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

[jfowkes]

This kind of thing annoys me so much:

Following the meeting, Cllr Ben Foley said: “I am relieved they are not planning any demolitions of housing in Castle Ward which my fellow Green Councillor, Lucy Bywater, and I represent.

“By taking a careful look at satellite images, I am convinced East West Rail can run the extra pair of tracks alongside the existing tracks with a lot less impact on people’s homes north of Bromham Road.”

Oh, you've taken a five minute look at Google Maps and you've come to a different conclusion than actual planners and engineers. They should just have employed you!

I mean, I looked at the same area on Google Maps and thought "Hmmm, they might be able to squeeze in two tracks", but I wouldn't go on record about that with any certainty, because I'm obviously an idiot.

 

[edwin_m]

Without having gone through the documentation or having the benefit of inside knowledge, it certainly seems difficult to see why this much track at Bedford is necessary, especially as (based on no more than my own perusing of Google maps!) it looks to be taking out multiple houses and gardens as well as replacing a bridge that was only upgraded a few months ago. With the Up Fast platform, in normal circumstances only freight will be using the Slows under Bromham Road. So bringing the EWR tracks onto these then back out after the existing crossovers wouldn't be much of a bottleneck, especially with a couple more crossovers and bi-directional operation so a freight and an EWR can run in parallel. The current layout is tight for terminating the Thameslink service, but a turnback siding as shown would relieve this even if just connected to two of the existing platforms.

 

[ABB125]

Without having gone through the documentation or having the benefit of inside knowledge, it certainly seems difficult to see why this much track at Bedford is necessary, especially as (based on no more than my own perusing of Google maps!) it looks to be taking out multiple houses and gardens as well as replacing a bridge that was only upgraded a few months ago. With the Up Fast platform, in normal circumstances only freight will be using the Slows under Bromham Road. So bringing the EWR tracks onto these then back out after the existing crossovers wouldn't be much of a bottleneck, especially with a couple more crossovers and bi-directional operation so a freight and an EWR can run in parallel. The current layout is tight for terminating the Thameslink service, but a turnback siding as shown would relieve this even if just connected to two of the existing platforms.

If nothing else, I like the ambition of these proposals. It makes a change from inadequate designs!
Having said that, if the track diagram posted earlier is correct, it does seem to perhaps be a bit of overkill...

 

[Baxenden Bank]

This kind of thing annoys me so much:



Oh, you've taken a five minute look at Google Maps and you've come to a different conclusion than actual planners and engineers. They should just have employed you!

I mean, I looked at the same area on Google Maps and thought "Hmmm, they might be able to squeeze in two tracks", but I wouldn't go on record about that with any certainty, because I'm obviously an idiot.

In the interest of promoting debate:
There are plenty of 'gold plated, diamante encrusted on titanium base metal' schemes put forward by public bodies. Equally there are trimmed beyond the bone schemes. For example Great Western Electrification being meteorite proof versus East Coast Electrification not being gust proof. Then there are certain DfT specified HST replacements.

What this type of proposal needs is honesty, openness and transparency through the whole process. Genuine dialogue about the options and how they have been arrived at. Show us your workings out. Six tracks may, or may not be necessary. Perhaps it should be five or seven. Perhaps trains could turn elsewhere. Perhaps service patterns could be changed. If you start with a fixed objective, and design to that, you will get a certain outcome. Other outcomes, with different impacts on different stakeholders, will be realised if you have a different fixed or even flexible objectives. In this example, I would certainly hope that the actual planners and engineers have done a better job than the councillors, but have they explaned themselves sufficiently? What 'job' have they done? What was their brief? If the brief was "design a six track through running layout at Bedford regardless of external impacts", then they have done their job. If the brief was "design a layout at Bedford to accommodate 'n' additional train services whilst minimising eternal land-take", perhaps they have.

 

[Ianno87]

Without having gone through the documentation or having the benefit of inside knowledge, it certainly seems difficult to see why this much track at Bedford is necessary, especially as (based on no more than my own perusing of Google maps!) it looks to be taking out multiple houses and gardens as well as replacing a bridge that was only upgraded a few months ago. With the Up Fast platform, in normal circumstances only freight will be using the Slows under Bromham Road. So bringing the EWR tracks onto these then back out after the existing crossovers wouldn't be much of a bottleneck, especially with a couple more crossovers and bi-directional operation so a freight and an EWR can run in parallel. The current layout is tight for terminating the Thameslink service, but a turnback siding as shown would relieve this even if just connected to two of the existing platforms.

If nothing else, I like the ambition of these proposals. It makes a change from inadequate designs!
Having said that, if the track diagram posted earlier is correct, it does seem to perhaps be a bit of overkill...

In the interest of promoting debate:
There are plenty of 'gold plated, diamante encrusted on titanium base metal' schemes put forward by public bodies. Equally there are trimmed beyond the bone schemes. For example Great Western Electrification being meteorite proof versus East Coast Electrification not being gust proof. Then there are certain DfT specified HST replacements.

What this type of proposal needs is honesty, openness and transparency through the whole process. Genuine dialogue about the options and how they have been arrived at. Show us your workings out. Six tracks may, or may not be necessary. Perhaps it should be five or seven. Perhaps trains could turn elsewhere. Perhaps service patterns could be changed. If you start with a fixed objective, and design to that, you will get a certain outcome. Other outcomes, with different impacts on different stakeholders, will be realised if you have a different fixed or even flexible objectives. In this example, I would certainly hope that the actual planners and engineers have done a better job than the councillors, but have they explaned themselves sufficiently? What 'job' have they done? What was their brief? If the brief was "design a six track through running layout at Bedford regardless of external impacts", then they have done their job. If the brief was "design a layout at Bedford to accommodate 'n' additional train services whilst minimising eternal land-take", perhaps they have.

EWR are going to need pretty much water-tight justification for the 6 tracks for the consents process and land acquisition. I don't think they'd be proposing it now unless they were near-certain of the need to do it, without compromising the EWR train service.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Without having gone through the documentation or having the benefit of inside knowledge, it certainly seems difficult to see why this much track at Bedford is necessary, especially as (based on no more than my own perusing of Google maps!) it looks to be taking out multiple houses and gardens as well as replacing a bridge that was only upgraded a few months ago. With the Up Fast platform, in normal circumstances only freight will be using the Slows under Bromham Road. So bringing the EWR tracks onto these then back out after the existing crossovers wouldn't be much of a bottleneck, especially with a couple more crossovers and bi-directional operation so a freight and an EWR can run in parallel. The current layout is tight for terminating the Thameslink service, but a turnback siding as shown would relieve this even if just connected to two of the existing platforms.

Perhaps they're "future-proofing" for an undeclared additional flow of freight trains at some later date.

 

[zwk500]

I don't think they'd be proposing it now unless they were near-certain of the need to do it, without compromising the EWR train service.

It's possible (if you're cynical) that they're proposing the absolute worst-case scenario so that when they find out they don't need to do quite as much they can demonstrate they've taken account of resident's comments in the consultation.

 

[edwin_m]

It's possible (if you're cynical) that they're proposing the absolute worst-case scenario so that when they find out they don't need to do quite as much they can demonstrate they've taken account of resident's comments in the consultation.

The thought crossed my mind - the same game as developers play with planning applications. But I think in this case they might just generate enough of whatever the opposite of goodwill is to permanently damage their prospects.

 

[ABB125]

EWR are going to need pretty much water-tight justification for the 6 tracks for the consents process and land acquisition. I don't think they'd be proposing it now unless they were near-certain of the need to do it, without compromising the EWR train service.

Oh yes, I agree! There may be more detail/justification in the Technical Appraisal Report which I haven't read yet (I'm waiting for a lovely shiny printed copy! ). (Though I was more referring to the number of platforms at Bedford rather than the six tracks!)

Perhaps they're "future-proofing" for an undeclared additional flow of freight trains at some later date.

Don't put ideas into the NIMBYs' heads!

It's possible (if you're cynical) that they're proposing the absolute worst-case scenario so that when they find out they don't need to do quite as much they can demonstrate they've taken account of resident's comments in the consultation.

It's a common tactic I believe.

 

[mwmbwls]

I am interested in the magic they propose to weave at the London Road level crossing in Biscester.

 

[camflyer]

This kind of thing annoys me so much:



Oh, you've taken a five minute look at Google Maps and you've come to a different conclusion than actual planners and engineers. They should just have employed you!

I mean, I looked at the same area on Google Maps and thought "Hmmm, they might be able to squeeze in two tracks", but I wouldn't go on record about that with any certainty, because I'm obviously an idiot.

Makes you wonder why they spend millions on engineering consultants when they could have just asked a local councillor to look at a Google Maps.

 

[work-traveller]

EWR2 progress - this time new deck installation at Jarvis Lane, in east Bicester.

 

[Ianno87]

It's possible (if you're cynical) that they're proposing the absolute worst-case scenario so that when they find out they don't need to do quite as much they can demonstrate they've taken account of resident's comments in the consultation.

It's prudent (at this stage of development) to be relatively generous in the land you think you need, with reasonable justification (e.g. not assuming nifty construction techniques at this point); easier to consult now and roll back if the opportunity presents itself than be too optimistic now and hamstring yourself later (or, worst case, require a second consents process later).

I am interested in the magic they propose to weave at the London Road level crossing in Biscester.

The consultation documents do present several options for it.

 

[zwk500]

easier to consult now and roll back if the opportunity presents itself than be too optimistic now and hamstring yourself later (or, worst case, require a second consents process later).

Totally agree

 

[Bald Rick]

This kind of thing annoys me so much:



Oh, you've taken a five minute look at Google Maps and you've come to a different conclusion than actual planners and engineers. They should just have employed you!

I mean, I looked at the same area on Google Maps and thought "Hmmm, they might be able to squeeze in two tracks", but I wouldn't go on record about that with any certainty, because I'm obviously an idiot.

Ha! If that’s annoys you, I suggest you don’t view threads on the speculative ideas sub forum...

 

[InTheEastMids]

I think it’s still only a supposition, even though it’s come up a few times already in this thread..

The absence of any mention in this new consultation might just mean there’s nothing about the Bicester to Bletchley section that changes because of the future requirements to deal with extension to the east...

It would make no sense to propose spending a fortune on other sections, with the 6 tracking north of Bedford, while at the same time chopping a section in the western section

Thank you, and it's clearly outside the scope of this consultation. However, the issue for me is the way it's described in the picture e.g. on p8 of the consultation (p5 of the PDF), it's described as "potential future section of EWR". It'd be quite hard to sound less committed to it...

 

[zwk500]

Thank you, and it's clearly outside the scope of this consultation. However, the issue for me is the way it's described in the picture e.g. on p8 of the consultation (p5 of the PDF), it's described as "potential future section of EWR". It'd be quite hard to sound less committed to it...

From EWR's Website:

• Oxford to Bletchley: Connection Stage 1
  
  
  Following confirmation of funding in the 2020 Spending Review, we’re now starting construction of the section between Bicester and Bletchley, delivered through the East West Rail Alliance. This will allow us to run trains from Oxford to Milton Keynes by 2025 (Connection Stage 1).
  Delivering a reliable service for passengers is our top priority, and we are working with government to deliver the full Oxford-Milton Keynes connection from day one. We may though need to introduce the service to Bletchley first, and then extend to Milton Keynes as soon as we are satisfied it will be reliable for our customers.
  Upgrades to Bletchley station have already begun, and a brand-new station will be built for communities at Winslow.
  We are also working on a costed plan to run a reliable service from Aylesbury, so we can make the best possible case for Government to confirm that upgrade too

 

[Maltazer]

however I think Network Rail are determined to do Cambridge South as outer platforms and a single island, removing the passenger benefits of paired by direction.

I mentioned this in the Cambridge South consultation, and received the following response:

"The North location was preferred by the majority of stakeholders who responses to our earlier public consultation exercise; a further advantage is that a station building in this position would be easiest to visually integrate into Hobson’s Park. A layout featuring two island platforms in the North location would not be a viable option as it would necessitate reconstruction of the Guided Busway bridge. This would be an expensive operation that would be resisted by Cambridgeshire County Council, who own this asset."

 

[Ianno87]

I mentioned this in the Cambridge South consultation, and received the following response:

"The North location was preferred by the majority of stakeholders who responses to our earlier public consultation exercise; a further advantage is that a station building in this position would be easiest to visually integrate into Hobson’s Park. A layout featuring two island platforms in the North location would not be a viable option as it would necessitate reconstruction of the Guided Busway bridge. This would be an expensive operation that would be resisted by Cambridgeshire County Council, who own this asset."

I suspect the constraint is that, two permit two island platforms, the outermost tracks need to spread further (to create two wideways between tracks 1 & 2, and between tracks 3 & 4) - as opposite to the side/island/side arrangement where only one wideway needs to be created (between tracks 2 & 3); and the former is not physically possible between the bridges at either end as it would be too wide to fit under one or both of them.

Besides a 'passenger benefit' of the side/island/side arrangement is that there would be totally level access from the Easternmost platform to/from the Biomedical campus, with less vertical circulation necessary for passengers overall (I imagine entry/exiting passengers will far outweigh those interchanging).

 

[mr_jrt]

I used to commute on that stretch whilst they built the GB bridge, and thought it looked a bit narrow. Guess to keep costs down they made it as small as they could get away with.

 

[Ianno87]

I used to commute on that stretch whilst they built the GB bridge, and thought it looked a bit narrow. Guess to keep costs down they made it as small as they could get away with.

Laws of physics probably come into it too. It's already a pretty steep gradient to land in time to meet Dame Mary Archer Way. Wouldn't be surprised if it's already at or close to limits of highway standards (its not just buses that use it, it is also a pedestrian and cycle path)

 

[jfowkes]

Ha! If that’s annoys you, I suggest you don’t view threads on the speculative ideas sub forum...

I don't mind speculation here, even misinformed, wrong speculation. Hell, I probably do it all the time on here without realising. We're all rail nerds, of course we're going to do that.

It's when they're in a position of some authority, making assertions about the subject without any evidence at all. Even if he turned out to be right in the end, it would be luck rather than judgment. That has consequences that mindless natter of these forums doesn't.

 

[Ianno87]

I don't mind speculation here, even misinformed, wrong speculation. Hell, I probably do it all the time on here without realising. We're all rail nerds, of course we're going to do that.

It's when they're in a position of some authority, making assertions about the subject without any evidence at all. Even if he turned out to be right in the end, it would be luck rather than judgment. That has consequences that mindless natter of these forums doesn't.

It would be more credible if he'd said "we need to work with East West Rail to identify whether there is an engineering solution to accommodate the extra tracks without requiring the residential properties" or something to that effect.

But the way he's said it is almost trying to pigeonhole EWR's engineers as not having having thought about it, when they almost certainly have at great length!

 

[D365]

I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised to read they're intending a new pair of tracks north of Bedford, and all that discussion on Bromham Road bridge and the capacity on the existing slow lines wasn't completely pointless.

W/r to Bedford St. Johns, I'm confused - most of the negatives attached to option 2 seem to be related to realigning the railway (new river bridge, etc), but given the line is at the exact same spot at the eastern end of the proposed location as it would be for option 1, I don't see why they can't just have location 2 with the rail alignment of option 1, which would appear to negate a number of the negatives of option2?

As for Bedford...very bold (though I should point out, this is the alternative option south of Ford End Road, though even the option on the current site involves three new EWR platforms). I do wonder if two bay platforms for Thameslink isn't slightly gold plating things though, I wonder if two turnback sidings would achieve most of the benefits without needing 4 platforms. I certainly wasn't expecting anything this dramatic to be on the table.

View attachment 93508

Sorry; just to clarify, this is an official image?

 

[richieb1971]

Many ideas in the consultation regarding Bedford are very welcome.

I agree the new station should be built in or around the depot as it stands. I like the new St Johns alignment although I am not sure about new bridges required.

2 new tracks north of Bedford is a nonsense. Its better to create a stabling point north of Bedford for Thameslink trains rather than trying to accommodate them in the station. Keep the through ways clear and make the trains park up north a bit.

I like that the Marston Vale line is cut back to 5 stations, but not overly happy with the choices made. The scope of all these changes makes me ask why so much infrastructure is suddenly needed. There is quite a bit of waste in the design.

It should also be noted that there is a brand new car park being built right next to St Johns where the proposed station is going to go. I have no idea whom the car park is for, but it seems rather strange the construction on it hasn't even finished when this consultation went out.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Surprised nobody has posted the link to the consultation yet:

East West Rail | 2021 Consultation (closed)

In 2021 we held a non-statutory consultation about our proposals for East West Rail between Oxford and Cambridge. Analysis is now underway.

eastwestrail.co.uk

I suppose I have to post a quote.

My first question is "what on earth is 4tph to Cambridge needed for"? This will require hugely costly infrastructure to provide, will involve moving Ridgmont to an inconvenient place for the trading estate it presently serves and will be a classic example of short DMUs running at excessive frequencies.

Two from Oxford to Cambridge would be quite adequate (plus one to MKC and the hourly Aylesbury). They should be 200m long and electric before we bump up frequencies like that.

 

[mr_jrt]

Sorry; just to clarify, this is an official image?

Yes, Consultation Technical report, pg260. Proposed "southern" plan for moving Bedford Station south of Ford End road. The "northern" proposal for leaving the station where it is still provides 3 EWR platforms though, by demolishing a chunk of things around the station.

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure if anyone has realised (if so, apologies), but the proposal for Bedford results in:

* a new platform for the Up Fast line
* 4 platforms for Thameslink (including 2 central bay platforms)
* a central turnback siding north of the station for Themslink off the slow lines (useful at peak times)
* 3 EWR platforms, one clearly designed as a turnback from the west

The track layout south of the station needs a reassessment, in my view. Suspect it is only for illustration at this point, albeit within the same limits of deviation.

 

[D365]

Dare I ask if a nine platform Bedford Midland is really necessary?

 

[richieb1971]

Dare I ask if a nine platform Bedford Midland is really necessary?

Nuneaton is a small place but its a junction that supports many routes and paths and has many platforms. It seems overkill, but when you factor in Thameslink needing bay platforms of which up to 3 are currently being used, it only leaves 6 other platforms. I do think that is a bit too many spare, but spare is better than none spare.