Proposed Aylesbury to Milton Keynes passenger link spur for East West Railway

[hyposmurf]

Hi could I please get some votes for the proposed passenger railway link spur to connect Aylesbury with Milton Keynes as part of the East West railway?


https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/east-west-rail-build-the-aylesbury-spur

 

[Bletchleyite]

Might make more sense to put it on the Parliament petitions site, as those actually get looked at by the people who make the decisions?

 

[hyposmurf]

Our MP will be taking the above petition to parliament pretty soon so makes sense to try and raise as many votes we can beforehand. So would be great to get some more votes please.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Our MP will be taking the above petition to parliament pretty soon so makes sense to try and raise as many votes we can beforehand. So would be great to get some more votes please.

OK, signed.

 

[swt_passenger]

I’m sure they’ll build (ie realign) the connection, indeed they’re building bridges and earthworks now. .

What this petition should be about is running a passenger service on it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I’m sure they’ll build (ie realign) the connection, indeed they’re building bridges and earthworks now. .

What this petition should be about is running a passenger service on it.

True. The reason for delaying it is that it needs to be realigned for HS2, to build it now then realign it would cost a lot more. However we do need to ensure it is not forgotten, as it would be of considerable local economic benefit to connect MK better to south Buckinghamshire. Local public transport connectivity in the South East is generally woeful, and in some ways this would actually bring more local benefits than Oxford.

 

[The Planner]

Why does Princes Risborough need doubling? There is no reason why the AVP to Claydon section won't be re-opened, it has to be to allow trains to Greatmoor and it also needs to be to allow freight to get in from the north end. I am with @swt_passenger , push for the passenger trains.

 

[swt_passenger]

Another point is that including redoubling Princes Risborough to Aylesbury in the petition loses its focus. Through running from EWR to Marylebone was formally removed prior to the TWA application.

Its probably best to stick to the one specific issue of the passenger service.

AFAICT the proposed Aylesbury to Milton Keynes service has not been officially removed, it always seems to be in doubt, but what’s the real DfT position?

 

[RT4038]

Another point is that including redoubling Princes Risborough to Aylesbury in the petition loses its focus. Through running from EWR to Marylebone was formally removed prior to the TWA application.

Its probably best to stick to the one specific issue of the passenger service.

AFAICT the proposed Aylesbury to Milton Keynes service has not been officially removed, it always seems to be in doubt, but what’s the real DfT position?

On a point of order - the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury line was never double. It cannot be redoubled, and surely the business case to double the line must be quite dubious. Rather concentrate on the Aylesbury-MK passenger service first.

 

[swt_passenger]

On a point of order - the Princes Risborough to Aylesbury line was never double. It cannot be redoubled, and surely the business case to double the line must be quite dubious. Rather concentrate on the Aylesbury-MK passenger service first.

My mistake. But whether doubling or re-doubling, it’s still unrelated to the main issue.

 

[tspaul26]

AFAICT the proposed Aylesbury to Milton Keynes service has not been officially removed, it always seems to be in doubt, but what’s the real DfT position?

The DfT’s requirements/objectives for the project are inter alia:

East West Rail (“The Railway”) shall be developed to improve and create direct connectivity by rail across the Oxford to Cambridge Arc, through the introduction of passenger services between Oxford and Milton Keynes, Oxford and Bedford, Oxford and Cambridge, and consideration of services from Aylesbury to Milton Keynes.

The programme is split into three core, and two optional, Configuration States (CS)…As part of the scheme East West Railway Company (EWR Co) will consider Configuration Options 2.5 (CO2.5) Aylesbury to Milton Keynes and 3.5 (CO3.5) Bedford to Cambridge…
Configuration Option 2.5: 1 ptph Aylesbury to Milton Keynes (EWR service 7).
Services for CO2.5 between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes shall be hourly from departure points.

Configuration options are not addressed within this document except where specifically identified. However, in the event of a decision to formally adopt these options into scope, this document would be updated to reflect their inclusion.

In other words, Aylesbury to Milton Keynes passenger services are under active consideration, but their delivery is not within the scope of the project as things stand.

 

[swt_passenger]

The DfT’s requirements/objectives for the project are inter alia:
[…]
In other words, Aylesbury to Milton Keynes passenger services are under active consideration, but their delivery is not within the scope of the project as things stand.

Have you a link to the source for that please?
I have the TWA inspectors report, back then it was fairly clear about Aylesbury being in scope. But things change as we know.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I believe it to be correct now, but I'm afraid I don't have a reference.

 

[30907]

Why does Princes Risborough need doubling?

Agreed. To achieve 2tph might require a bit of an upgrade, but doubling implies a significantly higher level of service.

 

[tspaul26]

Have you a link to the source for that please?
I have the TWA inspectors report, back then it was fairly clear about Aylesbury being in scope. But things change as we know.

Apologies, I have only just seen this.

The relevant material (in a public domain document) may be found here: link

 

[swt_passenger]

Apologies, I have only just seen this.

The relevant material (in a public domain document) may be found here: link

No problem, and thanks for the link.

 

[cle]

Agreed. To achieve 2tph might require a bit of an upgrade, but doubling implies a significantly higher level of service.

Could a higher line speed (along single track) provide similar benefits to capacity issues, to enable say 2tph each direction? If doubling is not feasible. It's only 40mph, but a slog for 7 miles - even 60mph would make a big difference, especially on a non-stop service (and freight).

Aylesbury needs much quicker services to London, and a faster service category via HW would be a better candidate for the regional service to MKC, vs the current shacks service.

 

[The Planner]

Could a higher line speed (along single track) provide similar benefits to capacity issues, to enable say 2tph each direction? If doubling is not feasible. It's only 40mph, but a slog for 7 miles - even 60mph would make a big difference, especially on a non-stop service (and freight).

Aylesbury needs much quicker services to London, and a faster service category via HW would be a better candidate for the regional service to MKC, vs the current shacks service.

Bear in mind it hasn't been a significant amount of years since the intermediate block was put in at Little Kimble. The branch was an entire section prior to that. A line speed increase would help a bit, but it wouldn't give you 2tph both ways. All stations takes 17 minutes, you would need around 5 minutes off that to make it vaguely reliable and even then you would have to knock certain trains out to allow freight. It would likely need a loop if the demand got that high.

 

[t_star2001uk]

Could a higher line speed (along single track) provide similar benefits to capacity issues, to enable say 2tph each direction? If doubling is not feasible. It's only 40mph, but a slog for 7 miles - even 60mph would make a big difference, especially on a non-stop service (and freight).

Aylesbury needs much quicker services to London, and a faster service category via HW would be a better candidate for the regional service to MKC, vs the current shacks service.

If the line speed were to be raised, what would happen to all of the foot crossings along the line. Footbridges on all of them???

 

[The Planner]

If the line speed were to be raised, what would happen to all of the foot crossings along the line. Footbridges on all of them???

The perennial problem of Marsh Lane would need dealing with.

 

[cle]

Not sure the hit at 20mph live, hit at 30mph die thing applies with a train

But in seriousness, yes any crossings would need to be addressed alongside improvements (usually factored) - much as on the current Bicester-Bletchley leg.

 

[Mikey C]

If the line speed were to be raised, what would happen to all of the foot crossings along the line. Footbridges on all of them???

The Chiltern Mainline has foot crossings which doesn't seem to cause a problem. There are 2 for example across the northbound track between Saunderton and Princes

 

[The Planner]

The Chiltern Mainline has foot crossings which doesn't seem to cause a problem. There are 2 for example across the northbound track between Saunderton and Princes

Both of which have high or very high individual and collective risk ratings at 100mph. Some on the branch have those ratings at a much lower speed.

 

[Mikey C]

Both of which have high or very high individual and collective risk ratings at 100mph. Some on the branch have those ratings at a much lower speed.

One of the Mainline crossings is pretty busy, as it's on a popular path and indeed the Ridgeway National Trail. I imagine far fewer people use the crossings across the Aylesbury branch

 

[The Planner]

One of the Mainline crossings is pretty busy, as it's on a popular path and indeed the Ridgeway National Trail. I imagine far fewer people use the crossings across the Aylesbury branch

But as discussed frequently on here, a line speed increase would likely trigger a change in risk and require a mitigation regardless of how many people use them.

 

[cle]

Is that such a big deal to mitigate, in the scheme of this conversation, and civil engineering as a whole?

 

[The Planner]

Is that such a big deal to mitigate, in the scheme of this conversation, and civil engineering as a whole?

Of course not, but it costs. Any excuse in the next few years to not spend and its going on a shelf.

 

[hyposmurf]

Thanks for your votes. As tspaul26 mentioned as far I last heard the government were still deliberating whether the Aylesbury passenger link will go ahead, due to cost cutting. Fingers crossed they will, as it would be sad to waste the opportunity with the benefit it would bring.

​