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

[Bletchleyite]

It's a lot easier to make bus connections from MKC rather than Bletchley, not to mention faster to the Northern side of town. And then there's also the connections to Avanti services to consider. I don't think Oxford-Bedford services should stop at MKC, but I do think there's demand for Oxford-MK, which could probably be satisfied with Aylesbury-MK if the connections are decent at Bletchley. However, it looks like Aylesbury is in doubt for the final plan, so who knows what the final service will actually be

To remind people, the original proposals were:
Oxford-Bedford 1tph
Oxford-MKC 1tph (or was it 2?)
Aylesbury-MKC 1tph
Bedford-Bletchley 1tph (local service)

 

[cle]

To remind people, the original proposals were:
Oxford-Bedford 1tph
Oxford-MKC 1tph (or was it 2?)
Aylesbury-MKC 1tph
Bedford-Bletchley 1tph (local service)

I’ve seen some with 2tph Oxford - MKC. 1tph was extended to Reading (but this may possibly be the Western service discussed too).

Is the assumption to make those all run out of the Chiltern bays at Oxford? Other than potential through trains of course.

 

[camflyer]

A lot of the sense I get is that small, routine meetings will go online but there will still be a value with larger gatherings like conferences where unplanned encounters often get better results than anything in the programme. Stadium MK may well be ideally placed to cater for a reasonable amount of this market, being within easy walking distance of Bletchley station.

Most of the time the best meetings at conferences are over a glass of wine in the bar. It's hard to replicate that over a Teams call. We've tried attending and hosting online conferences and while there are some advantages I can still see a demand for proper in-person conferences when the world returns to normal.

Considering MK is halfway between Oxford and Cambridge and halfway between London and Birmingham, there is a surprising lack of conference facilities in the area.

 

[cle]

Most of the time the best meetings at conferences are over a glass of wine in the bar. It's hard to replicate that over a Teams call. We've tried attending and hosting online conferences and while there are some advantages I can still see a demand for proper in-person conferences when the world returns to normal.

Considering MK is halfway between Oxford and Cambridge and halfway between London and Birmingham, there is a surprising lack of conference facilities in the area.

That is actually a good point, and seems a sensible investment to make for MK as a growth sector. Yes the NEC isn't too far - but multiple events happen simultaneously.

 

[Class 170101]

Cambridge does already have reasonable, non-London connections to many cities on the WCML and MML - direct to Birmingham and Leicester; one change at Peterboro’ to Nottingham, Sheffield, Manchester and Liverpool. Whilst journey times to the latter three are long, EWR won’t help much - MML trains that call at Bedford will only be going to Corby, and as mentioned copiously upthread, for the big WCML destinations you’d need to change at Bletchley and MK.

To be honest I have usually gone via Leicester for Nottingham and Sheffield, if not via Doncaster in case of Sheffield, though thats two changes. For Liverpool, probably changing at Nuneaton and Crewe and forManchester would be probably be either change Doncaster or Leeds.

 

[adrock1976]

Has anything been mentioned what role Bedford St Johns station is going to have when the new Cambridge alignment is built?

PS Is the pronunciation say what you see i.e "Saint Johns", or the modified form of Sin-gens?

 

[zwk500]

Has anything been mentioned what role Bedford St Johns station is going to have when the new Cambridge alignment is built?

PS Is the pronunciation say what you see i.e "Saint Johns", or the modified form of Sin-gens?

No idea on the pronunciation, but as EWR is using the current alignment and closing a station is very expensive, I would imagine it will be redoubled and served by the hourly Bedford-Bletchley stopper only, for local traffic. After all, it's more convenient for half the town, close to retail parks and the Hospital, and on a sharp curve anyway so stopping isn't going to cause that many problems for capacity.

 

[mr_jrt]

None whatsoever - the route is an extension of the current diversion into Bedford Midland.

 

[A0wen]

I would imagine it will be redoubled and served by the hourly Bedford-Bletchley stopper only, for local traffic.

I don't think the current station was ever twin track - and I'm not convinced from looking at Google Earth that there's space to put 2 tracks plus another platform in.

 

[Tobbes]

But isn't Bedford St Johns (new) on the route to Bedford (Midland) anyway? Or have I missed something? I would have thought they'd rebuild it as a two platform station on the same (current) site - there seems to be demand (180k passenger/pa).

 

[edwin_m]

I see the curve actually straightens out through the platform, but lengthening it would take it onto the curve which is probably too tight to meet the current standards for a platform. So I'd agree it's only going to be for the local train.

 

[zwk500]

I don't think the current station was ever twin track - and I'm not convinced from looking at Google Earth that there's space to put 2 tracks plus another platform in.

Fair point - the original station was east of the triangle. I believe the curve was itself double track, but the platform is on the former trackbed. I think there's room if you move the platforms south of the bridge (and possibly tighten up the curve a bit). It depends if the 'local' stations are having platforms extensions to 6-car, and on the maximum allowable curvature on platform lines. Given the single-track link into Bedford Midland is almost certainly going to be doubled, something will need to be done with St Johns.

But isn't Bedford St Johns (new) on the route to Bedford (Midland) anyway? Or have I missed something? I would have thought they'd rebuild it as a two platform station on the same (current) site - there seems to be demand (180k passenger/pa).

Yes it is, you haven't missed anything. I agree there's demand to keep it, whether it shifts a hundred meters or so south is another question

 

[Maltazer]

Have you ever been here, specifically CMK? What you say isn't true in the slightest.

I've visited Milton Keynes quite often (mostly in the noughties when I lived a lot closer), but mostly for shopping and always by car. It certainly felt spread out, but I guess you don't really get to see much of where the housing is from the dual carriageways, so I'm happy to be corrected by the locals.

But it was the talks of conferences and the need for shuttle buses that prompted my comment, and if you need them from MKC then having to get one from Bletchley instead makes no practical difference. But if that's not the case then fine.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I've visited Milton Keynes quite often (mostly in the noughties when I lived a lot closer), but mostly for shopping and always by car. It certainly felt spread out, but I guess you don't really get to see much of where the housing is from the dual carriageways, so I'm happy to be corrected by the locals.

It's a low density place as a whole, but what people miss is the huge amount of employment and shopping in CMK, a town centre which is no bigger than e.g. Manchester city centre so is walkable.

Yes, it has industrial parks and similar, but what large town or city doesn't?

But it was the talks of conferences and the need for shuttle buses that prompted my comment, and if you need them from MKC then having to get one from Bletchley instead makes no practical difference. But if that's not the case then fine.

The talk was of different venues. The Stadium would require a shuttle bus, but that more means it's a poor choice for a conference where people are expected to arrive by train (consider it equivalent to having one at say Eastlands in Manchester where you'd need a tram to get there from the city centre). There are conference venues in CMK, the Jury's Inn has already been mentioned and that's about 5-10 minutes' walk.

In essence, it makes about as much sense not to serve CMK as it would to terminate HS2 at Old Oak permanently (but with a lower frequency connection onwards than that has). I know some support that, so will probably support this as well, but I don't; a railway whose major purpose is to serve a given town needs to go to the town centre station. (I was going to cite the equally nuts but actually true Amsterdam Zuid plans, too!)

 

[A0wen]

Fair point - the original station was east of the triangle. I believe the curve was itself double track, but the platform is on the former trackbed. I think there's room if you move the platforms south of the bridge (and possibly tighten up the curve a bit). It depends if the 'local' stations are having platforms extensions to 6-car, and on the maximum allowable curvature on platform lines. Given the single-track link into Bedford Midland is almost certainly going to be doubled, something will need to be done with St Johns.

Yes it is, you haven't missed anything. I agree there's demand to keep it, whether it shifts a hundred meters or so south is another question

Sigh - Google is your friend, or at least a very useful source of information.

Here's the Google Maps shot of Bedford St J station - you can't really do much about the angles of the curves to the north and certainly not put a second platform in.

To the south you'd then end up with platforms on a curve, which whilst not impossible, creates some different challenges, particularly when you also need to ensure level access to meet DDA requirements. I'm also not sure the residents who would have the platform backing onto their gardens would be particularly welcoming of that being re-sited there.

The current platform could be lengthened or re-sited to the other side of the track - but I reckon putting 2 tracks plus 2 platforms through there is going to be a non starter.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sigh - Google is your friend, or at least a very useful source of information.

Here's the Google Maps shot of Bedford St J station - you can't really do much about the angles of the curves to the north and certainly not put a second platform in.

Looks to be space to me.

To the south you'd then end up with platforms on a curve, which whilst not impossible, creates some different challenges, particularly when you also need to ensure level access to meet DDA requirements. I'm also not sure the residents who would have the platform backing onto their gardens would be particularly welcoming of that being re-sited there.

They don't necessarily get to object.

 

[A0wen]

Looks to be space to me.



They don't necessarily get to object.

And your professional qualification for that statement is........ <waits>

And yes they do - there's no way a re-siting of a station so it butted up to the back of residential properties would be allowed to progress without some form of consultation or planning permission. It's a process which is a basic legal requirement and it exists for the benefit and protection of everyone. Otherwise your neighbour would be able to make wholesale changes to their property to your disadvantage without you being able to do anything to prevent or mitigate it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

And yes they do - there's no way a re-siting of a station so it butted up to the back of residential properties would be allowed to progress without some form of consultation or planning permission. It's a process which is a basic legal requirement and it exists for the benefit and protection of everyone. Otherwise your neighbour would be able to make wholesale changes to their property to your disadvantage without you being able to do anything to prevent or mitigate it.

Maghull North went ahead despite a number of residents vehemently objecting. As did a number of double-stack car parks. The railway is a bit of a special case with regard to planning permission.

It's also not an especially difficult problem to solve - plant a row of leylandii.

 

[A0wen]

Maghull North went ahead despite a number of residents vehemently objecting. As did a number of double-stack car parks. The railway is a bit of a special case with regard to planning permission.

It's also not an especially difficult problem to solve - plant a row of leylandii.

The railway isn't "a bit of a special case" with regard to planning permission - it's expected to meet exactly the same requirements that a road, airport, housing estate, warehouse development or shopping centre does. It doesn't enjoy some "preferential" treatment - in fact you were complaining a few posts further back that the railway had only done what was legally required of them with regard to consultation and road closures.

You need to make your mind up.

And Leylandii are a pest, a massive cost to maintain, block out light and drain the soil beneath them of any nutrients and prevent other things from growing. They are also water hungry so can dry out the earth underneath them causing subsidence.

 

[zwk500]

Sigh - Google is your friend, or at least a very useful source of information.

Here's the Google Maps shot of Bedford St J station - you can't really do much about the angles of the curves to the north and certainly not put a second platform in.

Agree

To the south you'd then end up with platforms on a curve, which whilst not impossible, creates some different challenges, particularly when you also need to ensure level access to meet DDA requirements. I'm also not sure the residents who would have the platform backing onto their gardens would be particularly welcoming of that being re-sited there.

The current platform could be lengthened or re-sited to the other side of the track - but I reckon putting 2 tracks plus 2 platforms through there is going to be a non starter.

The current standard is that a minimum radius of 360m is advised for platforms, with a radius of 200m the absolute limit. The documentation I have doesn't show the radius for St John's directly (possibly because it's never a constant radius), but does show the curves at Bedford Midland to St John's as 250m minimum radius, and Bletchley to Fenny Stratford as 550m minimum radius. If BSJ is only being served by 3/4 car local trains, the derivation to the lower value of the standards is possible.

Here's a photo showing the area is slightly more detail. You're absolutely right that 2 tracks + platforms under the bridge is not going to happen, but 2 tracks on their own can, and possibly at W10/12 clearance. Note the gradient of the road, and proximity of the T junction on the left making rebuilding the bridge very expensive/disruptive. The track is very, very likely to need to be doubled to permit the proposed service. If that happens, the platform under the bridge has to go. So then the choice is either to close the station completely or to resite it. The houses are less than 100m from the existing station, and surrounded by industrial units. I suspect if they are given the choice between closure or the station being nearer, they'd opt for the latter. From the look of St John's car park (out of shot) even if the local houses did object, there'd still be more than enough support from the wider area to justify proceeding, with suitable mitigation in place for those next to the line. You're correct the residents' views cannot be just ignored, but neither can they prevent the station being rebuilt.

 

[A0wen]

Agree

The current standard is that a minimum radius of 360m is advised for platforms, with a radius of 200m the absolute limit. The documentation I have doesn't show the radius for St John's directly (possibly because it's never a constant radius), but does show the curves at Bedford Midland to St John's as 250m minimum radius, and Bletchley to Fenny Stratford as 550m minimum radius. If BSJ is only being served by 3/4 car local trains, the derivation to the lower value of the standards is possible.

Here's a photo showing the area is slightly more detail. You're absolutely right that 2 tracks + platforms under the bridge is not going to happen, but 2 tracks on their own can, and possibly at W10/12 clearance. Note the gradient of the road, and proximity of the T junction on the left making rebuilding the bridge very expensive/disruptive. The track is very, very likely to need to be doubled to permit the proposed service. If that happens, the platform under the bridge has to go. So then the choice is either to close the station completely or to resite it. The houses are less than 100m from the existing station, and surrounded by industrial units. I suspect if they are given the choice between closure or the station being nearer, they'd opt for the latter. From the look of St John's car park (out of shot) even if the local houses did object, there'd still be more than enough support from the wider area to justify proceeding, with suitable mitigation in place for those next to the line. You're correct the residents' views cannot be just ignored, but neither can they prevent the station being rebuilt.
View attachment 89386

Bear in mind a minimum platform width of 3m - I reckon that's nip & tuck as to whether that would even fit.

A better solution might be to relocate the station further south to where the twin track re-starts. It's further away from any houses, yet is closer to more, in terms of a walk to the hospital (where I suspect a lot of St John's custom comes from) it's no different.

 

[zwk500]

Bear in mind a minimum platform width of 3m - I reckon that's nip & tuck as to whether that would even fit.

A better solution might be to relocate the station further south to where the twin track re-starts. It's further away from any houses, yet is closer to more, in terms of a walk to the hospital (where I suspect a lot of St John's custom comes from) it's no different.

Further away from any houses? There's barely 3m from the rails to the boundary fences south of the footbridge...

 

[A0wen]

Further away from any houses? There's barely 3m from the rails to the boundary fences south of the footbridge...
View attachment 89389

I was thinking north of the footbridge, especially if dual track is reinstated since you wouldn't have the junction to contend with. I reckon it's further away from the boundary of houses than if you tried to shoe-horn something in on the current St John's site.

 

[camflyer]

To be honest I have usually gone via Leicester for Nottingham and Sheffield, if not via Doncaster in case of Sheffield, though thats two changes. For Liverpool, probably changing at Nuneaton and Crewe and forManchester would be probably be either change Doncaster or Leeds.

As a Cambridge resident, I only use the train regularly for London, Norwich, Ipswich and Ely/Peterborough. Anywhere else and I will usually drive. Whenever I've looked at routes/times to Manchester for meetings I've ended up driving.

 

[Brush 4]

These last few pages seem to be speculation again, about services. Any actual physical progress out there? Veg clearance, ballasting, bridge work? They must at least be having a tea break. Are they using full fat or semi slimmed milk?

 

[Bald Rick]

These last few pages seem to be speculation again, about services. Any actual physical progress out there? Veg clearance, ballasting, bridge work? They must at least be having a tea break. Are they using full fat or semi slimmed milk?

Ballasting is a long way off. But yes, site clearance, deveg, bridge work (Bletchley!)

Not sure about the milk, but 6 sugars.

 

[Brush 4]

Ballasting is a long way off. But yes, site clearance, deveg, bridge work (Bletchley!)

Not sure about the milk, but 6 sugars.

Blimey, that's quite a sugar high......

 

[alexx]

These last few pages seem to be speculation again, about services. Any actual physical progress out there? Veg clearance, ballasting, bridge work? They must at least be having a tea break. Are they using full fat or semi slimmed milk?

Lots going on in Bicester and the vicinity as I posted a few pages back before it got buried in a lovely conversation about the minutiae of local travel in Milton Keynes and Bletchley. I’ll try and get some pics next time I’m out and about, but it’s quite dull at the moment unless you enjoy looking at acres of mud and groundworks.

 

[swt_passenger]

Don’t think this video has been mentioned, (it‘s not just about the flyover):

or this one, (he has a few more online):

 

[yorkie]

Just a gentle reminder this is an Infrastructure & Stations thread to discuss progress and updates for East-West Rail.

We absolutely do warmly welcome speculative ideas/suggestions regarding what infrastructure should or shouldn't be built, or what service patterns should be, etc but can I ask that these are please posted in the Speculative Ideas section. Thanks!