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

[Brush 4]

When was the funding agreed?

 

[camflyer]

Doesn't sound very encouraging: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...t-rail-are-causing-complete-chaos-12-01-2021/

"Construction of High Speed 2 (HS2) is clashing with work on the East West Rail programme, leading to “complete chaos” on the roads of Buckinghamshire, according to local leaders"

 

[kaiser62]

I assume by 'complete chaos' they mean some disruption

 

[Bletchleyite]

I assume by 'complete chaos' they mean some disruption

Quite a lot of rural road and path closures at a time when people are wanting to exercise outdoors, to give one example. It's not great; most of them were avoidable, Network Rail just took the easy option.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not great; most of them were avoidable, Network Rail just took the easy option.

After several consultations with the public, and a public inquiry / parliamentary process, and formal applications to the local highway authority.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

After several consultations with the public, and a public inquiry / parliamentary process, and formal applications to the local highway authority.

Precisely. I am convinced us Brits just like whinging no matter what.

 

[a good off]

What sort of headway have they decided on @theplanner? Will there be any paths available for extra freight and any diversions?

 

[The Planner]

What sort of headway have they decided on @theplanner? Will there be any paths available for extra freight and any diversions?

Think its a 4 minute planning headway. It won't be short of capacity on the line itself, it is just finding it at either end.

 

[ashkeba]

After several consultations with the public, and a public inquiry / parliamentary process, and formal applications to the local highway authority.

In other words, no one else saw the increased demand for exercise routes, EWR did the bog standard minimum and they shouldn't be criticised because it's legal.

That won't win friends.

 

[cle]

Better than during regular commuting times. The walkers can cope. As somebody said upthread, always a whinge...

 

[The Ham]

In other words, no one else saw the increased demand for exercise routes, EWR did the bog standard minimum and they shouldn't be criticised because it's legal.

That won't win friends.

More likely, people saw the details of the consultation didn't bother because they didn't think it would impact them, things change and now it's impacting them (i.e. fewer local places to walk) and they are moaning they didn't think that it would impact them when now it is.

Also I'd highlight that someone in here saying what happened is often in a very different tone to how it would be formally presented by the likes of NR/HS2.

Although I suspect that there's an element of extra complaining because it's HS2.

 

[Ianno87]

In other words, no one else saw the increased demand for exercise routes, EWR did the bog standard minimum and they shouldn't be criticised because it's legal.

That won't win friends.

If you'd predicted this level of demand even 12 months ago, you'd have been dismissed as crazy.

 

[Bletchleyite]

More likely, people saw the details of the consultation didn't bother because they didn't think it would impact them, things change and now it's impacting them (i.e. fewer local places to walk) and they are moaning they didn't think that it would impact them when now it is.

Also I'd highlight that someone in here saying what happened is often in a very different tone to how it would be formally presented by the likes of NR/HS2.

Although I suspect that there's an element of extra complaining because it's HS2.

I would also suspect that the consultation took place before COVID? Might be wrong, though.

To me, the approach should be that roads, however minor, should only be closed for the period of time when it is absolutely necessary and unavoidable, not simply when it's cheaper/easier.

 

[steamybrian]

A lot of discussion about the subject.
Can someone gives us an update on the actual progress on the ground.....

 

[swt_passenger]

I would also suspect that the consultation took place before COVID? Might be wrong, though.

Definitely. The EWR phase 2 TWA order application was submitted in Jul 2018, following a public inquiry the inspectors report went to DfT on 1 Oct 2019, and it was approved in late Jan 2020. Local road and footpath closure orders are invariably made for much longer periods than the closure is needed for, to allow for problems such as weather delays.

 

[Bald Rick]

The TWAO application was submitted in July 2018, and the public inquiry was February - April 2019.

Also, from the decision letter, of nearly a year ago:

“The Secretary of State agrees that the evidence has demonstrated that NR has taken all the available measures to minimise disruption to local residents as much as possible during the construction phase”

 

[swt_passenger]

The TWAO was submitted in July 2018.

Yes you’re right, I’m probably thinking of the date the inspectors report went to SofS for decision. In any case, it’s well before the current access situation developed. I’ll amend my post...

 

[ashkeba]

The TWAO application was submitted in July 2018, and the public inquiry was February - April 2019.

Also, from the decision letter, of nearly a year ago:

“The Secretary of State agrees that the evidence has demonstrated that NR has taken all the available measures to minimise disruption to local residents as much as possible during the construction phase”

To believe that, the SofS must be unaware of how this would be done in countries like the Netherlands where at least proper diversions for walkers and cyclists would be signed and even built if needed for closures of this length of time.

 

[hwl]

To believe that, the SofS must be unaware of how this would be done in countries like the Netherlands where at least proper diversions for walkers and cyclists would be signed and even built if needed for closures of this length of time.

We are talking about Grayling here...

 

[Bald Rick]

To believe that, the SofS must be unaware of how this would be done in countries like the Netherlands where at least proper diversions for walkers and cyclists would be signed and even built if needed for closures of this length of time.

He was agreeing with the Planning Inspector.

We are talking about Grayling here...

It was the current SoS.

 

[Trainee9]

I had a walk today around the perimeter of the Bletchley viaduct works. All the piers in the path of the proposed new box section have now been removed, so far as I can see. Some pile boring seems to have been going on for the past week or two, as a tall boring machine keeps changing position. The Water Eaton Road is now closed at the bridges to facilitate the construction of an access road junction. (The road is still open to foot traffic). In the compound at the end of Duncombe Street, next to the Buckingham Road, an access ramp has been built up.

 

[Nottingham59]

Thanks for the update, Trainee9

 

[alexx]

A little update from on the ground in Bicester from recent walks around the area. The temporary diversion of Charbridge Lane is now operational, which will allow construction of the overbridge to replace the level crossing on the very same road. There's also associated work going on in the vicinity for new access roads to the allotments and other premises and the traffic light controlled bridge on Bicester Road heading into Launton is going to be closed to vehicles shortly for a number of weeks.

Bit more info here although dates are, as always, subject to change: https://www.launton-pc.gov.uk/road-closures/

 

[A0wen]

Quite a lot of rural road and path closures at a time when people are wanting to exercise outdoors, to give one example. It's not great; most of them were avoidable, Network Rail just took the easy option.

I think using the term "easy option" is both unhelpful and wrong.

NR have followed the correct legal process for doing this - the same process any other body wishing to do works which result in road or footpath closures need to follow. And that's how it should be - that way any such closures are subject to consultations and need to be properly advertised (except where responding to an emergency).

Your post implies NR took an 'oh well, we've ticked the box, get on with it lads' approach, which is not how large companies work.

Out of interest - what do YOU think NR should have done ? And would you then, on the next post, have been complaining about the additional costs of "doing stuff" as so many posters here do ? Because if you did, that would be somewhat hypocritical.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Out of interest - what do YOU think NR should have done

Not closed roads and paths where they didn't absolutely need to. To be fair it's not just NR - the utilities do it too - so I strongly support the idea of hefty per-hour fees for doing so.

For instance, the road from the A421 to Newton Longville was nominally closed "to build a compound", but there's no way that would need closure for weeks on end, because the compound was being built in a field, not in the middle of the road. Build the compound, then put in traffic lights for a week while you build the entrance to it. It was done because it was easier.

For footpaths, alternatives should be provided. Often such footpaths are quite necessary in rural areas, because walking down the main road is not an option due to the lack of pavement.

Similarly, the level crossing roads should be closed only while the actual construction of the level crossing is taking place, not for longer than that. This again is not the case. Though I think the way the railway, a minority mode of transport, gets priority with regard to the general closing of level crossings is quite wrong, the presumption should be that if they want to close one that contains a public right of way of any kind THEY must construct an alternative, e.g. a footbridge, BEFORE closing it. If I build a house over a public footpath the footpath is not extinguished, and the railway should not have the right to do this either.

It is clearly the case that they have followed procedure but procedure is deficient. Roads and paths should not be closed for any longer than strictly necessary, and companies of all kinds should be hit hard in the pocket so that taking the lazy approach is not the default.

 

[Ianno87]

Not closed roads and paths where they didn't absolutely need to. To be fair it's not just NR - the utilities do it too - so I strongly support the idea of hefty per-hour fees for doing so.

For instance, the road from the A421 to Newton Longville was nominally closed "to build a compound", but there's no way that would need closure for weeks on end, because the compound was being built in a field, not in the middle of the road. Build the compound, then put in traffic lights for a week while you build the entrance to it. It was done because it was easier.

For footpaths, alternatives should be provided. Often such footpaths are quite necessary in rural areas, because walking down the main road is not an option due to the lack of pavement.

Similarly, the level crossing roads should be closed only while the actual construction of the level crossing is taking place, not for longer than that. This again is not the case. Though I think the way the railway, a minority mode of transport, gets priority with regard to the general closing of level crossings is quite wrong, the presumption should be that if they want to close one that contains a public right of way of any kind THEY must construct an alternative, e.g. a footbridge, BEFORE closing it. If I build a house over a public footpath the footpath is not extinguished, and the railway should not have the right to do this either.

It is clearly the case that they have followed procedure but procedure is deficient. Roads and paths should not be closed for any longer than strictly necessary, and companies of all kinds should be hit hard in the pocket so that taking the lazy approach is not the default.

That is not the view of the Secretary of State, who states, with the evidence provided to him, that NR have taken all reasonable steps to minimise closures and disruption.

 

[A0wen]

Not closed roads and paths where they didn't absolutely need to. To be fair it's not just NR - the utilities do it too - so I strongly support the idea of hefty per-hour fees for doing so.

For instance, the road from the A421 to Newton Longville was nominally closed "to build a compound", but there's no way that would need closure for weeks on end, because the compound was being built in a field, not in the middle of the road. Build the compound, then put in traffic lights for a week while you build the entrance to it. It was done because it was easier.

For footpaths, alternatives should be provided. Often such footpaths are quite necessary in rural areas, because walking down the main road is not an option due to the lack of pavement.

It is clearly the case that they have followed procedure but procedure is deficient. Roads and paths should not be closed for any longer than strictly necessary, and companies of all kinds should be hit hard in the pocket so that taking the lazy approach is not the default.

Well, your first bit shows your deficient knowledge of construction - inevitably you're going to have vehicle movements on / off site all of which need to be conducted safely, potentially mud or other such things on the road etc.

I've driven that bit of the A421 a few times - it's not a nice stretch of road and any accident on there causes chaos - and if an accident had occurred due to any of the above, you'd be the first to demand the contractors be held responsible.

This feels alot like you want it all ways - you want stuff done, you think the process is insufficient, you want the contractors to be fined for closing such paths and roads, you'd want the contractors blamed if an accident happened when the roads were kept open and you'd complain about things taking too long or costing too much - there's only half a dozen contradictions there.

And the fact it ended up with a Planning Enquiry which ended up on the Secretary of State's desk kind of suggests NR didn't get the 'easy option' on this at all - all of those things would have been both costly and time consuming.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, your first bit shows your deficient knowledge of construction - inevitably you're going to have vehicle movements on / off site all of which need to be conducted safely, potentially mud or other such things on the road etc.

How many house building sites cause closures like this? Pretty much none of them. The vehicle movements are controlled by traffic lights and manual traffic marshalls.

I've driven that bit of the A421 a few times - it's not a nice stretch of road and any accident on there causes chaos - and if an accident had occurred due to any of the above, you'd be the first to demand the contractors be held responsible.

Correct, because appropriate traffic lights, marshalling etc can be provided at NR's cost.

This feels alot like you want it all ways - you want stuff done, you think the process is insufficient, you want the contractors to be fined for closing such paths and roads, you'd want the contractors blamed if an accident happened when the roads were kept open and you'd complain about things taking too long or costing too much - there's only half a dozen contradictions there.

The one thing I am not complaining about is cost. My general view is to do things properly, and the cost is what the cost is. Set the level of public services we want, and set the tax level to pay for it - that way round. There is therefore no contradiction.

And the fact it ended up with a Planning Enquiry which ended up on the Secretary of State's desk kind of suggests NR didn't get the 'easy option' on this at all - all of those things would have been both costly and time consuming.

Well, I disagree with the Secretary of State (I was going to say "with respect", but I have no respect for any of the current Government) and I'm sure I am not the only one.

 

[A0wen]

That is not the view of the Secretary of State, who states, with the evidence provided to him, that NR have taken all reasonable steps to minimise closures and disruption.

And you can add to that the SoS would have been given legal advice and professional advice from the Civil Servants in the department doubtless with input from experts in the construction industry and others in order to come to that conclusion.

The complaint here feels alot like the typical 'Railforums Armchair Expert knows more than real experts' one......

 

[Bletchleyite]

And you can add to that the SoS would have been given legal advice and professional advice from the Civil Servants in the department doubtless with input from experts in the construction industry and others in order to come to that conclusion.

The complaint here feels alot like the typical 'Railforums Armchair Expert knows more than real experts' one......

I am inconvenienced by the road closures. That alone is enough to give me a right to complain. You can be very sure that more people are being inconvenienced by the road closures than will ever use what is basically a new-build rural branch line with a short DMU a couple of times an hour.

It doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be built, but, as usual, the railway gets to walk all over the locals.