• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Doctor Fegg

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2010
Messages
1,814
But unless the stations are convenient from the start and destination points, that won't change.
Aylesbury-MKC actually scores pretty well on that score: plenty of housing around both Aylesbury and Aylesbury Vale Parkway, plenty of employment around MKC (and to a lesser extent Bletchley). I'd expect AVP to pick up a bit of parkway traffic, too, simply to avoid the endemic MK road congestion.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
Aylesbury-MKC actually scores pretty well on that score: plenty of housing around both Aylesbury and Aylesbury Vale Parkway, plenty of employment around MKC (and to a lesser extent Bletchley). I'd expect AVP to pick up a bit of parkway traffic, too, simply to avoid the endemic MK road congestion.

Most employment in MK isn't in walking distance to the station.

And if you think MK has "endemic" road congestion, you're wide of the mark. Even at rush hour on the grid roads you can get from the A5 to the M1 in about 15 mins, ditto Bletchley to MK centre.

Aylesbury has relatively few large or medium sized employers - which is why London & MK are where many commute to from Aylesbury.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Most employment in MK isn't in walking distance to the station.

A very large amount of the employment is in CMK. Not all of it by any means, but a lot of it is.

Also you can connect onwards by bus onto all but I think 2 routes[1] directly outside, using which you can get to all of the industrial estates (and a few more are within a not excessive walking distance of Bletchley station, and even more within cycling distance if you'll leave an old bike there).

OK, drivers won't do this, but not everyone drives.

[1] 9 is Bletchley-Kingston (but reachable from Bletchley station, and there's a lot of employment at Kingston, too) and what's left of the 30/31 (Bletchley northbound via Watling St, only a couple of journeys a day). Other than that everything but school buses serve MKC station.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
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.

The point here is: it’s best to do the mitigation once at each location, rather than, say, upgrading a footpath with miniature stops lights for the extra train an hour, and then having to come back and build a bridge when the full service to Cambridge starts. Also, there will be crossings where the extra train an hour - which is a doubling of the service, let’s not forget - drives change. There’s plenty of examples of lower increase driving chance - Redhill to Guildford, East Suffolk Line, Ely-Peterborough, Cambrian, and more. What can be done in these scenarios is take a route wide approach, and spend the money where it best delivers safety benefit, rather than at every crossing. A hypothetical example - if a route has 10 crossings, and the risk increases by 20%, then rather than spending £2m to reduce risk at every all 20 crossings by 20%, it might be better to spend £1m by closing 3 of them (if that’s possible).

I agree that such a risk assessment might throw up the need to stop up or replace some foot and perhaps occupation crossings with bridges, however that is a fraction of the work needed to replace the road crossings with bridges and shouldn't, I would have thought require a TWA to do.

Yes - closing or diverting any public right of way that crosses the railway usually requires an Order under the TWA process, or similar. Same for private crossings unless the authorised user agrees. Hence the TWAOs across Anglia (the Cambridgeshire done has just been made), and the same for the WCML upgrade. Replacing a User Worked Crossing (vehicular) with a bridge would indeed be a fraction of a public highway crossing - about 8/10ths. A bridge for vehicles is still a bridge. The usual method of closure for UWCs is to reach a settlement with the authorised user and build a fence. Often this involves buying the field(s) that the crossing gives sole access to, then promptly selling them to the next door farmer at about the same price. Still costs a fair bit in legal fees, compensation etc.

In this case, the TWAO was for the whole route from Bicester to Bedford, and includes the stopping up of a number of crossings, often without providing s bridge. The Inpsectors report is worth a read to see how this was determined. It’s nearly 400 pages. As far as I can see, there’s no road bridges being built between Bedford and Bletchley, although they were argued for by the local authorities.


The ratchet tightens ever more all the time though and "reasonably practicable" gets ever nearer to "remotely conceivable"

As I mentioned earlier, the latest (draft) guidance from the ORR does explain what should be considered reasonably practical. In my view it’s about right. This is useful, as 10 years ago the definition of ‘reasonably’ varied from Inspector to Inspector, leading to all manner of delay, unexpected costs and ‘robust discussion’.
 

Andyjs247

Member
Joined
1 Jan 2011
Messages
707
Location
North Oxfordshire
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.
The £1bn figure announced by Philip Hammond in November 2017 was also given by Network Rail in evidence at the Public Inquiry. If it was not agreed by government, why was that figure given in evidence? That there is only £760m now does not represent a boost. I’m not complaining that less money having been spent is not good news; but less than £1bn is still a cut - unless you’d prefer to call it a saving instead?
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.

Work has been proceeding on site in Bicester for some time now. The site compound has been there since late 2019, before the TWAO was finally agreed in fact. As was posted up thread, the temporary diversion of the A4421 Charbridge Lane has taken place this last week. This is avoiding the level crossing where a new over bridge is to be constructed. All level crossings east of Bicester on the route to Bletchley are due to close.

However what many still don’t understand is why the busy London Road level crossing in the centre of Bicester is not being closed ahead of some of the lesser used crossings elsewhere. Perhaps some of the money ‘saved’ should be allocated to a proper solution here instead.
 

The Planner

Veteran Member
Joined
15 Apr 2008
Messages
15,836
However what many still don’t understand is why the busy London Road level crossing in the centre of Bicester is not being closed ahead of some of the lesser used crossings elsewhere. Perhaps some of the money ‘saved’ should be allocated to a proper solution here instead.
London Road has been subject to many posts over the years. There are options/solutions for it but plenty of third parties do not agree with them and until an agreement is reached then its going to drag on.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
If it was not agreed by government, why was that figure given in evidence?

As with all projects at that stage, it was a ‘Statement of intent to fund’, not a firm commitment. It’s the same for every project at that stage. HS2 only got funding committed over 6 years after being in a similar position.


unless you’d prefer to call it a saving instead?

It sounds like it is, so let’s.

However what many still don’t understand is why the busy London Road level crossing in the centre of Bicester is not being closed ahead of some of the lesser used crossings elsewhere. Perhaps some of the money ‘saved’ should be allocated to a proper solution here instead.

It’s all explained in the inspector’s report. Paras 7.102 to 7.106.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
As I mentioned earlier, the latest (draft) guidance from the ORR does explain what should be considered reasonably practical. In my view it’s about right. This is useful, as 10 years ago the definition of ‘reasonably’ varied from Inspector to Inspector, leading to all manner of delay, unexpected costs and ‘robust discussion’.
To be fair that would have required some backbone by someone to get that far, with some more backbone required to sign it off.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
To be fair that would have required some backbone by someone to get that far, with some more backbone required to sign it off.

Well it’s out for consultation now; let’s see what the end game is.

In principle I agree that money on LX safety improvements - indeed any safety improvements - should be spent where it delivers the best benefit per £ spent. I also think it’s fair to say that it’s a difficult subject, as there are so many parties involved (both in and outside the rail industry), and the legal position is incredibly complex. NR Anglia have learned this the hard way with their TWA applications; however they will be getting shot of about another 100 crossings when that is all done and dusted.

I remain of the view that about 1/3 of all LXs could be closed relatively cheaply and easily with agreement of private users, or explicit local authority support and / or some simple diversions; and that there would be a socio-economic case to close about another third (more expensively).
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
London Road has been subject to many posts over the years. There are options/solutions for it but plenty of third parties do not agree with them and until an agreement is reached then its going to drag on.
Agreed. The key point is that issues are much smaller elsewhere and solutions have been agreed elsewhere, the benefits of which might encourage some local thought about how to addressing the last remaining item in the "to difficult" pile.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
Well it’s out for consultation now; let’s see what the end game is.

In principle I agree that money on LX safety improvements - indeed any safety improvements - should be spent where it delivers the best benefit per £ spent. I also think it’s fair to say that it’s a difficult subject, as there are so many parties involved (both in and outside the rail industry), and the legal position is incredibly complex. NR Anglia have learned this the hard way with their TWA applications; however they will be getting shot of about another 100 crossings when that is all done and dusted.

I remain of the view that about 1/3 of all LXs could be closed relatively cheaply and easily with agreement of private users, or explicit local authority support and / or some simple diversions; and that there would be a socio-economic case to close about another third (more expensively).
Interesting.

I must admit I originally read your words "level crossings" as meaning road level crossings, as opposed to occupation or foot crossings.

Such work on occupation/foot crossings for an increased service is probably inevitable, in the current climate, where someone negligent obtaining a darwin award on a foot crossing results in media and social media monstering of NR and zero support from politicians who jump on the bandwagon.

Certainly if something has to be done at a particular crossing then you might as well do what is needed to faciltate the full cambridge upgrade, but where changes are only needed for the full blown Cambridge service, leave it until that happens, if it ever does.

Ironically, you would probably save more lives if you funded upgrading of a poor quality nearby road junction, instead of funding closing a level crossing, but the way things are set up dosent allow such considerations
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Ironically, you would probably save more lives if you funded upgrading of a poor quality nearby road junction, instead of funding closing a level crossing, but the way things are set up dosent allow such considerations

Well quite - that’s why Local Authorities aren’t remotely interested in contributing to funding of level crossing safety initiatives. In benefit per pound spent they get much better returns with traffic calming in residential areas etc.
 

Aureol Colin

Member
Joined
2 Feb 2019
Messages
46
I am frustrated that "Bionic Duckweed" is still being preferred to electrification on this route.
I would also like to see the restoration of as much double track as possible between Coldham Lane and Newmarket, so that GA can increase Ipswich to Cambridge frequency in advance EWR reaching Cambridge.

Colin
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,182
Location
Fenny Stratford
A very large amount of the employment is in CMK. Not all of it by any means, but a lot of it is.

Also you can connect onwards by bus onto all but I think 2 routes[1] directly outside, using which you can get to all of the industrial estates (and a few more are within a not excessive walking distance of Bletchley station, and even more within cycling distance if you'll leave an old bike there).

OK, drivers won't do this, but not everyone drives.

[1] 9 is Bletchley-Kingston (but reachable from Bletchley station, and there's a lot of employment at Kingston, too) and what's left of the 30/31 (Bletchley northbound via Watling St, only a couple of journeys a day). Other than that everything but school buses serve MKC station.


key for connectivity at Blethcley is a station entrance facing the town and bus station!

Rather than fancy talk about triangles and junctions and this and that such a simply action would improve access to the station and connectivity hugely. it would actually make two adjacent transport interchanges one. Imagine that!
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
97,538
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
key for connectivity at Blethcley is a station entrance facing the town and bus station!

Rather than fancy talk about triangles and junctions and this and that such a simply action would improve access to the station and connectivity hugely. it would actually make two adjacent transport interchanges one. Imagine that!

Certainly agree with that and it's amazing it's been so long coming. I've used the bus more when they were stopping out front of the station temporarily without having to walk round (a distance which would take me half way home) - if you could just walk straight out onto the bus station that's viable long term.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
I am frustrated that "Bionic Duckweed" is still being preferred to electrification on this route.
I would also like to see the restoration of as much double track as possible between Coldham Lane and Newmarket, so that GA can increase Ipswich to Cambridge frequency in advance EWR reaching Cambridge.

Colin

Is there actually demand to increase the Cambridge - Ipswich service ?

Closely followed by what about paths between Chippenham Jnc and Haughley Jnc ? Are there any and what demand is there for those ?
 

Aureol Colin

Member
Joined
2 Feb 2019
Messages
46
Is there actually demand to increase the Cambridge - Ipswich service ?

Closely followed by what about paths between Chippenham Jnc and Haughley Jnc ? Are there any and what demand is there for those ?
I think the increase in travellers when the hourly service was introduced show that increased frequency encourages increased use.
I am not sure about Chippenham and Haughley paths, but there as been talk of reducing headways and of course doubling Haughley Junction, maybe even a Hitchin style flyover!
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,450
I think the increase in travellers when the hourly service was introduced show that increased frequency encourages increased use.
I am not sure about Chippenham and Haughley paths, but there as been talk of reducing headways and of course doubling Haughley Junction, maybe even a Hitchin style flyover!

Haughley's issue is the same as Hitchin's was - basically moves onto / off a branch meant blocking a busy mainline. It won't necessarily lead to an increase the number of paths between Chippenham & Haughley though.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Haughley's issue is the same as Hitchin's was - basically moves onto / off a branch meant blocking a busy mainline. It won't necessarily lead to an increase the number of paths between Chippenham & Haughley though.
Haughley is a single lead and is proposed to be doubled. That would allow twice as many trains to use the branch without affecting main line capacity, providing they are scheduled to pass each other on the junction. With only two or three trains per hour on the main line there's no justification for a flyover.

Although it's had some Intermediate Block signals I'm pretty sure the there are still long blocks between Chippenham and Haughley which could be shortened to increase headway.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
Is there actually demand to increase the Cambridge - Ipswich service ?

Closely followed by what about paths between Chippenham Jnc and Haughley Jnc ? Are there any and what demand is there for those ?
I think as a precursor to EWR going through to Ipswich, which is in some plans. Coming from the South, Norwich seems more likely - and taking over the Stansted/Cambridge - Norwich service.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
2,171
I think as a precursor to EWR going through to Ipswich, which is in some plans. Coming from the South, Norwich seems more likely - and taking over the Stansted/Cambridge - Norwich service.
I think Norwich passengers will prefer to keep airport services and Cambridge ones will want to keep level boarding to the airport, whereas the Ipswich services don't yet run south of Cambridge so seem a more obvious choice to extend when possible.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,188
Location
Wittersham Kent
Its interesting that radial routes North of London are deemed worthy of such investment. Similar Routes South of the Thames are neglected and the train operating companies and Network Rail are at best only interested in keeping them alive as 19th Century Rural Backwaters.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
I think Norwich passengers will prefer to keep airport services and Cambridge ones will want to keep level boarding to the airport, whereas the Ipswich services don't yet run south of Cambridge so seem a more obvious choice to extend when possible.
It could easily be either. I just chose Norwich as it's more regional in nature, Ipswich feeling more like a local stopping service. Norwich is finite re EWR due to Ely paths, but I think Ipswich could probably grow to 2tph - a fast and a slow.

But it could go both ways - not sure on either's Stansted demand - I suspect marginal and operational convenience (with demand being for Cambridge and then even across its various connections). Also, Ely already has a Stansted service.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
Its interesting that radial routes North of London are deemed worthy of such investment. Similar Routes South of the Thames are neglected and the train operating companies and Network Rail are at best only interested in keeping them alive as 19th Century Rural Backwaters.
Really? Which radial routes south of the Thames link up two of the world's great universities and associated innovation hubs?

I'm all for rail investment, but I can think of any city pairs south of the Thames that begin to compare to Ox-Cambs?
 

DaveN

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2009
Messages
130
eastwestrail.co.uk has been updated to-day.

They now have 3 connection stages:

1. Oxford to Bletchley
2. Oxford to Bedford (including remodelling Bedford Station and major works at Bletchley)
3. Oxford to Cambridge

They also say:

"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."

"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."
 

Nottingham59

Established Member
Joined
10 Dec 2019
Messages
1,607
Location
Nottingham
deliver the full Oxford-Milton Keynes connection from day one
Which means they're downgrading the Bletchley - Bedford leg.

It reminds me of the IT industry saying that you can tell when a project is not going to deliver when the developers start talking about Phase One.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,408
Its interesting that radial routes North of London are deemed worthy of such investment. Similar Routes South of the Thames are neglected and the train operating companies and Network Rail are at best only interested in keeping them alive as 19th Century Rural Backwaters.
Do you mean orbital instead of radial? The routes radiating south from London have received heavy investment over the years, the Thameslink project being a prime example. The orbital routes have received far less because they are far less busy.
 

paul1609

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2006
Messages
7,188
Location
Wittersham Kent
Do you mean orbital instead of radial? The routes radiating south from London have received heavy investment over the years, the Thameslink project being a prime example. The orbital routes have received far less because they are far less busy.
yes you're right I mean the orbital routes.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,544
Which means they're downgrading the Bletchley - Bedford leg.

It reminds me of the IT industry saying that you can tell when a project is not going to deliver when the developers start talking about Phase One.
They are also potentiay deferring the Bletchley-MK bit. Bedford to Bletchley was supposed to be extended to MK when Bletchley was resignalled but hasn't been as there are no paths.

Pound to a pinch of the proverbial that what you will actually get is an hourly Oxford to Bedford service that calls at all stations east of Bletchley followed by the smaller stations on the line being reduced to little more than a parliamentary service over the next few years and the Cambridge bit canned when post Covid economic reality hits.

Hopefully not operated with tarted up District Line trains but it wouldn't entirely surprise me.

Not that I'm cynical or anything.

EDIT - looking at the EastWest website I see connection phase 2 (Bletchley to Bedford) will require the complete rebuilding of Bedford Station to achieve. They appear to have also discovered that there is no room to terminate additonal trains at Bedford in the peak hours, when the station is crawling with Thameslink trains and two stoppers an hour run to Bletchley. Whoops.
 
Last edited:

Glenn1969

Established Member
Joined
22 Jan 2019
Messages
1,983
Location
Halifax, Yorks
The MK bit will be post HS2 possibly.

Cambridge ? 2035. If you're lucky. If they can't afford to sort Manchester what hope has Bedford to Cambridge got especially in the post Covid world?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top