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

[mr_jrt]

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

Bear in mind, that's for the southern option as part of a big redevelopment the council wants to do of that area, with everything integrated. The consultation makes it very clear what their preferences are, and the northern option is clearly what they want as that doesn't tie them up in a scheme that might not be ready within their timescale. ...and whilst the docs don't provide a similar track diagram for the northern option, it appears to be leaving the bulk of the platforms as they are, but knocking through 1a and building a new island platform east of the current ones to provide 3 EWR platforms.

 

[D365]

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.

So am I right in summing it up like below:

• Two fast platforms for EMR InterCity
• Two slow platforms for Thameslink/EMR Electrics + two Thameslink bays
• Three EWR platforms

 

[richieb1971]

Sounds about right to me.

 

[Ianno87]

My first question is "what on earth is 4tph to Cambridge needed for"?

To actually get people out of their cars as an attractive alternative to travelling by road. It's about connecting housing growth to employment centres and making the railway attractive in doing that. I'd say connecting Oxford to Cambridge is merely more the side-effext of the railway than its core purpose.

This is an once in a generation opportunity to build a brand new railway. Even if 4tph aren't needed on day one, you don't want to hamstring the infrastructure forevermore by building in a reduced scope today. There's also a good risk of some suppressed demand turning up - a variety of journeys currently difficult by rail/public transport will suddenly become relatively easy.

Also sounds like it won't be "short DMUs" - the platform lengths used for design (e.g. for the Marston Vale relocations) seem to allow for relatively long trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

So am I right in summing it up like below:

• Two fast platforms for EMR InterCity
• Two slow platforms for Thameslink/EMR Electrics + two Thameslink bays
• Three EWR platforms

Except EMR intercity don’t call at Bedford? It’s the electrics that make the only calls, according to recent timetable changes and consultations...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Except EMR intercity don’t call at Bedford? It’s the electrics that make the only calls, according to recent timetable changes and consultations...

One reason they don't is that there is no up fast platform. This might well change if the penalty for calling was to reduce.

To actually get people out of their cars as an attractive alternative to travelling by road. It's about connecting housing growth to employment centres

Is it? The plan is to move Ridgmont away from the warehouse site so it ceases to be in easy walking distance (and has a big road junction to cross) and MKC will be significantly underserved, as well as closing Bow Brickhill, which serves Tilbrook, another centre of employment.

If intermediate employment centres are important - and I believe they are - then this is totally the wrong plan. It looks more like a London commuter service (monocentric) than being geared up for accessing employment.

Granted, Kempston Hardwick and Millbrook are a bit useless (though it occurred to me that KH could become very useful for a large housing development around it) and Fenny Stratford probably not much more so (sorry @DarloRich) but it strikes me that the priorities here are just way off. If anything I would look to bin Bedford St John's in favour of Bow Brickhill and a way not to move Ridgmont (or to move it north rather than south) needs to be found.

The failure to serve MKC from the east also means Ridgmont can't be an M1 J13 Parkway, for which it would be perfectly located.

 

[Ianno87]

Is it? The plan is to move Ridgmont away from the warehouse site so it ceases to be in easy walking distance (and has a big road junction to cross) and MKC will be significantly underserved, as well as closing Bow Brickhill, which serves Tilbrook, another centre of employment.

Although Bow Brickhill's and Ridgmont's commuter catchments are relatively local. Arguably it is better served by a bus link, and it is very concentrated at the shift changeover times (particularly Ridgmont)

If intermediate employment centres are important - and I believe they are - then this is totally the wrong plan. It looks more like a London commuter service (monocentric) than being geared up for accessing employment.

Yes, that is the idea - designed to enable future employment centres, and for people to be able to travel to them without defaulting to the car. Planning for the future, not the present.

 

[Hadders]

I agree that Bow Brickhill is a station with potential, ditto Ridgmont. I don't think closing or relocating them is a good idea.

 

[Ianno87]

I agree that Bow Brickhill is a station with potential, ditto Ridgmont. I don't think closing or relocating them is a good idea.

The consultation does seem to be presenting the polar opposite scenarios of "all stations as they are today" and "all relocated".

The best solution might be a blend between the two- relocating the likes of Lidlington but retaining Ridgmont/ Bow Brickhill as they are (for example), with the consultation responses gauging what to do.

What is true however, is that some of the current stations have a poor usage and will need to "up their game" to still have a place on a new regional main line.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although Bow Brickhill's and Ridgmont's commuter catchments are relatively local. Arguably it is better served by a bus link, and it is very concentrated at the shift changeover times (particularly Ridgmont)

Post COVID go take a ride on the 99 and observe its commuter pattern. It's not what you might expect. There is very considerable commuting from just off the M1 at Luton to the warehouses at Kingston - indeed those stops, which only came into being to make it BSOG eligible, are probably by far it's busiest.

So why would that not happen from Bedford to Ridgmont?

Yes, that is the idea - designed to enable future employment centres, and for people to be able to travel to them without defaulting to the car. Planning for the future, not the present.

What future employment centres? CMK is hardly going to stop being one.

The consultation does seem to be presenting the polar opposite scenarios of "all stations as they are today" and "all relocated".

The best solution might be a blend between the two- relocating the likes of Lidlington but retaining Ridgmont/ Bow Brickhill as they are (for example)

It also doesn't consider the option of perhaps being able to have 6 stations rather than 5, but skip stop the quietest two so they stay hourly, say.

 

[Ianno87]

Post COVID go take a ride on the 99 and observe its commuter pattern. It's not what you might expect. There is very considerable commuting from just off the M1 at Luton to the warehouses at Kingston - indeed those stops, which only came into being to make it BSOG eligible, are probably by far it's busiest.

So why would that not happen from Bedford to Ridgmont?

Well, there is already a train service from Bedford to Ridgmont. I have no doubt there is current commuting demand - on certain trains. The current train service is, however, a relatively poor offering that no doubt suppresses demand.

What future employment centres? CMK is hardly going to stop being one.

Growth in the likes of Oxford, Bicester, CMK and Cambridge (Inc the Biomedical Campus). Jobs are expected to grow in all of these areas. EWR is planning for the transport capacity to serve them *now*, and harness the benefits.of agglomeration on the Oxfrord-Cambridge arc.

It also doesn't consider the option of perhaps being able to have 6 stations rather than 5, but skip stop the quietest two so they stay hourly, say.

I think lots of permutations are probably possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is true however, is that some of the current stations have a poor usage and will need to "up their game" to still have a place on a new regional main line.

That needs cooperation between planning authorities, developers and the railway - a bit like Metroland. Kempston Hardwick for example is primarily brownfield and quite flat, and would be the ideal location for a small eco town merging in with Bedford, centring on the station, and perhaps with some employment of its own.

 

[A0wen]

I totally agree, but the only way to accomplish that is by lowering commuting by car (either build affordable housing where people work or making public transport commuting more appealing/cheaper than using a car) and getting more freight out of hgv's and onto the trains.

Unfortunately I don't see it happening quick enough to really make a difference.

Not too far from me, they're building even more houses just outside St Neots, right near the A428. No doubt they will be sold to people who will end up commuting to Cambridge (because they can't afford Cambridge prices) along the A428 (which travels at about 20-30mph if your lucky, at peak times). We really need the public transport infrastructure at the get go, not 5 or 10 years later !! As that is IMHO the only way your going to make a significant impact on Climate Change.

Edit: Yes EV's will come along and improve my last Statement. But what year will it be befre everyone owns a EV ?

But railways lack the flexibilty road does - talking freight and EWR in the same breath proves the point. What freight flows are there between Oxford and Cambridge? Not many in reality. And the rail network is only any good at bulk freight shipments, which is why for domestic freight it tends to be things like aggregates which work. Most (virtually all) of the container loads you see on the railways originated at one of the major ports - Felixstow, Tilbury, Southampton etc, which then head to distribution points in the midlands / north. You're not going to remove the HGVs which are delivering food to the supermarkets, building materials to the DIY sheds or clothes to M&S or Next from the roads. Nor are you going to get rid of the vans your plumber, sparky or builder are using to go from job to job. And then people in other jobs will, quite rightly, say why is it OK for 'x' to drive bit not me? Why should I have to put up with a less convenient journey?

These are the points the "get traffic off the roads" lobby never answer.

Keeping on topic, the subject of EWR and proposal to rebuild Bedford station with the loss of housing was on last night's Anglia News. Also here https://www.bedfordindependent.co.u...of-next-stage-of-east-west-rail-consultation/

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think lots of permutations are probably possible.

Indeed. I think the consultation is perhaps poorly structured to recognise this - indeed, it is structured just to get votes for their existing 5 station option (the bolding in the comparison table is quite telling).

As for Bedford I think the "new station on the depot" option is the way to go. It would be very slightly closer to the town centre and remove the need for St John's, allowing another Marston Vale station to be retained instead, I would go for Bow Brickhill myself, but it could be Kempston Hardwick if a Metroland like housing development could be brought in.

 

[jfowkes]

I don't know the rationale for keeping Bedford St Johns, apart from the hospital being next door. Isn't it really just a leftover from the days when it was a junction? Not a great deal of utility these days.

I'd be tempted to close it and use the money and journey time minutes somewhere else.

 

[Ianno87]

Indeed. I think the consultation is perhaps poorly structured to recognise this - indeed, it is structured just to get votes for their existing 5 station option (the bolding in the comparison table is quite telling).

I think the overall benefits for thinning out the number of stations is quite clear - if the Bedford-Bletchley section were new today you'd never in a million years propose all the stations that exist today. Certainly not what you'd come up with using a blank sheet of paper (compare to the relatively few stations proposed between Bedford and Cambridge)

I think the consultation is trying to spell out the wider benefits of the "consolidated" stations, rather than falling into the usual consultation trap of "you're trying to take away my train service!" which then inevitably dominates the responses from a relatively small minority of the overall population (see also: Thameslink Wimbledon Loop).

 

[swt_passenger]

I don't know the rationale for keeping Bedford St Johns, apart from the hospital being next door. Isn't it really just a leftover from the days when it was a junction? Not a great deal of utility these days.

I'd be tempted to close it and use the money and journey time minutes somewhere else.

Ah but, “slippery slope, thin end of the wedge, etc etc...”. Before you know it there’ll be no stations left...

 

[A0wen]

One reason they don't is that there is no up fast platform. This might well change if the penalty for calling was to reduce.

As you know, that's not going to happen. The aim of the EMR timetable was to *improve* journey times from the East Mids / South Yorks - even with EWR at Bedford there's no justification for stopping fast EMR services at Bedford, because they can already get to the key EWR destinations using existing services. The only station which could possibly justify fast EMR stops south of Kettering is Luton Airport Parkway - and even then it's not a compelling case.

 

[jfowkes]

And then people in other jobs will, quite rightly, say why is it OK for 'x' to drive bit not me? Why should I have to put up with a less convenient journey?

Because we're in a climate and ecological emergency, that's why.

The onus shouldn't be on individuals to make this kind of choice, because currently the economics and politics incentivise the easiest, most polluting option, and a lot of people simply don't have the money or time to choose otherwise. It should be politicians and businesses making public transport the easier, cheaper choice. It sucks that it's not happening.

 

[A0wen]

Because we're in a climate and ecological emergency, that's why.

The onus shouldn't be on individuals to make this kind of choice, because currently the economics and politics incentivise the easiest, most polluting option, and a lot of people simply don't have the money or time to choose otherwise. It should be politicians and businesses making public transport the easier, cheaper choice. It sucks that it's not happening.

In your opinion.

Forcing people to behave in certain ways never works.

There's are many reasons why people don't use public transport. You could make it free and still people wouldn't use it.

Far better to work out the things rail does best and focus on that, not try to make it do things it does badly.

 

[jfowkes]

In your opinion.

Forcing people to behave in certain ways never works.

There's are many reasons why people don't use public transport. You could make it free and still people wouldn't use it.

Far better to work out the things rail does best and focus on that, not try to make it do things it does badly.

Pretty sure that the climate and ecological emergency isn't just my opinion.

The rest is, but it does kind of naturally follow from the basic fact the we need to do as much as we can to depollute road transport.

Of course some people and freight will always need to travel by road. It's not about eliminating roads/cars/HGVs entirely, it's about trying, to the best extent possible, to make the other options the better choice.

 

[thatapanydude]

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 agree too - this could even be made into a final terminus for Thameslink near Oakley of "Bedford North Parkway".

 

[A0wen]

Pretty sure that the climate and ecological emergency isn't just my opinion.

The rest is, but it does kind of naturally follow from the basic fact the we need to do as much as we can to depollute road transport.

Of course some people and freight will always need to travel by road. It's not about eliminating roads/cars/HGVs entirely, it's about trying, to the best extent possible, to make the other options the better choice.

The problem is too many are using climate etc as fig leaves for controlling people, trying to control how people can travel.

People weren't forced to use the railways from the mid 1800s, they *chose* to. Similarly in the 1930s people weren't forced to use the motorbus instead of a local branch railway, they chose to because it was more convenient. Same of cars from the 50s onwards. Yet now there are people, using the environment as a fig leaf, who are wanting to make people's journeys less convenient.

Stop trying to force change and let people make their own mind up. And if the majority don't see it from your perspective, it's you rather than them that has the problem.

I agree too - this could even be made into a final terminus for Thameslink near Oakley of "Bedford North Parkway".

But aren't the two new tracks to allow EWR to be separate from the mainline to reduce contention? Basically the same approach as taken at Nuneaton with Birmingham - Peterboro?

 

[Ianno87]

The problem is too many are using climate etc as fig leaves for controlling people, trying to control how people can travel.

People weren't forced to use the railways from the mid 1800s, they *chose* to. Similarly in the 1930s people weren't forced to use the motorbus instead of a local branch railway, they chose to because it was more convenient. Same of cars from the 50s onwards. Yet now there are people, using the environment as a fig leaf, who are wanting to make people's journeys less convenient.

Stop trying to force change and let people make their own mind up. And if the majority don't see it from your perspective, it's you rather than them that has the problem.

Drifting off-topic, but growing car ownership between the 60s to the 90s was sold to people as something they wanted to increase their own freedom, and a status symbol. Unfortunately we now live with the negative consequences of that in terms of environmental, social and congestion impacts. We can't go on as a society continuing to pander to that way of thinking.

 

[jfowkes]

Stop trying to force change and let people make their own mind up. And if the majority don't see it from your perspective, it's you rather than them that has the problem.

Without wanting to be too philosophical about it, when does "giving people choice" become "forcing change"? For example, putting in a bus lane is intended to shift the balance towards people choosing buses over cars, because cities and towns can't cope with traffic volumes of everyone in their own cars.

If we change fare structures to make rail cheaper than driving on a certain route, is does that cross the line into forcing people? What about increasing fuel duty, shifting the price balance from the other direction?

I don't have answers to any of this, but it's not as simple as a dichotomy between completely free choices and forced travel modes. It's really complex.

 

[A0wen]

Drifting off-topic, but growing car ownership between the 60s to the 90s was sold to people as something they wanted to increase their own freedom, and a status symbol. Unfortunately we now live with the negative consequences of that in terms of environmental, social and congestion impacts. We can't go on as a society continuing to pander to that way of thinking.

You're wrong on timings - the biggest growth in car use was 1952-1970. It's been much slower since then.

Ultimately forcing control on people doesn't work. That just breeds resentment. People don't like being told what to do. I recall some years ago some "transport consultants" turned up where I worked suggesting more of us could use public transport to get to work - I pointed out it would double my journey time from about 40 mins to nearer 90 - apparently that was OK. When I asked one of the consultants where he'd travelled from and which mode, the answer was further than my commute and by car at which point I told him he was a hypocrite and should lead by example, the conversation ended there.

 

[Ianno87]

You're wrong on timings - the biggest growth in car use was 1952-1970. It's been much slower since then.

Whatever. My point still stands.

Ultimately forcing control on people doesn't work. That just breeds resentment. People don't like being told what to do. I recall some years ago some "transport consultants" turned up where I worked suggesting more of us could use public transport to get to work - I pointed out it would double my journey time from about 40 mins to nearer 90 - apparently that was OK. When I asked one of the consultants where he'd travelled from and which mode, the answer was further than my commute and by car at which point I told him he was a hypocrite and should lead by example?

It needs to "carrot" as much as "stick". If there is a good public transport alternative, then people who still choose to travel by private transport in spite of this ought to be (for want of a better word) "penalised" for that choice. Leave the roads free for those who genuinely don't have a practical alternative.

We can't live in a world where it's deemed OK to drive solely because it's marginally quicker, or you can't be bothered to walk 100 metres, or because public transport is for "everybody else". Unpopular, but necessary.

 

[ac6000cw]

Pretty sure that the climate and ecological emergency isn't just my opinion.

The rest is, but it does kind of naturally follow from the basic fact the we need to do as much as we can to depollute road transport.

Of course some people and freight will always need to travel by road. It's not about eliminating roads/cars/HGVs entirely, it's about trying, to the best extent possible, to make the other options the better choice.

But the road vehicle industry is already investing enormous sums of money in electric vehicle development - it's an evolve or die situation for the vehicle manufacturers - the 'depollution' will happen quite quickly (relative to designing and building a new railway line) as the costs come down, given the average lifespan of road vehicles.

Meanwhile, this discussion thread is already 7 years old and it's only got to the stage of discussing the route of the eastern end of EWR.

With trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes projected to start running by 2025 (no dates for services further east that I can find on the EWR website) I'm guessing that trains to Cambridge won't be happening before 2030 at least?

This isn't a 'climate emergency' project timescale...

 

[Ianno87]

But the road vehicle industry is already investing enormous sums of money in electric vehicle development - it's an evolve or die situation for the vehicle manufacturers - the 'depollution' will happen quite quickly (relative to designing and building a new railway line) as the costs come down, given the average lifespan of road vehicles.

Meanwhile, this discussion thread is already 7 years old and it's only got to the stage of discussing the route of the eastern end of EWR.

With trains between Oxford and Milton Keynes projected to start running by 2025 (no dates for services further east that I can find on the EWR website) I'm guessing that trains to Cambridge won't be happening before 2030 at least?

This isn't a 'climate emergency' project timescale...

Although electric vehicles don't solve road congestion, or the source of the emissions (if fossil fuel power stations are still in use). They're useful, but not a panacea.

 

[A0wen]

Although electric vehicles don't solve road congestion, or the source of the emissions (if fossil fuel power stations are still in use). They're useful, but not a panacea.

Here we go again. Goalposts shifting.

For the anti car brigade it was all about pollution - the car industry addresses that so now it's all about congestion.

Why don't you just come clean and admit you don't like cars and people having the freedom to travel at will without having to share that space with others or being constrained to travelling when a timetable tells them they can?