House Prices in Bedford​

Properties in Bedford had an overall average price of £331,688 over the last year.
The majority of sales in Bedford during the last year were semi-detached properties, selling for an average price of £346,200. Terraced properties sold for an average of £271,889, with detached properties fetching £532,725

If the *average* is £331k, then it is *highly* unlikely 3 beds "start(s) around £380k" as you asserted.

In fact 3 bed terraces start at around £200k with semi's from £250k looking at Rightmove.

 

[A0wen]

Isn't freight meant to be a key benefit of East West Rail? Battery freight is pretty much nonexistent...

Bit in bold - Not really, and particularly not the eastern section.

 

[richieb1971]

The evidence doesn't support you:

House Prices in Bedford

The average price for a property in Bedford is £328,109 over the last year. Explore Rightmove house prices to find out how much properties sold for in Bedford.

www.rightmove.co.uk

If the *average* is £331k, then it is *highly* unlikely 3 beds "start(s) around £380k" as you asserted.

In fact 3 bed terraces start at around £200k with semi's from £250k looking at Rightmove.

Thanks. I drive towards Northampton where new estates exist. I'd be surprised if any of those were 200k. My house is worth more than that and it was built in 1962. The homes near Bromham are pretty hefty properties.

Looking at just two websites - Here and Here most of those are above half a million. I drive past houses like these everyday. They are not for locals. Even if you go to the showrooms they tell you its for commuters to London. If homes along the line are built, I fear that they will fall into the higher price categories. Northamptonshire is where properties start falling. The scary thing is, they all sell out at those prices. Who buys them? who knows?

This is what you get for £200k.


As for freight, I agree. The original arguments for mid section having freight are totally unfounded. Cambridge only supports a couple of freight. Besides, the timetables for the passenger services eat up most of the paths and there are no loops on that section. Things might get really busy on the Marston Vale section and the Bicester section though as both are ripe for diversionary paths and access to WCML.

 

[A0wen]

Thanks. I drive towards Northampton where new estates exist. I'd be surprised if any of those were 200k. My house is worth more than that and it was built in 1962. The homes near Bromham are pretty hefty properties.

Looking at just two websites - Here and Here most of those are above half a million. I drive past houses like these everyday. They are not for locals. Even if you go to the showrooms they tell you its for commuters to London. If homes along the line are built, I fear that they will fall into the higher price categories. Northamptonshire is where properties start falling. The scary thing is, they all sell out at those prices. Who buys them? who knows?

This is what you get for £200k.

All very interesting, but that's not wasn't your original proposition which was:

Bedford is not a cheap place to live, it is far too close to Milton Keynes and commutable to London. A 3 bed home starts at around £380k and most of the homes that Bedford is getting are massive homes climbing to the £600k range.

And I the link I posted showed the average is lower than you claim and that there are 3 bed houses in Bedford for less than £300k.

New estates built on the edge of Bedford - which I'm familiar with because I regularly drive past them - are not entirely representative of the hpusing market there.

 

[tspaul26]

- First 16 seconds. The new alignment through St Johns saves about 1 or 2 mins I guess. Not really sure why the current alignment with new track can't be used.

Where would you put the platforms (noting that they must be long enough for more than the current 2-car service and not preclude future lengthening)?

How would you unlock the regeneration potential of the area without moving the station?

If you replace all of the track, how do you save money compared to EWR Co’s proposal?

Isn't freight meant to be a key benefit of East West Rail? Battery freight is pretty much nonexistent...

No, it is not.

EWR is primarily about new passenger services

Looking at just two websites - Here and Here most of those are above half a million.

Having just looked, the underlined comment isn’t correct.

 

[richieb1971]

St John's station has lots of room for platform extension. The reason the new alignment is going in is for line speed. The current alignment has rickety track for 20mph operation and that continues through the depot.

By realigning the track a train can in theory slow to around 40mph into the station using new alignment and jowitt sidings which would be much straighter.


OK, some of the homes are half a million, and quite a few homes not much shy of half a million. The point is, my family with 3 jobs cannot afford then, neither can any of my friends either.

 

[tspaul26]

St John's station has lots of room for platform extension.

It hasn’t. Not on the current alignment.

 

[mr_jrt]

Where is hillesden?

Just for clarity: I'm not saying this is the absolute best location, just the sort of location/station spacing I think gives a good tradeoff.

Bedford

Bedford

www.google.com

 

[richieb1971]

It hasn’t. Not on the current alignment.

If I said you jump into the water you would get wet. Would you dispute that as well.

Put it this way, the amount of room available where the platform actually is continues to be available in both directions.

Funny Bedford Station has crammed resources and you want 3 extra platforms, 1000 car park allocation and thats all doable, easy. Yet extending a platform a bit is absolutely no go on a piece of track that has nothing either side of it.

At Bletchley they put platforms up in the air.

 

[tspaul26]

If I said you jump into the water you would get wet. Would you dispute that as well.

No, but then that wouldn’t be an instance of you talking nonsense.

Put it this way, the amount of room available where the platform actually is continues to be available in both directions.

Where? On the curve? On the switches and crossings?

How long will it be? How will you expand capacity in the future?

Funny Bedford Station has crammed resources and you want 3 extra platforms, 1000 car park allocation and thats all doable, easy. Yet extending a platform a bit is absolutely no go on a piece of track that has nothing either side of it.

There is not enough space on the current alignment at St Johns to double track the line and construct (as a minimum) 4-car platforms which comply with modern standards.

Let alone any future expansion.

And combining this with your other suggestion of building railway sidings then destroys almost all of the regeneration potential of the wider area which forms a key part of the strategic case for the project.

All of these are reasons why what you are proposing isn’t feasible or viable.

At Bletchley they put platforms up in the air.

On a viaduct. Or are you suggesting that EWR Co build a viaduct in central Bedford?

 

[richieb1971]

On every case I want more capacity you say that's not going to work.

I'm every case I say there is a lack of space, you say there is plenty of room.

At this stage I'm done talking to you. You are towing the line, with no room for improvising. EWR are absolutely perfect, godly and cannot be questioned. Their word is the end, this is the end. Talking about EWRs objectives always ends in no change.

I'm sure our elected officials will find the same results.

Have a nice day.

 

[Steve Harris]

If the *average* is £331k, then it is *highly* unlikely 3 beds "start(s) around £380k" as you asserted.

"Average" can be very misleading as it doesn't represent the true price that most people pay, hence why a lot more organisations are using "median", as it's much more of a true reflection.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

"Average" can be very misleading as it doesn't represent the true price that most people pay, hence why a lot more organisations are using "median", as it's much more of a true reflection.

Very true.

 

[A0wen]

"Average" can be very misleading as it doesn't represent the true price that most people pay, hence why a lot more organisations are using "median", as it's much more of a true reflection.

However in the case of house prices it's based on the price registered with the Land Registry - and it's a legal requirement to record that.

The "mean" average is the mid point, meaning it is effectively the half way point, and that's relevant in this case because @richieb1971 claimed a "3 bed home starts at around £380k". Clearly if half the people are paying less than the mean - which was significantly lower than his £380k, then it is highly improbable that you can't buy a 3 bed for less than £380k.

 

[31160]

On every case I want more capacity you say that's not going to work.

I'm every case I say there is a lack of space, you say there is plenty of room.

At this stage I'm done talking to you. You are towing the line, with no room for improvising. EWR are absolutely perfect, godly and cannot be questioned. Their word is the end, this is the end. Talking about EWRs objectives always ends in no change.

I'm sure our elected officials will find the same results.

Have a nice day.

He has given a good explanation of why your ideas won't work and all you say is you don't like it therefore it's wrong, your right bye then

 

[richieb1971]

My house is a terraced 1962 build and neighbouring homes are going for 230k and up. Brand new homes have no gardens, bedrooms on middle and upper floors and lucky to have a driveway.

He has given a good explanation of why your ideas won't work and all you say is you don't like it therefore it's wrong, your right bye then

Hmm, I'm sure you would be very passive if your town got something they either didn't want or modelled in a way that most people don't want. Especially people who live in the affected area being controlled by people outside the area.

Making ewr happen isn't as tight as threading a needle. EWR hear other ideas and objections but act like anything left or right of said needle eye is impossible. People who act like that have zero sensitivity to the folk living In that area.

When I spoke to my local government officials they wanted more time to explore other possibilities but the rhetoric they get back is the same I'm getting.

This government is elected for representation yet the power is outside of that. It's also very reactive to problems instead of being proactive. EWR to me is a problem in the making. You've made your arguments but I'm not convinced it's money well spent. It sounds like a project ran by bullish people who are lobbying the government to pay for something that needs to fit inside a needles eye. Since the northern route was chosen the book was closed.

Also, why is just me that is not listening? Do others have a divine right to be right? I live in Bedford I am not a forum user that sits 300 miles away that knows what is best for Bedford. From all the info at hand, the powers that be are listening to outsiders and muting the people in the affected areas.

 

[Steve Harris]

However in the case of house prices it's based on the price registered with the Land Registry - and it's a legal requirement to record that.

The "mean" average is the mid point, meaning it is effectively the half way point, and that's relevant in this case because @richieb1971 claimed a "3 bed home starts at around £380k". Clearly if half the people are paying less than the mean - which was significantly lower than his £380k, then it is highly improbable that you can't buy a 3 bed for less than £380k.

Thank you for pointing out what "mean" is. But I already know what mean (average), median and mode are. Afterall, I did leave school educated to O' Level standard