In other words, as I said, nothing to do with the station works and everything to do with providing increased MML capacity to the north of the station.
-
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]
- Thread starter aylesbury2
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The point of the 6 tracks north of Bedford is to permit EWR to operate without reducing capacity for MML services, and keeping EWR operationally segregated for resilience.
From an MML perspective, capacity and track layout functionality is "not worse" than today.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The question is whether that extra capacity is actually usable when a few metres to the south the trains in question either have to find a way through the Thameslink service, or cross onto EWR towards Bletchley in which case the parallel tracks provide no extra capacity.
The bulk of MML freight is likely to be carrying on south towards London. So from that perspective is keeping the timing of that freight only dictated by fitting between Thameslink paths, without having to fit it between Thameslink and EWR through Bedford.
It is true that, locally, the 6 tracks will not have 6 tracks' worth of trains on them; the key thing they are seeking to achieve is keeping as much stuff segregated through Bedford as possible to maximise overall capacity in the area.
jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 895
And they might have 6 tracks worth one day. If putting in 6 tracks now means that in 2040 Bedford isn't a massive capacity bottleneck for TL, MML and EWR, that's a good thing.
Baxenden Bank
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 4,022
The question is therefore: Can demolishing 90 houses be justified to allow for 'current operational resiliance' or 'future capacity'. Someone will have to argue that at a public inquiry / parliamentary hearing. Can the resilience be achieved through the current 4 tracks and 'timetable solutions', or through 5 tracks with a bi-directional for EWR. What is the liklehood of any 'future capacity' actually being taken up - and by real trains not ghost paths which never run. Perhaps the technical documents included with the consultation package properly consider such matters rather than it being presented as a fait accompli.
EWR will almost certainly have to have some evidence (if they don't already) in the form of timetable analysis demonstrating how the 6 tracking works, and how 4 tracks would (or rather wouldn't) work. For example, "we tried 4 tracks, but could only get 2 trains per hour / trains are badly spread / it's a performance risk, etc."
edwin_m
Veteran Member
The consultation document certainly implies they have done this, as they quote the number of freight trains per hour that's possible with each layout option. However this could have been anything from a simple back-of-the-envelope type analysis to a detailed simulation.
The six tracks only seems to be necessary if three or four freight trains per hour are assumed (I think this was per direction). I think the primary question to be answered is whether that many freight trains can be fitted between the Thameslinks south of Bedford. If so, the secondary question is whether they will realistically ever be needed. It's probably not within EWR's remit to answer these questions, as they were most likely give the 4TPH figure as an operational requirement, but I suggest someone is going to have to produce some convincing answers if the six-track proposal is to survive.
Steve Harris
Member
*demolishing 21 houses
The evidence then would be the analysis behind the forecast freight numbers.
And then probably some engineering study about why adding the 5th/6th tracks later to guard against it may be disproportionately distruptive / expensive if done later, if freight growth didn't materialize the in the short term.
ABB125
Established Member
If a fifth track requires most of the demolition, you might as well knock down one or two more houses and add a sixth track.
coppercapped
Established Member
As I read the consultation documents the fundemental idea behind the suggested changes and additions to the track layouts at Oxford, Bedford and Cambridge is to ensure that by physically separating the flows any perturbations in traffic flows on one route are not reflected in another.
This means that changes at Bedford cannot be seen in isolation but in conjunction with the other proposed changes whereby as far as possible each flow has its own designated tracks. Bletchley is in part a special case, the future East - West flows are already independent of flows on the West Coast Main Line so no significant changes are needed to keep the traffic flows on both axes independent. The one service which might introduce a linkage between the flows is the proposed Aylesbury - Milton Keynes service, so I can well understand why care is being taken before a decision is made.
Making sure that different traffic flows do not have to use the same sets of rails means that changes in timetables become easier as changes in one route do not mean that changes will have to be made on the other routes.
Having separate tracks for different flows has long been practiced in many places on some railways on the continent. For example all the different twin track routes which converge on Munich Hbf run in parallel from Pasing and Laim where there are some 12 parallel tracks right to the station throat, there has been no attempt to cut costs by combining flows on a reduced number of tracks.
If we say that each of the 21 properties which may have to be demolished costs £1 million to purchase and compensation has to be paid to other affected landowners then we are talking about £30 to £35 million in total. Over a thirty year accounting period that amounts to about £1 million per year spread over eight or ten different passenger and freight traffic flows. £100,000 per year would easily cover Delay/Repay, delay compensation for the ’nuTOCs’ and reduction in point ends and signalling costs.
Many posters here claim that European railways are better run/operated/managed/funded than those here. When an opportunity presents itself in this country to build a better railway, why not grasp it?
This means that changes at Bedford cannot be seen in isolation but in conjunction with the other proposed changes whereby as far as possible each flow has its own designated tracks. Bletchley is in part a special case, the future East - West flows are already independent of flows on the West Coast Main Line so no significant changes are needed to keep the traffic flows on both axes independent. The one service which might introduce a linkage between the flows is the proposed Aylesbury - Milton Keynes service, so I can well understand why care is being taken before a decision is made.
Making sure that different traffic flows do not have to use the same sets of rails means that changes in timetables become easier as changes in one route do not mean that changes will have to be made on the other routes.
Having separate tracks for different flows has long been practiced in many places on some railways on the continent. For example all the different twin track routes which converge on Munich Hbf run in parallel from Pasing and Laim where there are some 12 parallel tracks right to the station throat, there has been no attempt to cut costs by combining flows on a reduced number of tracks.
If we say that each of the 21 properties which may have to be demolished costs £1 million to purchase and compensation has to be paid to other affected landowners then we are talking about £30 to £35 million in total. Over a thirty year accounting period that amounts to about £1 million per year spread over eight or ten different passenger and freight traffic flows. £100,000 per year would easily cover Delay/Repay, delay compensation for the ’nuTOCs’ and reduction in point ends and signalling costs.
Many posters here claim that European railways are better run/operated/managed/funded than those here. When an opportunity presents itself in this country to build a better railway, why not grasp it?
Last edited:
edwin_m
Veteran Member
But also some timetable analysis to work out if those numbers can be handled south of Bedford. If not then there's very little point in creating the extra capacity to the north, as nobody's going to roll back the Thameslink service to accommodate more freight. And if the 4TPH requirement includes some that head towards Bletchley then the extra tracks don't help.
The document does make this point. I would agree it's two extra tracks or none.
The point of 6 tracks from an MML perspective is not to provide extra capacity, it is to maintain its current (localised) capacity and capability with EWR being segregated from this.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
But if the extra capacity leads within a few hundred metres to somewhere there is no capacity (Thameslink south of Bedford) then there is no point in having it, just a waste of public money.
I'm not saying definitely that this demolition is unnecessary, and I think I still agree route E looks best. But I'd say they haven't made a strong case for it as yet, and they risk being shot to pieces by the South of Bedford advocates and the BANANA faction or even losing the whole scheme if Westminster decides it's a hot potato and they'll spend the money further north instead.
???? I must have missed the explanation of that.
Build absolutely nothing anywhere near anyone
Four track option doesn’t meet the project objectives (set by Westminster) and, as such, EWR Co has no choice in the matter.
It also means that it cannot be put forward as a relevant ‘reasonable alternative’ for compulsory acquisition purposes as things stand.
Last edited:
Baxenden Bank
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 4,022
Baxenden Bank
Established Member
- Joined
- 23 Oct 2013
- Messages
- 4,022
Very thin grounds to justify interfering with the property rights of people ie using Compulsory Purchase powers (or the big project equivalents). 'Nice to have', 'spare capacity', 'it will be convenient' will cut no ice under independent public scrutiny. Of course if all the landowners sell up in advance of any inquiry that's a different story.
It is section 122 of the Planning Act 2008 that you need.
In brief, the land must be required for the project and there must be a compelling case in the public interest.
These are both terms of art to some extent - there is no specific requirement for the justification for the acquisition to be unusual or exceptional per se.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Exactly. I'm questioning the requirement not the work that was done to develop a solution. If your requirements are wrong you end up producing a perfect design for the wrong thing.
And if the 4TPH requirement isn't justifiable then that compelling case doesn't exist.
Unfortunately, that isn’t really how it works. It is the compelling case in the public interest for the project as a whole (as specified by the promoter) that falls to be considered - it is not open to cherry pick the project scope.
If anyone wishes to post speculation, such as if you think the plans for EWR could be improved, should be altered, or you have alternative proposals, please ensure you post in the Speculative Ideas section, thanks 
weeklycommuter
Member
- Joined
- 2 Feb 2019
- Messages
- 197
8.5 North Bedford
8.5.9. For the Five Track and Six Track options the following ‘reasonable worst-case’
railway corridor width has been taken as the starting point for design:
• 5.5m separation (rail to rail) between the tracks used by EWR and the tracks
not used by EWR, to ensure a safe space for railway staff to walk without
disruption to train services and to ensure that trains are sufficiently clear of
any structures, where retained or added, to support the overhead electric
lines;
• 2m separation (rail to rail) between each track used by EWR to ensure EWR
trains pass each other safely;
• 5m between the permanent boundary and the nearest rail to ensure sufficient
space for staff to walk and work safely, for drainage to prevent flooding,
for equipment cabinets to be safely positioned and for structures, where
required, to support the overhead electric lines; and
• 4m between the permanent boundary and a temporary boundary to ensure
sufficient space for construction activities and any works necessary to ensure
that adjacent properties are not undermined.
8.5.10. It may be possible to reduce the corridor width once more detailed surveys
and design are undertaken. Therefore, the areas and number of properties
affected by each option are only indicative at this stage.
8.5.9. For the Five Track and Six Track options the following ‘reasonable worst-case’
railway corridor width has been taken as the starting point for design:
• 5.5m separation (rail to rail) between the tracks used by EWR and the tracks
not used by EWR, to ensure a safe space for railway staff to walk without
disruption to train services and to ensure that trains are sufficiently clear of
any structures, where retained or added, to support the overhead electric
lines;
• 2m separation (rail to rail) between each track used by EWR to ensure EWR
trains pass each other safely;
• 5m between the permanent boundary and the nearest rail to ensure sufficient
space for staff to walk and work safely, for drainage to prevent flooding,
for equipment cabinets to be safely positioned and for structures, where
required, to support the overhead electric lines; and
• 4m between the permanent boundary and a temporary boundary to ensure
sufficient space for construction activities and any works necessary to ensure
that adjacent properties are not undermined.
8.5.10. It may be possible to reduce the corridor width once more detailed surveys
and design are undertaken. Therefore, the areas and number of properties
affected by each option are only indicative at this stage.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
But there are bound to be plenty of objections to this part of the scheme if it isn't changed by the time it gets to formal enquiry, by people who would otherwise have had no concerns. Probably floating this proposal will increase concern and generate more objections even if it isn't in the final version of the scheme. These then effectively become objections to the scheme as a whole. Providing a proper justification for the 4TPH requirement may allow some of these to be dismissed but doesn't get the project back to where it would have been if it had challenged that requirement in the first place.
And in the real world where perception is so important, this will open up a line of attack for groups objecting to Route E or the scheme in general even if that's not what the process is intended to do. At the end of the day we have a populist government and if there is strong objection to something from a group they choose to listen to, then the future of the project that I think we all want to see happen is very much in question.
Last edited by a moderator:
The legal framework for examination and decision is designed to prevent such objections to the overall need for a nationally significant infrastructure project frustrating the grant of development consent. The key point is that the need for a scheme is established by national policy so the question then turns to whether the specific provisions in contemplation are justified.
Based on my experience with other projects of this sort I am not necessarily convinced that controversy over six tracks north of Bedford will make much practical difference to the consenting stage.
This is of course separate to securing the funding to build it and to start work on the ground.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
You probably have more background than I do, but my suspicion is that those who are opposed to this scheme, or any part of it, will try to obstruct it at every stage (as with HS2). You seem to be arguing that objections to this or any part of the route aren't in scope of the consultation - but if that's so why are they in the consultation document?
With respect to the HS2 analogy, you are probably right although EWR is more localised in many respects
To clarify: I am referring to the scope of objections once an application for a development consent order is made. This would come after the current consultation has closed and a final design has been settled upon, taking account of the consultation feedback. There will be a further round of statutory consultation on that final design in any event.
In other words, it is possible to discuss and comment on the project objectives at the moment, but once the formal examination stage is reached it is not (realistically) open to objectors to challenge the need for the project and its objectives (however they might be defined at that time).
However, unless any objections or opposition to the project scope point to some new information or a change of circumstances since earlier decisions were taken they’re unlikely to get anywhere.
- Status