East West Main Line - Network Rail's view

[A0wen]

I do think it's ridiculous that a new railway which mostly connects into electrified infrastructure will have to open with DMUs, and presumably electrification would be one of the major "infrastructure enhancements". But that's been done to death already.

But just because it is connecting *with* electrified lines doesn't mean it's easy to extend the electrification onto that line - where are the National Grid connections for the MML or WCML ? Is there enough capacity to extend them ? Even if you just look at the Bedford - Bletchley stretch - that's 16 miles in total, conceptually you could argue "well that's 8 miles from both Bedford and Bletchley" - but if they are at or near the capacity limit for their National Grid connection then what ?

It's easy to make glib statements like yours - more difficult to deliver these things given they need to work around the existing infrastructure.

 

[Bertone]

With the Southern gone (and unlikely to come back) that's one path each way...

Southern service MK to Clapham Junction appears to be going to be reintroduced in June

 

[A0wen]

I agree with most of this post but usage at Stewartby had ticked up fairly impressively pre-COVID. Rationalisation on the Marston Vale might make sense but Stewartby isn't one to close, especially with the adjacent brickworks site.

Oh yes, it's usage had more or less doubled between 2016 and 2019 - what would be interesting to know is where the people who were using it were heading.

My bet is towards Bedford - easier that trying to drive through and park in Bedford.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

But just because it is connecting *with* electrified lines doesn't mean it's easy to extend the electrification onto that line - where are the National Grid connections for the MML or WCML ? Is there enough capacity to extend them ? Even if you just look at the Bedford - Bletchley stretch - that's 16 miles in total, conceptually you could argue "well that's 8 miles from both Bedford and Bletchley" - but if they are at or near the capacity limit for their National Grid connection then what ?

It's easy to make glib statements like yours - more difficult to deliver these things given they need to work around the existing infrastructure.

I hear what you are saying and a number of us (me included) can have a crayonista tendency - easy to draw lines on the map but not easy in practice.

1. However, politicians and others say "Electrification is disruptive". OK fair enough - all the more reason to electrify when you are doing other stuff anyway and closing the line - surely best to avoid further disruption by electrifying from the gitgo.
2. If we are really serious about low carbon and climate change what sort of message does it send when you then build a "new" diesel line - the optics are really lousy on this one imho.
3. If the power limitations at each end are that bad, and that tight on cap[acity, sounds like they need upgrading anyway as there is no room for growth.
4. I think you are being a little unfair using the word "glib". I think it is a reasonable question to ask. If we are planning (allegedly) for 8 new nukes and want Britain to be energy independent, a major new line in the country should surely be electrified from the start.

 

[A0wen]

I hear what you are saying and a number of us (me included) can have a crayonista tendency - easy to draw lines on the map but not easy in practice.

BIB - you said it. I'm not going to argue with you.

On the rest of your post, I'm going to defer to one of the many posters on here who actually deal with these things on a daily basis and can explain exactly what the challenges are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with most of this post but usage at Stewartby had ticked up fairly impressively pre-COVID. Rationalisation on the Marston Vale might make sense but Stewartby isn't one to close, especially with the adjacent brickworks site.

And Kempston Hardwick has a large housing development planned around it. It's a perfect mostly-brownfield site for an eco-town, and it seems this will happen in some form.

 

[Kingham West]

Totally agree

Who is going to pay for the Electification, I would rather have east west rail , with DMU,s , than no railway at all.
The money is getting very tight ..

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Who is going to pay for the Electification,

Where there is a will there is a way - but that is politics which I will steer clear of.

I would rather have east west rail , with DMU,s , than no railway at all.

Totally agree with you

The money is getting very tight ..

Well that is straying into politics again. It is the excuse that is always made. I repeat myself from above " where there is a will there is a way".

 

[Glenn1969]

Where there is a will there is a way - but that is politics which I will steer clear of.



Totally agree with you



Well that is straying into politics again. It is the excuse that is always made. I repeat myself from above " where there is a will there is a way".

Unfortunately given that the country is coming out of a pandemic and has a National Debt of over £1 trillion I don't see much discretionary spend happening for another decade although I would like to be wrong

 

[DarloRich]

The reason the Marston Vale is "underused" is because it doesn't actually serve anywhere - and extending it to MKC would make precious little difference to that.

Let's look at each of the stations in turn:

Fenny Stratford - for many people Bletchley is just as close and serves more destinations (with apologies to Darlo Rich)
Bow Brickhill - if you're heading to the centre of MK a car or taxi will quicker and more convenient.
The same is true of Woburn Sands and Apsley Guise.

Ridgmont only really serves the Amazon and other warehouses.
Lidlington - serves the village but that's only 1300 people, unlikely to use it more even if the train did run to CMK.

Millbrook, Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick are all in the middle of nowhere.

Bedford St Johns - serves an area of Bedford, but I doubt running through to MKC would generate additional traffic.

Of the 4 stations which are more or less in MK - Fenny Stratford, Bow Brickhill, Woburn Sands and Apsley Guise - only one really serves an area of employment - Bow Brickhill with Caldecotte Lake Business Park next to it - there's not much in it between Bletchley and Fenny Stratford for most of the employment areas of Bletchley.

Firstly: Fenny is not just as close to bletchley for most people. It is a 20 minute walk from where I am to blethley station.

Secondly research the users group carried out has shown the lack of a link to mk is retarding numbers. We dont need a curve to satisfy that demand- a reversal of the exisitng service will do

Thirdly there are plans for vast numbers of houses along the line. Plans yes but devlopment is begining. Several thousands homes are going in at the bottom of Fenny Statford already and work on the new distrobution centre development has started next to Bow Brickhill station that will fill up the gap between the a5 and bow brickhill station.

Sewartby is supposed to have the vast brickworks site redeveloped for housing. Kemspton is supposed to be some kind of new village. That changes those locations vastly.

There is a market there that will only get bigger but the speed and unreliabilty of the service kill off demand. The blidy 230's will get the line closed!


I am sure you know best about all this mind. I mean i only live here and rely on the train so i know nowt!

Oh yes, it's usage had more or less doubled between 2016 and 2019 - what would be interesting to know is where the people who were using it were heading.

My bet is towards Bedford - easier that trying to drive through and park in Bedford.

There is a collage there as well. That (and Bletchely collage) is the key factor in determining the current service levels

Well that is straying into politics again. It is the excuse that is always made. I repeat myself from above " where there is a will there is a way".

There is no will and therefore no way. Also refusing to acknowledge the importance of "politics" is indicative. That is the key not something to dismiss.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Unfortunately given that the country is coming out of a pandemic and has a National Debt of over £1 trillion I don't see much discretionary spend happening for another decade although I would like to be wrong

Again, I hear what you are saying but whichever way you argue it gets political. If money is that tight, then net zero targets etc need to be abandoned pretty darned quickly. The treasury - know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

 

[A0wen]

Firstly: Fenny is not just as close to bletchley for most people. It is a 20 minute walk from where I am to blethley station.

Secondly research the users group carried out has shown the lack of a link to mk is retarding numbers. We dont need a curve to satisfy that demand- a reversal of the exisitng service will do

Thirdly there are plans for vast numbers of houses along the line. Plans yes but devlopment is begining. Several thousands homes are going in at the bottom of Fenny Statford already and work on the new distrobution centre development has started next to Bow Brickhill station that will fill up the gap between the a5 and bow brickhill station.

Sewartby is supposed to have the vast brickworks site redeveloped for housing. Kemspton is supposed to be some kind of new village. That changes those locations vastly.

There is a market there that will only get bigger but the speed and unreliabilty of the service kill off demand. The blidy 230's will get the line closed!


I am sure you know best about all this mind. I mean i only live here and rely on the train so i know nowt!

But the point that keeps being missed is that commuting (which is the main argument for why there needs to be a link to MKC) is not back where it was.

Many people are now working from home as the "normal" either partly or fully. Now I accept *some* jobs can't allow that - but the jobs in Central MK are predominantly office based (I should know, I did one there for many years) and I also know my former employer there has just reduced their office space by circa 50% due to new ways of working. They are not going to be unique in that.

Commuting into London is different and always has / will be - mainly because in central London there has never been sufficient parking - even if you go back to the 60s or 70s that was the case, people were expected to commute in by train or underground. But for places outside London, the Milton Keynes, Northampton, Bedford, Luton's of this world, that's not the case. And with fewer people travelling in each day, the parking challenge is reduced as well.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Unfortunately given that the country is coming out of a pandemic and has a National Debt of over £1 trillion I don't see much discretionary spend happening for another decade although I would like to be wrong

WARNING [Politics on] perhaps they want inflation - to inflate the debt away!!! More seriously, (well a little more) Russia-Ukraine has shown we could face an existential threat if we rely too much on fossil fuels. Electric railways are therefore good surely? [/politics off]

 

[DarloRich]

But the point that keeps being missed is that commuting (which is the main argument for why there needs to be a link to MKC) is not back where it was.

Many people are now working from home as the "normal" either partly or fully. Now I accept *some* jobs can't allow that - but the jobs in Central MK are predominantly office based (I should know, I did one there for many years) and I also know my former employer there has just reduced their office space by circa 50% due to new ways of working. They are not going to be unique in that.

Commuting into London is different and always has / will be - mainly because in central London there has never been sufficient parking - even if you go back to the 60s or 70s that was the case, people were expected to commute in by train or underground. But for places outside London, the Milton Keynes, Northampton, Bedford, Luton's of this world, that's not the case. And with fewer people travelling in each day, the parking challenge is reduced as well.

I dont disgaree with any of that but people will be going back to the office. I have been going in full time since xmas and it is helping me no end. Sadly getting the train is really hard as the service is almost useless at present.

I think people will end up with a mix of working at home and in the office and services need to reflect that.

Apart from that the lack of a connection to mk is still an issue. If you want to get from the vale to anywhere north ( or south quickly) you have to over pad the journey to cover the slow service along the vale, the wait at beltchely not helped by the less than good northern connection times and then the change at mk onto a faster service. It is a frustration!

Btw the 4th issue holding back numbers on the vale was connections.
LM took ages but eventually fixed the timetbale in that regard (at least southbound!)

 

[A0wen]

Btw the 4th issue holding back numbers on the vale was connections.
LM took ages but eventually fixed the timetbale in that regard (at least southbound!)

BIB - and presumably the reason the southbound was fixed is that's where the majority of the demand was for ? They'd have picked up that from surveys - and perhaps it said that the overwhelming majority wanted better connections with London bound trains than MK and beyond ?

In some ways the MV is like the Sudbury branch - terminates at Marks Tey rather than the nearest "big" town - in that case Colchester - but the demand from the branch for onward travel is most likely southwards towards London.

 

[Bletchleyite]

BIB - and presumably the reason the southbound was fixed is that's where the majority of the demand was for ? They'd have picked up that from surveys - and perhaps it said that the overwhelming majority wanted better connections with London bound trains than MK and beyond ?

Generally transport companies get this wrong. They survey their users. They don't commission surveys of people in cars as to why they don't use public transport. That's why most public transport companies do almost nothing to attract car users and continue managing their existing decline.

 

[DarloRich]

BIB - and presumably the reason the southbound was fixed is that's where the majority of the demand was for ? They'd have picked up that from surveys - and perhaps it said that the overwhelming majority wanted better connections with London bound trains than MK and beyond ?

In some ways the MV is like the Sudbury branch - terminates at Marks Tey rather than the nearest "big" town - in that case Colchester - but the demand from the branch for onward travel is most likely southwards towards London.

In honesty I think most users want to go to mk but most of the money goes to London

That is a fair choice but it should be possible to satisfy both parties!

EDIT - in any event i maintain any demand for mk can be tested and developed by a reversal at Bletchley on the vale services. We dont need to spend millions to achieve that.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Generally transport companies get this wrong. They survey their users. They don't commission surveys of people in cars as to why they don't use public transport. That's why most public transport companies do almost nothing to attract car users and continue managing their existing decline.

Wow. I have never thought about it that way. Good point.

I'm going to defer to one of the many posters on here who actually deal with these things on a daily basis and can explain exactly what the challenges are.

I really look forward to that. As a passionate electrification enthusiast and a STEM person plus lifelong enthusiast I really am genuinely interested.

 

[Bletchleyite]

EDIT - in any event i maintain any demand for mk can be tested and developed by a reversal at Bletchley on the vale services. We dont need to spend millions to achieve that.

That was going to happen during LM's tenure using platform 2A...then didn't. Though based on experience of bus services, you need to operate for 3-5 years to really build up custom. That's why pretty much all MK "new estate" planning gain bus services are tendered for 5 years (you go for the high end because at the start you have a low population).

Would be good if planning gain for new builds in the Vale could be used for rail improvements, but that may be too complex.

 

[A0wen]

Generally transport companies get this wrong. They survey their users. They don't commission surveys of people in cars as to why they don't use public transport. That's why most public transport companies do almost nothing to attract car users and continue managing their existing decline.

It's also wrong - over the years I've completed a number of surveys my employers have run about travel to work patterns which are usually part of a wider survey of employers which includes local authorities and public transport providers. So to claim non public transport users aren't surveyed is wrong.

Wow. I have never thought about it that way. Good point.

It's not a good point. It's utterly wrong.

EDIT - in any event i maintain any demand for mk can be tested and developed by a reversal at Bletchley on the vale services. We dont need to spend millions to achieve that.

But you do need a path between Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central, stand time at MKC and back to Bletchley - over to @The Planner to comment I think !

 

[DarloRich]

It's also wrong - over the years I've completed a number of surveys my employers have run about travel to work patterns which are usually part of a wider survey of employers which includes local authorities and public transport providers. So to claim non public transport users aren't surveyed is wrong.


It's not a good point. It's utterly wrong.



But you do need a path between Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central, stand time at MKC and back to Bletchley - over to @The Planner to comment I think !

Absolutly - a tough ask but that will be easier to find that several million for a new curve and replacement depot/stabling facilities and all the other items in the report!

In any event a few "key" trains extended to mk would suffice, mainly the ones i want to use

 

[py_megapixel]

But just because it is connecting *with* electrified lines doesn't mean it's easy to extend the electrification onto that line - where are the National Grid connections for the MML or WCML ? Is there enough capacity to extend them ? Even if you just look at the Bedford - Bletchley stretch - that's 16 miles in total, conceptually you could argue "well that's 8 miles from both Bedford and Bletchley" - but if they are at or near the capacity limit for their National Grid connection then what ?

It's easy to make glib statements like yours - more difficult to deliver these things given they need to work around the existing infrastructure.

I wasn't arguing that it connecting with electrified lines would make electrification easier - I was arguing that it would make it more necessary. Little bits of diesel-only line connecting into electric infrastructure is a recipe for additional expense and inconvenience, whatever form it takes - from awkward connections for passengers where the traction type changes, to procuring expensive new bi-mode trains, or what seems to be the government's preferred option at the moment, just not caring about burning diesel under the wires. Oxenholme-Windermere is a good example of this, as is Didcot-Oxford.

Also, it's going to have to be electrified at some point if we are to meet the zero-carbon targets. so why does it make sense to make it more expensive and disruptive by leaving it until the line is open?

We simply should not be opening diesel railways in the modern day, unless they are in remote areas where there is no chance of wider electrification anyway. If that means some projects miss out on funding because it is infeasible for them to be electric, then so be it - there are plenty of other reopening and electrification schemes that need the investment.

 

[sammorris]

Yes, because all those people who travel into London on a daily basis grab their car keys and don't bother with using the train because it necessitate a change. Same for all those people who use the Abbey Flyer or Marks Tey - Sudbury or hundreds of other lines up and down the country.

This is completely incomparable - you can't drive into London, there is nowhere to park. The problem with the change within such a short journey (Bedford to MK really isn't very far) is it adds time compared with a reversal. It implies a wait standing on the platform of at least 10 minutes, making it unattractive for local passengers, if not longer distance passengers.

But just because it is connecting *with* electrified lines doesn't mean it's easy to extend the electrification onto that line - where are the National Grid connections for the MML or WCML ? Is there enough capacity to extend them ? Even if you just look at the Bedford - Bletchley stretch - that's 16 miles in total, conceptually you could argue "well that's 8 miles from both Bedford and Bletchley" - but if they are at or near the capacity limit for their National Grid connection then what ?

It's easy to make glib statements like yours - more difficult to deliver these things given they need to work around the existing infrastructure.

Electrification seems to be one of the few concrete things - other than general futureproofing (i.e., don't design things which make expansion unnecessarily expensive/difficult) which NR is explicitly calling for in that document. Makes sense to me, it's frankly very odd in an era of climate change that we are still building new diesel-powered lines in the UK - and planning them to deliver for decades to come, apparently. Yes, it would mean additional upfront cost (and that is clearly why it's not in the plan), but NR clearly see that there are additional benefits.

 

[A0wen]

Electrification seems to be one of the few concrete things - other than general futureproofing (i.e., don't design things which make expansion unnecessarily expensive/difficult) which NR is explicitly calling for in that document. Makes sense to me, it's frankly very odd in an era of climate change that we are still building new diesel-powered lines in the UK - and planning them to deliver for decades to come, apparently. Yes, it would mean additional upfront cost (and that is clearly why it's not in the plan), but NR clearly see that there are additional benefits.

I refer you to my first post on this thread #6 and Darlo Rich's #19.

 

[Mikey C]

Even MK Central as a station does have a slight flaw as it isn't that central.

Near enough to the centre for people travelling from further afield such as Oxford, Bicester and Aylesbury, but for people nearer to MK, buses (never mind cars) may still take them closer to where they actually want to go.

 

[sammorris]

I refer you to my first post on this thread #6 and Darlo Rich's #19.

Which are just saying BCRs need to be positive. I believe electrification was the original plan, which presumably was costed with a positive BCR or it wouldn't have been taken forward as far as it was before electrification was removed from the plan. The barrier to electrification is very probably less the BCR and more just the "C" element of that.

 

[Trog]

Absolutly - a tough ask but that will be easier to find that several million for a new curve and replacement depot/stabling facilities ..........

I am not sure that a short chord line through the Cambridge Sidings and TMD would work. The flyover lines and Bedford Bletchley cross at an angle of less than 90', OK the Bedford lines curve into this and by starting further back you get a squarer angle, but the available land that can be used without using a bulldozer to do large scale improvements to Bletchley also follows that curve.

The new chord would also have to rise significantly to reach the level of the flyover approach lines, or be extended northwards for quite some way while they descend. A short sharply curved chord on a gradient could be a problem, as part of the justification for it seems to be for freight, so a section where drag conditions limit the allowable load would be unwelcome. A workable curve might well involve demolishing the back half of the industrial estate between the WCML and the old A5, which would be even more expense. Or I suppose you could keep to railway land by going through the Cambridge Sidings, TMD approach lines while descending in a cutting to go under the flyover lines, then rising in a second section of cutting through the Up Arrival Line, arrival sidings, the carriage sidings and eventually merging with the north end of the Goods lines. Which would more or less eliminate all the railway operating facilities at Bletchley.

 

[Watershed]

The thing is, the line will be electrified at some point if the government is serious about eliminating diesel running. There is no feasible alternative traction solution for a line of that distance and speed. It's all a load of bionic duckweed.

So the government is deliberately choosing the additional expense, inconvenience and environmental impact of opening the railway diesel-only, and electrifying it later. That is absolutely criminal in my view.

 

[A0wen]

The thing is, the line will be electrified at some point if the government is serious about eliminating diesel running. There is no feasible alternative traction solution for a line of that distance and speed. It's all a load of bionic duckweed.

So the government is deliberately choosing the additional expense, inconvenience and environmental impact of opening the railway diesel-only, and electrifying it later. That is absolutely criminal in my view.

Not necessarily - hybrids or bimodes may come into play.

I can see Oxford - Bletchley getting wired, but if Bedford - Cambridge doesn't happen, I'm not sure Bedford - Bletchley will and services could be run with battery bi modes.

 

[Watershed]

Not necessarily - hybrids or bimodes may come into play.

I can see Oxford - Bletchley getting wired, but if Bedford - Cambridge doesn't happen, I'm not sure Bedford - Bletchley will and services could be run with battery bi modes.

Even if you assume that - and of course the government will know exactly what the plan is for Bedford-Cambridge - it still makes sense to electrify Bicester-Bletchley, during construction.