Funding confirmed for East West Rail route re-opening

[anthony263]

I wouldnt mind one of the trains from the east west rail link to run to Swindon & Bristol if paths can be found.

 

[mr williams]

I wouldnt mind one of the trains from the east west rail link to run to Swindon & Bristol if paths can be found.

Wasn't the lack of paths the reason why the Bristol - Oxford service was scrapped a few years ago? (and with it the prospect of reopening Corsham?)

 

[tbtc]

By December 2017 they envisage the following services:
- EMU : Paddington – Reading – Oxford – Bletchley – Milton Keynes

I suppose this answers the "IEP for the WCML" argument - if such a service happens then it'd presumably mean IEP running on the WCML (albeit for a short section between Bletchley and MK).

 

[cle]

I think it was also demand. It was unreliable as it was often cancelled, and people knew it wasn't guaranteed forever so didn't trust it in some respects. This would be quite different.

I'm not sure about Paddington - MK via Oxford frankly. I would have thought Reading/Oxford would be enough.

Services up the MML are a good idea though. Corby a decent enough place to terminate (and serve Wellingborough and Kettering a bit better) but serving Leicester and Nottingham would surely be better.

 

[anthony263]

I think it was also demand. It was unreliable as it was often cancelled, and people knew it wasn't guaranteed forever so didn't trust it in some respects. This would be quite different.

I'm not sure about Paddington - MK via Oxford frankly. I would have thought Reading/Oxford would be enough.

Services up the MML are a good idea though. Corby a decent enough place to terminate (and serve Wellingborough and Kettering a bit better) but serving Leicester and Nottingham would surely be better.

A Bristol - Swindon - Oxford - Bletchley - Bedford - Derby - Nottingham service I think would be brilliant and could allow a Bristol - London service to be sped up by running non stop through Swindon.

With Didcot power station non requiring as many coal trains as before perhaps some paths could be found for a service which will hopefully be more reliable than the Bristol - Oxford service operated by Thames Trains

 

[The Ham]

I'm not sure about Paddington - MK via Oxford frankly. I would have thought Reading/Oxford would be enough.

I think that the idea is that by running one train end to end you don't need two services one running Oxford to London and one running Reading to MK, whilst having the added bonus that it's possible to get between places such as Winslow and Maidenhead without going through London.

 

[anthony263]

Wasn't the lack of paths the reason why the Bristol - Oxford service was scrapped a few years ago? (and with it the prospect of reopening Corsham?)

I think the problem was the speed of the units and trying to fit them between all the high speed services as well as the service being very unreliable.

As I have previouisly stated a crosscountry service using units with a top speed of 125mph should be easier to path and I think would proove popular.

 

[The Ham]

A Bristol - Swindon - Oxford - Bletchley - Bedford - Derby - Nottingham service I think would be brilliant and could allow a Bristol - London service to be sped up by running non stop through Swindon.

It's unlikely to see many (if any) services sped up as a lot of people from Swindon would still want to get to London.

 

[anthony263]

I think that the idea is that by running one train end to end you don't need two services one running Oxford to London and one running Reading to MK, whilst having the added bonus that it's possible to get between places such as Winslow and Maidenhead without going through London.

Reduces the number of trains terminating at Oxford as well plus such a service might attract some passengers wanting to travel into London and avoid the busy services operated by Virgin and London Midland.

 

[cle]

Yes but what about the Cotswold trains? Or would this be 1tph, to mirror that 1tph?

 

[JamesRowden]

I'm not sure about Paddington - MK via Oxford frankly. I would have thought Reading/Oxford would be enough.

I notice that the document does not state if it is a fast or local service. I have a suspicion that it might be an extension of a post-crossrail Paddington-Reading semi-fast service (5 intermediate stops) that would then run as an all stations service between Reading and Milton Keynes (taking the place of a current Paddington-Oxford stopper).

 

[mr_jrt]

By December 2017 they envisage the following services:
- EMU : Paddington – Reading – Oxford – Bletchley – Milton Keynes
- DMU (fast): Oxford – Bletchley – Bedford
- DMU: Marylebone – Princes Risborough – Aylesbury – Bletchley – Milton Keynes
- DMU (local): Bletchley – Bedford
- Freight (diesel)

Why would the "DMU (fast): Oxford – Bletchley – Bedford" service be operated by a DMU when the whole route is wired?

 

[swt_passenger]

If it is done in stages maybe that would be a transition period between 2017 (wiring reaching Bletchley) and 2019 (wiring the Marston Vale line); as per the second list?

 

[cle]

Note it doesn't have MK - Bletchley - Bedford for the local.

Supposedly LM are keeping their slow 1tph, but I bet they won't.

I notice that the document does not state if it is a fast or local service. I have a suspicion that it might be an extension of a post-crossrail Paddington-Reading semi-fast service (5 intermediate stops) that would then run as an all stations service between Reading and Milton Keynes (taking the place of a current Paddington-Oxford stopper).

Are you suggesting Crossrail will run to MK via Reading?!

Or are you thinking about a world where Crossrail to Reading isn't confirmed, and therefore we are still thinking there would be those 2tph primarily to serve Twyford? Which is how things stand today, to be fair.

I don't see Crossrail running west of Reading...

 

[JamesRowden]

I notice that the document does not state if it is a fast or local service. I have a suspicion that it might be an extension of a post-crossrail Paddington-Reading semi-fast service (5 intermediate stops) that would then run as an all stations service between Reading and Milton Keynes (taking the place of a current Paddington-Oxford stopper).

Are you suggesting Crossrail will run to MK via Reading?!

The planned 2tph semi-fast Paddington-Reading service that I am refering to is a Great Western service that will run on the same tracks as Crossrail (GWML relief) but run into the Paddington mainline station and only stop at Ealing Broadway, Hayes & Harlington, Slough, Maidenhead and Twyford. It is planned to be the only West-bound service serving Maidenhead off-peak post Crossrail (before the Reading-Heathrow services start).

Reference http://www.crossrailnews.co.uk/nav/timetable.php

 

[jimm]

Why would the "DMU (fast): Oxford – Bletchley – Bedford" service be operated by a DMU when the whole route is wired?

Because the wiring will not be completed when the line opens, that's why there's a 2017 pattern of services and then a 2019 pattern listed. For the intervening period dmus will have to be used.

PS: With reference to the discussion on page 6 of the thread about the future track layout through Oxford I have it on good authority that passive provision will definitely be made at Wolvercot junction to allow the future reinstatement of a direct connection on to the Cotswold Line from the down loop, which is being reinstated to a point south of the junction over the course of this year.

 

[Andyjs247]

A Bristol - Swindon - Oxford - Bletchley - Bedford - Derby - Nottingham service I think would be brilliant and could allow a Bristol - London service to be sped up by running non stop through Swindon.

With Didcot power station non requiring as many coal trains as before perhaps some paths could be found for a service which will hopefully be more reliable than the Bristol - Oxford service operated by Thames Trains

For information Didcot A power station will close tomorrow - its generation limit having been reached. The last coal train has already run. Should free up some paths to the west.

 

[anthony263]

For information Didcot A power station will close tomorrow - its generation limit having been reached. The last coal train has already run. Should free up some paths to the west.

Which means there should be some additional paths for the Bristol TM - London Paddington express services via Bristol Parkway.

 

[The Ham]

The complexity all parties are tackling at present is the progressive opening of services and route electrification, fitting in with the wider national electrification programme (Oxford 2016) and the delivery of Chiltern’s Evergreen 3 (opening between Easter and May 2015).

By December 2017 they envisage the following services:
- EMU : Paddington – Reading – Oxford – Bletchley – Milton Keynes
- DMU (fast): Oxford – Bletchley – Bedford
- DMU: Marylebone – Princes Risborough – Aylesbury – Bletchley – Milton Keynes
- DMU (local): Bletchley – Bedford
- Freight (diesel)

By December 2019 the range of services could become
- EMU: Paddington – Reading – Oxford – Bletchley – Milton Keynes
- EMU (fast): Paddington - Oxford – Bletchley – Bedford (could extend northwards, e.g. to Corby, if there is demand and MML paths can be found, and from 2021 when a new link is built it could possibly go via Heathrow)
- DMU: Marylebone – Princes Risborough – Aylesbury – Bletchley – Milton Keynes
- EMU: Bletchley – Bedford local
- Possible Southampton – Reading – Oxford – Bletchley – Milton Keynes – Manchester
- Other passenger services may also possible – for example Luton Borough Council would like to see Luton-MK direct trains and has been looking at three locations for a curve from the MML to the Marston Vale line
- Freight (electric and diesel)

Looking at the type of trains listed above it looks like that Bletchley – Bedford is anticipated to be electrified after the section Oxford - Bletchley.

Although in reality I would suggest that to enable the cascading of DMU's to where there is demand for them that it is likely to be done at more or less the same time, Especially as otherwise there would be a demand for more DMU's to run the extended service from Oxford - Bedford.

The debate is whether extending the Paddington – Oxford EMUs in 2017 and 2019 is worthwhile or if a smaller train formation is required on EWR from the outset whilst traffic develops. The Southampton – Manchester is one way of gaining the 30 min long distance journey time reduction but the XC service might take a variety of forms. It could be a Reading starter if that’s a better path. Mr Sexton is trying to encourage all parties to be realistic about traffic prospects as experience shows it take several years for new train services to build up demand, especially where it is expected to act as a catalyst for housing and job growth.

The extension of the Paddington - Oxford EMU's could be worthwhile, as it may be possible for the train split/join at Oxford with a short form train then running beyond Oxford whilst still enabling maximum length trains to run where they are needed. The only problem comes if the EMU's are needed to run faster than 110mph when there would not be the option to use corridor connecting stock and the problems that then causes.

 

[LexyBoy]

The extension of the Paddington - Oxford EMU's could be worthwhile, as it may be possible for the train split/join at Oxford with a short form train then running beyond Oxford whilst still enabling maximum length trains to run where they are needed. The only problem comes if the EMU's are needed to run faster than 110mph when there would not be the option to use corridor connecting stock and the problems that then causes.

This would make sense, provided it doesn't leave trains unused at Oxford for too long. What would be the problem with using non-corridor stock? Trains would operate DOO to Oxford and a guard could board for the run north from there (assuming they will be needed).

 

[jimm]

This would make sense, provided it doesn't leave trains unused at Oxford for too long. What would be the problem with using non-corridor stock? Trains would operate DOO to Oxford and a guard could board for the run north from there (assuming they will be needed).

Because according to some people, coupling up trains without corridor connections through the end cabs is just about the worst possible thing that could ever happen on railways, despite which operators here and all over Europe and beyond will persist in doing it...

In the case of East-West rail, the electric trains being talked about would most likely be the new build of GW outer-suburban emus, ie 110mph limited, unless someone is going to order more IEPs, which seems highly unlikely, as most custom either side of Oxford or through it will be short-distance. This proposal looks more like a way to cut out lots of empty stock shunt moves around Oxford station in the future by linking up the two services.

 

[The Ham]

Because according to some people, coupling up trains without corridor connections through the end cabs is just about the worst possible thing that could ever happen on railways, despite which operators here and all over Europe and beyond will persist in doing it...

Quite; personally I have no problems with it, however I am aware of what others think about it.

In the case of East-West rail, the electric trains being talked about would most likely be the new build of GW outer-suburban emus, ie 110mph limited, unless someone is going to order more IEPs, which seems highly unlikely, as most custom either side of Oxford or through it will be short-distance. This proposal looks more like a way to cut out lots of empty stock shunt moves around Oxford station in the future by linking up the two services.

Of course the other option is to use IEP and then run doubled up to Oxford and then split with one half going to MK (electric) and the other going to or through Moreton in Marsh (diesel). As that would reduce the number of splits/joins that occurred at Oxford as well. Although to do would probably require more IEP's which could be done by taking up part of the option for the IC225 replacement and then keep the IC225's going until HS2 is built*.

Although it does very much depend on what stock there is available, timetabling constraints and the number of passengers using the services.

*Going off topic - The other advantage to not getting rid of the IC225's until HS2 is built is that then there is the rest of the option to strengthen capacity if it is needed either on the GWML and/or on the ECML. Also First Hull trains could use them (either IEP or IC225's) for their services if they get their wish of electrification to Hull, although it is more likely to be IEP if First keep the GW franchise, as they currently share maintenance facilities.

 

[itfcfan]

- Other passenger services may also possible – for example Luton Borough Council would like to see Luton-MK direct trains and has been looking at three locations for a curve from the MML to the Marston Vale line

Has anyone got references to anything online supporting this?

I used to live in Harlington (Beds) and it would interesting seeing new services over this section. Currently it's impractical to travel east/west from most of the southern MML.

However, even with the chord around Millbrook I struggle to see journey times competing with coaches along the M1 between Luton and Milton Keynes. Using current times (and guestimating Flitwick-Millbrook), a train using the new chord would take 49mins:

13mins Luton - Flitwick
~5mins Flitwick - Milbrook
26mins Millbrook - Bletchley
5mins Bletchley - Milton Keynes
49mins LUTON - MILTON KEYNES

I'd expect Millbrook to Bletchley will be improved with electrification and semi-fast running, but I don't know how low the journey time could go? 40mins? The VT99 coach takes 45mins throughout the day. I'd take the train over a coach, but at 21miles as the crow flies, 40mins is poor. A different routing via Dunstable / Leighton Buzzard would link local population centres but sadly won't happen for a long time now the line has been concreted over for buses.

One benefit of a Millbrook-Flitwick link would be to make Luton-Hitchin the most practical option for linking MML-ECML and allowing a Oxford-Cambridge(-Ipswich) service linking the most population centres (rather than mainly rural running east of Bedford).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Admins - any idea why this thread didn't appear in "New Posts" earlier when I posted my reply?

 

[al green]

This has been vaguely talked about by MK Council too but with no definite 'lines on maps.'

The best route for a MK-Luton service would be via Leighton Buzzard and Dunstable but that option has been stymied by the Guided Busway that has taken part of the route.

The suggested journey timings are way out, for both bus and rail. Yes, the 99 (not VT99 - VT branding dropped several years ago) bus is scheduled to take 45 mins but often takes much longer, especially during the peaks. In evening peak it can be over an hour due to congestion near M1 jn 13 and Hatters Way.

The rail time via Millbrook would be much less that 49 mins. The Marston Vale line is being upgraded to 90mph and a MK-Luton service would not be all stations, probably Woburn Sands only on MV. So running time for 10 miles Millbrook-Bly should be about 10 mins. However have to add in about 3 mins for reversal at Bly. Consequently rail journey time could be about 35 mins.

 

[Eagle]

This has been vaguely talked about by MK Council too but with no definite 'lines on maps.'

Apart from this one from EWR's website itself?

The green route requires less building than the yellow one (which has partly been developed upon east of Sandy) and is the one more likely to happen.

 

[gordonthemoron]

what are they going to do about the tight curves in Bedford (between St John's and Midland stations)?

 

[edwin_m]

I can't see the curves at Bedford being changed, considering they are in a built-up area and trains will be stopping at the station nearby anyway.

By the way the first rule of feasibility studies is that you don't publish a line on a map until you're pretty sure of yourself and you have your blight compensation scheme in place. Hence the preponderance of diagrammatic maps, and if you see a geographic map the line is usually drawn so fat that the exact route can't be determined.

 

[mr_jrt]

The green route requires less building than the yellow one (which has partly been developed upon east of Sandy) and is the one more likely to happen.

...aside from the fact the MML's full. The only way the green line's viable is if they start terminating a lot more services at St Albans, as that then frees up paths. Even terminating at Luton's not good enough, it has to be St. Albans.

I like the green phase IIb route from Luton to Hitchin though, but as a separate project - not as part of EWR. A restoration of the line to LB would be the most likely, but I quite like the idea of an alteration to run via Cheddington/Tring and across to Aylesbury, good for connectivity, not so good for population centres.

Given all the problems with the old alignments east of Bedford, I suspect they may as well just plow a new alignment at this point. My notions on that are that if they run through Bedford Midland then curve around the north of the town and across to St Neots, then they have a much better business case for a new route to Cambridge rather than having to use the existing line due to running too close to Hitchin. Serving Bedford Midland properly gives those all-important intercity connections without eating MML capacity that none of the others can offer without a reversal.

If they can salvage it though, the old Bedford-Hitchin route is better for the network than the route via Sandy. Their phase 1 option of running down the ECML is another difficult proposition, as like the MML, the line's largely full. The saving grace however is that there are paths available from the services that have run onto the Cambridge branch, so it's possible, unlike the MML option.

Once EWR get a route via St Neots open, then the route to Bedford from Hitchin could be a good extension of the Hertford loop services, with capacity to Letchworth fro Hitchin being maintained by other new services from Luton on the phase IIb route.

That way you end up with 3 viable service patterns that don't clog up the mainlines (EWR meets the MML at Bedford, and north of there on reinstated slow lines; Hertford Loop needs a short stretch of 6 tracks from Stevenage station to north of Hitchin station; and these could be shared with the IIb line taking over the stopping service to Cambridge.)

 

[edwin_m]

...aside from the fact the MML's full. The only way the green line's viable is if they start terminating a lot more services at St Albans, as that then frees up paths. Even terminating at Luton's not good enough, it has to be St. Albans.

Two per hour terminate at St Albans now, so (in principle at least) there should be two paths free further north. North of Luton, FCC mainly uses the slow lines off peak, so the fasts only have five EMT trains every hour and are likely to have considerable spare capacity. However this would be more tricky through Luton itself and the fast lines are the wrong side for making connections to EWR at either end.

If these issues can be sorted the green line is much better than the yellow one in my view. It Luton and its airport onto EWR, also meaning that some EWR trains could make MML connections here instead of reversing at Bedford. East Coast connections are also possible at Stevenage, whereas the yellow line misses all the large towns.

 

[mr_jrt]

If these issues can be sorted the green line is much better than the yellow one in my view. It Luton and its airport onto EWR, also meaning that some EWR trains could make MML connections here instead of reversing at Bedford. East Coast connections are also possible at Stevenage, whereas the yellow line misses all the large towns.

Indeed, precisely why I think St. Neots is a better interchange for EWR than Hitchin. As much as they might want to serve it, I suspect the green line would have to miss Stevenage and go straight for Hitchin. The need for 6-tracking (and the inevitable bottleneck when it's discovered to not be possible) would probably kill the idea.

To make the most of the orbital capacity you have to avoid running along the congested radial lines, which means any options doing so aren't viable, IMHO. This is why Oxford to Bedford is viable.