As has been explained on here a few times before a mile of new build railway (which is what this is) is £30-40m - it's about 20 miles from Bletchley to Bicester, so £760m sounds about right.Btw - £760M to build the line from Bicester to Bletchley?!?!? I realise it's easy to knock the cost of infrastructure projects and I don't have much knowledge of how the costs are justified but....
That's £760M to build 30km of double track, mostly in the middle of the countryside, on land that is already owned by the railway. (OK I realise there's a station there too, but that's not going to take more than a small fraction of that cost).
The picture of the APT now seems to have disappeared from the BBC link. Someone at Network Rail having a laugh?
I found the APT on some videos on the EWR website a few years ago but I think they later disappeared.With the "East West Rail consortium" logo on the front of the train, I'm fairly sure it's an (old) stock photo put out by that group that's been reused for this story
Report in Oxford Mail states 20208 for Marston Vale Line upgrade and 2030 to Cambridge.
Aylesbury line is under Dft review
Hope it's not binned. There is a lot of Aylesbury<->MK commuting, it's just mostly in cars.
Btw - £760M to build the line from Bicester to Bletchley?!?!? I realise it's easy to knock the cost of infrastructure projects and I don't have much knowledge of how the costs are justified but....
That's £760M to build 30km of double track, mostly in the middle of the countryside, on land that is already owned by the railway. (OK I realise there's a station there too, but that's not going to take more than a small fraction of that cost).
Let's make the assumption that, if you already own the land, you can easily build a house on it for £150K. Based on typical house prices, that seems pretty reasonable - even, generous.
Then for £760M you could build 5000 houses.
If each house + garden extends 15m in length, and you laid them all in a line, then 5000 houses would stretch 75km.
In other words, for £760M, you could probably completely cover an area as great as the entire Bicester-Bletchley trackbed with housing about 2 and a half times over.
You would think that 15m of double track railway should be simpler/cheaper to build than a complete house?
But les £34million announced for Northumberland how much of the remainder (upto the £1bn) is the balance between Aylesbury and Claydon LNE JnSo the £794 million is supposed to represent a “boost” for EWR and now includes some funding for Northumberland.
This is in fact a cut - Government had agreed to £1bn of additional funding in the budget on 22 November 2017. The announcement by the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, and meant the Western Section of the East West Rail Project can now be completed.
Station on the through lines at Aylesbury Vale Parkway if the station is any good as a location for Park and Ride Traffic?Hope it's not binned. There is a lot of Aylesbury<->MK commuting, it's just mostly in cars.
Bit of an odd viewpoint for a rail forum. The older petrolheads in the area might not be interested but their family members might, and it will lead to new travel patterns and ways of living. Anyway, the government obviously do see there will be a benefit, as it’s being built.Of course you could have both benefits by not causing as much disruption by not closing a road for several months (I've now checked) to construct a compound, just because it saves you a few quid on banksmen and traffic light hire.
MK is a very car-dependent place, and trains are generally considered as being for going to London. People in MK going for a day out to Oxford are most likely to use one of the Oxford park-and-ride bus services if they use public transport at all.
I would bet that over 90% of NL residents will never use it.
The line speeds are not being altered on the Bletchley to Bedford section, it’s stated in the TWA inspectors report.Presumably one reason the announcement dosent include Bedford to Bletchley and Calvert to Aylesbury as they are upgrades of operational NR lines rather than "new" railways not controlled by NR, so will have separate funding arrangements.
I also don't see any need to upgrade the Bedford to Bletchley line to run an hourly Bedford to Oxford service over and above the current stopper as it is both double track and has modern signalling.
Some p'way renewal to get stretches with restrictions up to the 60mph line speed would be nice, however as we have seen with Okehampton, that dosent need a government announcement.
I also suspect much of the route between Quainton and Calvert will get laid free of charge by HS2 when they slew the line to make room for Great Central 2.0
If the line speed is staying at 60 I'm at a bit of a loss as to why any TWA is needed for Bedford to Bletchley. As I understand it there are several semi permanent "temporary" speed restrictions that can be removed with some pway renewals, that are not worth doing for the current stopping service.The line speeds are not being altered on the Bletchley to Bedford section, it’s stated in the TWA inspectors report.
Presumably someone has decided to abolish several level crossings and replace them with bridges. But that certainly isn't needed to introduce an extra train per hour on the line.
When the bit on to Cambridge is built, if it ever is, I suppose there is an argument that there will be so many trains that the crossings will become a nuisance; but it seems like gold plating to me, especially as they were all modernised at great cost a few years back. If the crossings become enough of a nuisance then the local authority can pay for a bridge themselves.
If the line speed is staying at 60 I'm at a bit of a loss as to why any TWA is needed for Bedford to Bletchley. As I understand it there are several semi permanent "temporary" speed restrictions that can be removed with some pway renewals, that are not worth doing for the current stopping service.
Presumably someone has decided to abolish several level crossings and replace them with bridges. But that certainly isn't needed to introduce an extra train per hour on the line.
When the bit on to Cambridge is built, if it ever is, I suppose there is an argument that there will be so many trains that the crossings will become a nuisance; but it seems like gold plating to me, especially as they were all modernised at great cost a few years back. If the crossings become enough of a nuisance then the local authority can pay for a bridge themselves.
Increasing a train service on an existing passenger line that already has a frequent/regular service, by one train an hour, and the infrastructure to support a more frequent service, has never needed such action anywhere else and would set a horrible precedent.The problem with the level crossings is two fold, their basic safety being one, the knock on traffic congestion they cause being another. And there are two or three on the MV line where this is a serious issue - the one next to Bow Brickhill being one, Woburn Sands another - and the latter of those isn't easy to bridge. Doubling the number of trains increases that by 100% in that the number of times the crossing is closed in an hour will be dpubled.
So the £794 million is supposed to represent a “boost” for EWR and now includes some funding for Northumberland.
This is in fact a cut - Government had agreed to £1bn of additional funding in the budget on 22 November 2017. The announcement by the then Chancellor, Philip Hammond, and meant the Western Section of the East West Rail Project can now be completed.
Presumably someone has decided to abolish several level crossings and replace them with bridges. But that certainly isn't needed to introduce an extra train per hour on the line.
Increasing a train service on an existing passenger line that already has a frequent/regular service, by one train an hour, and the infrastructure to support a more frequent service, has never needed such action anywhere else and would set a horrible precedent.
This announcement also appears to be a further delay to the western section as well. This time last year, the official line on eastwestrail.co.uk was that "the first services expected to start running by the end of 2023".
That was changed in spring last year to be end of 2024 (fair enough with covid) but is now 2025. I wonder what the Jan 22 re-announcement will bring?
This announcement also appears to be a further delay to the western section as well. This time last year, the official line on eastwestrail.co.uk was that "the first services expected to start running by the end of 2023".
That was changed in spring last year to be end of 2024 (fair enough with covid) but is now 2025. I wonder what the Jan 22 re-announcement will bring?
It is half hourly during the peaks and on occasion trains run non stop.This, in fact, is not a ‘cut’., and neither did the Governemnt agree to £1bn in 2017. Back then, money was agreed to take the project through various stages of development and design, with an i I dictation tha the whole job might cost £1bn. That in itself has cost scores of millions.
The money is additional funding to see it through to completion, on top of what has already been spent. That it is less than a billion is good news - as it means it is cheaper than expected.
It is.
The existing line does not have a frequent service. It’s hourly, which as far as I know sees all trains call at all stations, and thus travel slowly across many of the crossings. The work is that necessary to mitigate the increased level crossing risk for the final level of train service, which is much more than an extra 1tph, with trains that have many more passengers on board, and has trains across the crossings at linespeeds. The increase in risk will be considerable (my guess is at least more than 20x as much), which means that for every crossing an alternative will need to be studied, and for many there will be a reasonably practical alternative to the crossing.
I know of several lines where service increases have resulted in a need to take similar action. There will be more too - particularly any fright lines looking to be reopened.
That's a particularly dogmatic attitude.Increasing a train service on an existing passenger line that already has a frequent/regular service, by one train an hour, and the infrastructure to support a more frequent service, has never needed such action anywhere else and would set a horrible precedent.
It generally causes a lot of moaning locally but the response in the past has always been "tough, if you don't like it, pay for a bridge yourself"
Eastfields Crossing in Mitcham, south London, is one such example, and carries more road traffic than any of the Bedford to Bletchley crossings. When Thameslink introduced two an hour both ways round the wimbledon loop it added two an hour each way over it, southern subsequently splitting the Dorking/Horsham service from the stopping service added another two, so at least six an hour.
It caused no end of moaning and hideous tailbacks, even blocking the A216/A217 interchange at Figges Marsh at times (I have sat there for the thick end of 15 minutes and and watched four trains, two each way, pass before the barriers were raised), but Merton Council were not willing to pay for a bridge so the level crossing is still there with the barriers spending as much time down as up in the peak hours.
If they increased the line speed to 90mph from 60mph then it might be different but others have said no line speed increase is occcuring.
It is half hourly during the peaks and on occasion trains run non stop.
Its not remotely comparable to a freight line festooned with ABCLs and similar being upgraded to a passenger line.
Most Bedford to Bletchley crossings are full barrier CCTV crossings, with the rest AHBs.
There is no prospect of more than one extra train an hour for the forseeable future, that being a Bedford to Oxford train that will stop at both Ridgmont and Woburn Sands (both adjacent to CCTV full barrier crossings) and likely Stewartby (for Wixams) as well (AHB).
If the line on to Cambridge is ever built and that results in vast number of trains and significant line speed increase they can do the crossings then, by when they will be in any case getting long in the tooth enough to need renewal if they are not replaced with bridges.
It is absurd to waste public money replacing modern level crossings for the sake of one extra train per hour, when the 125mph ECML remains littered with full barrier crossings and both lines to the West of England (100mph and 85 mph respectively) remain littered with AHBs.
Not to mention Eastfields Crossing in Mitcham with up to eight an hour each way over it.
Best to remove the planks before worrying about the splinters.
Enjoy your popcorn.I strongly suspect @Bald Rick knows rather more about this than you do.......
I'm going to enjoy his response, just getting the popcorn out.
Enjoy your popcorn.
Mr Rick will I suspect strongly defend Network Rails decision as that is what he always appears to do.
It dosen't necessarily mean it was the correct decision, but it is what it is, and from what he has written no trains from Bedford to Oxford will be permitted to run when Bletchley to Bicester is reopened, as no go ahead has been given for any work between Bletchey and Bedford.
I hope you are right, but the discussion I had with @Bald Rick upthread indicates that the powers that be consider that an additional hourly limited stop Bedford to Oxford service over the Bedford to Bletchley line is too dangerous to countenance, until such time as most of the level crossings have been replaced with bridges, even at the current 60mph line speed.I read it differently in that I expected Bedford to Oxford to operate when Bletchley-Bicester reopens throughout - just that the linespeed on the Marston Vale would remain at 60mph, rather than the 100mph I'd expected. Presumably 100mph on the Marston Vale and electrification throughout will come with the third phase through to Cambridge.
That's puzzling and annoying, given that, according to Wikipedia:The project has been waiting for a decision to proceed for a long time. There’s about 3 years work, plus all the entry into service testing, commissioning etc.
Following authorisation of the Buckinghamshire company, the directors determined on 10 November 1847 to press ahead with the Banbury line in preference to the Oxford line. Work started on the last day of 1847. The line opened from Bletchley to Banbury on 1 May 1850 for passenger traffic, and goods trains started on 15 May 1850.
Opening of the Oxford line (from Claydon Junction, at first as a single track only) followed relatively swiftly: to Islip on 1 October 1850; on to Oxford Road on 2 December 1850. This station was at the crossing of the present-day A4165 road, and therefore near to the modern Oxford Parkway.
It is half hourly during the peaks and on occasion trains run non stop.
Its not remotely comparable to a freight line festooned with ABCLs and similar being upgraded to a passenger line.
Most Bedford to Bletchley crossings are full barrier CCTV crossings, with the rest AHBs.
There is no prospect of more than one extra train an hour for the forseeable future, that being a Bedford to Oxford train that will stop at both Ridgmont and Woburn Sands (both adjacent to CCTV full barrier crossings) and likely Stewartby (for Wixams) as well (AHB).
If the line on to Cambridge is ever built and that results in vast number of trains and significant line speed increase they can do the crossings then, by when they will be in any case getting long in the tooth enough to need renewal if they are not replaced with bridges.
It is absurd to waste public money replacing modern level crossings for the sake of one extra train per hour, when the 125mph ECML remains littered with full barrier crossings and both lines to the West of England (100mph and 85 mph respectively) remain littered with AHBs.
Not to mention Eastfields Crossing in Mitcham with up to eight an hour each way over it.
Best to remove the planks before worrying about the splinters.
That's puzzling and annoying, given that, according to Wikipedia:
I'm just intrigued that, with mechanical diggers and spreadsheets and all, it takes much longer to put the tracks back on part of the Buckingham company's formation than it took them to build the whole damn thing from scratch. (OK, we will be getting some new overbridges.)Why are we comparing what happened 170 years ago to now?
You still aren't comparing apples with apples though.I'm just intrigued that, with mechanical diggers and spreadsheets and all, it takes much longer to put the tracks back on part of the Buckingham company's formation than it took them to build the whole damn thing from scratch. (OK, we will be getting some new overbridges.)
And, being 77, I'm getting worried that every time this scheme is re-announced, actual trains are always five years off.
What you wrote largely makes sense in the light of current legislation and practice. Where I depart from your earlier posts is the impression that major upgrades would be needed for an hourly Bedford to Oxford train, running at the current line speed, prior to the Cambridge bit being built.For the avoidance of doubt, I’m not defending Network Rail; I’m explaining the process which has to be gone through to comply with the law. Or trying to explain.
There is a difference between busy crossings that retain a broadly similar level of train service, and those where the train service is increasing.
Where a level crossing is expected to see an increase in rail traffic, or increase in linespeed, the effect on the risk to people who traverse the crossing (by any means) must be reassessed. If the risk assessment for any one crossing shows an increase of anything other than a marginal amount, mitigation measures need to be investigated. This can range from the almost negligible, e.g. improving signage, or changing the layout of a footpath crossing, up to building a bridge. The costs of various mitigations need to valued against the safety benefit; there is a test of ‘reasonable practicality’ which very broadly suggests that if the cost of the mitigation is less than three times the Net Present Benefit of all potential benefits of closing a crossing (including safety benefit, maintenance / operational cost savings, future renewals costs avoided, and, crucially, time saving benefit to highway users); then that mitigation is reasonably practical and all reasonable steps should be taken to deliver it.
On Bedford - Bletchley there are 33 Level Crossings, of which 9 are MCB-CCTV. Whilst I am no expert on the line’s timetable, I strongly suspect that the number of trains that ran non-stop each day was in low single figures; the existing risk assessments are based on a total of 36 trains per day. Also, I don’t know how busy each train is - a crucial element to the risk assessment - but expect it to be small give the rolling stock. In very, very rough terms, if you double the train count you double the risk, if you quadruple the average loading on the trains, you quadruple the risk (for vehicular corossings) and a change in effective linespeed from most trains at slow speed to most trains at higher speed can make a significant difference depending on circumstances (in this case, I estimate somewhere between 2-5 times).
Now it is conceivable that even having done all this assessment, it results in no need to deliver any significant mitigation measures. That is quite probable for the MCB-CCTV crossings. It is more of a mixed bag for the 21 Footpath and User Worked crossing, and less likely for the 3 AHB Crossings.
Added to this is the effect on local traffic. If, as part of the consents process, the traffic assessment demonstrated a significant worsenment of congestion due to additional level crossing down time, the highway authority may have sought an amendment to the proposal to deliver a bridge. Whether this has happened or not I don’t know.
How many gas mains, high voltage cables, and busy highways did the Victorians have to divert / alter? What were the restrictions they had on noise, dust, etc. What engineering codes did they use? What were their competence and training arrangements?