Train GraphicClick on the map to explore geographics
 
I need help
FAQ
Emergency
About .
Travel & transport from BBC stories as at 10:15 29 Mar 2024
* Bus plunges off South Africa bridge, killing 45
* Easter getaway begins with flood alerts in place
Read about the forum [here].
Register [here] - it's free.
What do I gain from registering? [here]
 02/06/24 - Summer Timetable starts
17/08/24 - Bus to Imber
27/09/25 - 200 years of passenger trains

On this day
29th Mar (1913)
Foundation of National Union or Railwaymen (*)

Train RunningCancelled
09:00 Gatwick Airport to Reading
09:46 Westbury to Swindon
10:22 Newbury to Bedwyn
10:55 Bedwyn to Newbury
11:05 Swindon to Westbury
11:29 Newbury to Bedwyn
11:57 Bedwyn to Newbury
12:17 Westbury to Swindon
12:52 Bedwyn to Newbury
13:15 Swindon to Westbury
14:19 Westbury to Swindon
15:14 Swindon to Westbury
16:23 Westbury to Swindon
17:36 Swindon to Westbury
18:37 Westbury to Swindon
20:13 Swindon to Westbury
21:16 Westbury to Swindon
22:30 Swindon to Westbury
Short Run
06:37 Plymouth to London Paddington
07:03 London Paddington to Paignton
08:35 Plymouth to London Paddington
09:30 Weymouth to Gloucester
09:37 London Paddington to Paignton
10:35 London Paddington to Exeter St Davids
Delayed
05:03 Penzance to London Paddington
06:05 Penzance to London Paddington
07:10 Penzance to London Paddington
08:03 London Paddington to Penzance
08:15 Penzance to London Paddington
09:04 London Paddington to Plymouth
10:00 London Paddington to Bristol Temple Meads
10:04 London Paddington to Penzance
11:03 London Paddington to Plymouth
PollsOpen and recent polls
Closed 2024-03-25 Easter Escape - to where?
Abbreviation pageAcronymns and abbreviations
Stn ComparatorStation Comparator
Rail newsNews Now - live rail news feed
Site Style 1 2 3 4
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
March 29, 2024, 10:33:27 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most recently liked subjects
[132] Infrastructure problems in Thames Valley causing disruption el...
[56] would you like your own LIVE train station departure board?
[52] West Wiltshire Bus Changes April 2024
[51] Reversing Beeching - bring heritage and freight lines into the...
[46] Return of the BRUTE?
[32] 2024 - Service update and amendment log, Swindon <-> Westbury...
 
News: the Great Western Coffee Shop ... keeping you up to date with travel around the South West
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 23
  Print  
Author Topic: East - West Rail update (Oxford to Bedford) - ongoing discussion  (Read 145890 times)
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #195 on: January 22, 2019, 09:56:41 »

Admittedly, I think the last mention of this was before EWR was descoped to remove the electrification, so you may have a point.
Logged
Reginald25
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 301


View Profile
« Reply #196 on: January 22, 2019, 11:30:42 »

The best compromise in terms of being a little more adventurous might be to run a Reading/Didcot to Milton Keynes train each hour and a Bristol to Bedford one each hour (not necessarily calling at Didcot).

If you don't call at Didcot then it is not a compromise since you make connections from the west very difficult, they either have to double back at Reading or involve a double change at Didcot and Oxford. 
From the West,  fares doubling back at Reading appear to be significantly higher, and on occasions forces a full fare rather than an off-peak.
Logged
Celestial
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 674


View Profile
« Reply #197 on: January 22, 2019, 13:07:36 »

The point is though that as one of the services suggested is coming from the west, not calling at Didcot makes no difference to connections from the west.  And also improves journey times.
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 14:57:55 by Celestial » Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40691



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #198 on: January 22, 2019, 17:36:05 »

From the West, fares doubling back at Reading appear to be significantly higher, and on occasions forces a full fare rather than an off-peak.

Connecting into the 18:48 Swindon to Melksham ...peak restritions from Didcot are morning only but from Reading are morning and evening, so..

Super offpeak single - Didcot to Melksham - £13.70
Anytime single - Reading to Melksham - £56.50
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1532



View Profile
« Reply #199 on: January 22, 2019, 19:20:33 »

Quote
From what I’ve so far heard, the Tri-mode 769s will not be used on services to Oxford.  They will be used on Reading to Gatwick trains as well as covering for the loss of 387s to Heathrow Express on the Paddington to Didcot services, as well as possibly some of the Thames Valley branches.  That of course may not be the current plan, or it may be the current plan but will change.  I’ll see if I can find out.

I do hope that's not true! If we end up with bi-modes to Didcot only and still having to change to a Turbo shuttle (sorry West Country - another couple at least not available for cascade!) for Oxford that sounds like a worst of both worlds result!

Why cannot they restore the (franchise specification) full Reading - Oxford local stopping service if they have bi-modes? Is there any technical reason? I understood the Electrostar fleet was ordered to cover all the proposed electrified TV services. They are now not able to cover the Windsor and Henley branches and Oxford/Banbury stoppers. Has the raiding of the pool for Heathrow Expresses now shifted the problem in the other direction so that the bi-modes and remaining Electrostars cannot cover North Downs/Henley/Windsor and restoration of full Reading/Oxford stopping services as well as the remaining Newburys and Didcots after Crossrail/Elizabeth Line takes the strain east of Reading?

If so I feel like uttering a Victor Meldrew "I don't believe it"

edited to fix quote
« Last Edit: January 22, 2019, 19:35:14 by Timmer » Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1532



View Profile
« Reply #200 on: February 08, 2019, 23:23:35 »

The consultation on routes between Bedford and Cambridge has opened - see https://eastwestrail.co.uk/haveyoursay

Having been out of the loop on Cambridge transport issues for about a year I have spent a little time on the internet catching up. I was intrigued on the East-West consultation to see that one reason against a northern route (which would usefully serve Cambourne New Town, already 10,000 people with another 2350 houses now approved) was it might interfere with "the proposed Metro".

It appears that the new Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is promoting a new light railway/underground network around Cambridge. It does however seem to have put the brake on busway plans for Cambourne that had already been subject of a City Deal bid. I'm not sure what the bus promoting County Council feels about that.

There are a number of proposals on Railfuture East Anglia's website that look rather more well thought out (or achievable) including new stations on the route into south east Cambridge that has seen a lot of development in recent years, and re-openings in north Cambridgeshire that would benefit towns like Wisbech that have been left behind by the growth and prosperity spurt experienced by the south of the county in recent decades. Food for thought.....   
Logged
Red Squirrel
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 5190


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #201 on: February 08, 2019, 23:42:18 »


It appears that the new Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough is promoting a new light railway/underground network around Cambridge. It does however seem to have put the brake on busway plans for Cambourne that had already been subject of a City Deal bid. I'm not sure what the bus promoting County Council feels about that.


Guided bus don't stop Cambourne wednesdays...
Logged

Things take longer to happen than you think they will, and then they happen faster than you thought they could.
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1532



View Profile
« Reply #202 on: March 03, 2019, 15:55:16 »

In the last week something has come across my office desk which points to an opportunity that looks likely to be missed to "kill two birds with one stone".

If you look at route option B in the consultation documents on filling the Bedford - Cambridge gap in the East West rail route (see - , https://eastwestrail.co.uk/haveyoursay) and then compare it with the proposed line of the Black Cat - Caxton Gibbet A428 realignment and doubling (see - https://highwaysengland.citizenspace.com/he/a428-black-cat-to-caxton-gibbet/results/a428blackcattocaxtongibbetwebpra.pdf) - something is very striking - the latter runs parallel to or through the middle of much of the former!

Now, I may be naive and idealistic (some of the time!) but surely it must be worth combing the two projects so that there will only be one major infrastructure project carving its way across Bedfordshire, Huntingdon and South Cambridgeshire, instead of two over many years? If the stretches either side of the ECMLR (East Coast Main Line Railway), and through to the Eltisley junction were a combined road/rail project with a rail interchange with ECMLR between Barford and Tempsford, they could be let as a single combined contract or framework and delivered together. If eastwards after Eltisley the rail link passed between Cambourne and Caxton (there's still room at present), with a Cambourne station on the southern edge of the new town, the new track would not have to go far down the valley of the Bourne Brook to link up with the old formation of the Bedford - Cambridge line. There's still the Mullard Observatory to be by-passed, but the alternatives put forward by East-West acknowledge this anyway.

Why hasn't someone at DfT» (Department for Transport - about) spotted this? Or am I an ignorant busy body who doesn't know what he is talking about? If this is feasible, I would hope that none of HE, East West, DfT or those bloody fools unimaginative bean counters at HM Treasury would stand in the way of doing it.
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #203 on: March 03, 2019, 17:36:39 »

Why hasn't someone at DfT» (Department for Transport - about) spotted this? Or am I an ignorant busy body who doesn't know what he is talking about? If this is feasible, I would hope that none of HE, East West, DfT or those bloody fools unimaginative bean counters at HM Treasury would stand in the way of doing it.

Ah, but someone has spotted it - not exactly at DfT, but in a position to rattle their cage - the Infrastructure Commission. If you look at the Annex to the 2019 Monitoring Report (which came on last month) it says:
Quote
East‑west transport infrastructure

Recommendation 1a: Government should progress work on East West Rail, the Expressway and new
settlements through a single coordinated delivery programme, with cross‑government ministerial
commitment and oversight. The aim of this programme should be to unlock opportunities for
transformational housing growth through the creation of well connected new communities.

Government
Response
The government endorses the Commission’s recommendation to create a
single coordinated delivery programme for progressing work on East West
Rail, the Expressway and the potential for new and expanded settlements, with
cross‑government ministerial commitment and oversight.
Progress since
publication
The government has established a cross‑Whitehall Programme Board to take an
integrated approach to the planning and delivery of infrastructure, homes and
business growth in the arc. The programme is supporting work to progress at pace
on East West Rail, the Expressway and other infrastructure.
Current
position
A programme board for the project has been established and is now operational.
The Commission welcomes this positive step. Notwithstanding ongoing work, the
Commission remains concerned about the overall level of integration between the
planning of new housing and transport schemes.
Complete? No.
[/size]

That's under the rather 50s-sounding heading "Partnering for Prosperity", the title of one of their study on this area. It doesn't, at this level, refer to the integration of transport with transport - so they do have a let-out if they are still inclined to annoy you.
Logged
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 1532



View Profile
« Reply #204 on: March 03, 2019, 18:29:28 »

Hmmmm

I am not sure that this has in mind what I have suggested. I think they have in mind more that the transport infrastructure delivery should co-ordinate more with the planning process. This is easier said than done. There are a large number of local planning authorities each with their own local plan processes (although increasingly, but painfully slowly they are beginning to co-ordinate - South Cambs and City of Cambridge have been, but the Oxfordshire authorities do not seen able to do so, and Bucks is in the throws of an upcoming reorganisation). The intention was that the Infrastructure Commission should also deliver housing, which overlooks the fact that large scale development is either the result of long-term (10 years plus in many cases) land assembly by private sector developers pursued through negotiation with landowners, such as Cambourne, or large scale public sector land disposals which involves usually a private sector partner to bring the site forward, as at Northstowe.

I do not think that the author had a single joint project in mind when using the expression "single coordinated delivery programme" sadly - but if I am wrong, I would be delighted. Does anyone know how to contact "the project board"? I might try posting a message on the Commissions "contact us" section.

Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 12334


View Profile Email
« Reply #205 on: March 03, 2019, 18:53:17 »

2 piblic enquiries run alongside each other would take a lot shorter time (posdibly saving over a year) than one enquiry covering a whole project. Thus both projects would be quicker than your suggestion?
Logged
stuving
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 7156


View Profile
« Reply #206 on: March 03, 2019, 19:15:56 »

2 piblic enquiries run alongside each other would take a lot shorter time (posdibly saving over a year) than one enquiry covering a whole project. Thus both projects would be quicker than your suggestion?

I was thinking rather that the response of either road or rail proposers to eightonedee's suggestion would be "it's a huge complicated struggle just getting one of these big projects off (or onto) the ground, trying to do two at once would break the system". Of course they would more likely be actually thinking that cooperating with each other would be too hard to think about. The official view is probably that the NIC's "cross‑Whitehall Programme Board" is the best way to overcome this issue of over-complexity of one project. We, of course, may not be convinced by that, and suspect it would make things worse.
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 4452


View Profile
« Reply #207 on: March 03, 2019, 20:41:20 »

It might stop the anti-rail lobby from trying to block a scheme that had huge road transport benefits.
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40691



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #208 on: March 06, 2019, 22:11:55 »

From The Telegraph

Quote
The Woodland Trust has been told it cannot see detailed maps for a new train line between Oxford and Cambridge unless it signs a gagging order, even though the track could cut through five of its sites.

The charity has asked East West Rail (EWR) to view the full proposals for the central section of the railway which is likely to pass through ancient woodland.

But EWR is withholding the maps unless the Trust signs a non-disclosure agreement promising not to share the details with supporters.

The project is currently out for public consultation but the Trust claims it is impossible to give an opinion without knowing the full extent of the plans.

Similar report ITV
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 40691



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #209 on: March 08, 2019, 07:40:24 »

From Cambridge Live

Quote
It's a town talked about more for its struggling market than its booming businesses.

But more than a thousand people in St Neots have signed a petition wanting to see that end.

The petition, which was started by Michelle Woodbridge, a resident from the town, wants the 'forgotten' area to be part of a new rail connection between Oxford and Cambridge - which people believe may revitalise the area.

The East West Rail proposals approved by the government in 2011 will see an entirely new rail line built.

However, because the area has no direct rail services to Cambridge, people were shocked to find the town - with around 40,000 people in it - had not been included in the proposals as a potential stop.

But that a town in Bedfordshire with a population with under 600 people had

Five options is probably about the right number to have offered in the consultation, with two possible crossing areas over the east coast main line - Sandy and Tempsford.   Some of them seem a big wiggly.  Perhaps there's good reason  for the absence of an option that heads out of Bedford to the north through the current station then turn off to the east  as options D and E  but then go somewhat to the north of those routes to St Neots.   St Neots station is on the east side of the town, and East-West rail coming in along the south flank, crossing the exiting line and curving back northwards to pass through platforms parallel before turning east again would seem to avoid the need to demolish a swathe oh houses; I do recall though the there's a lot of water in the area.  From St Neots, turn east again and pick up options B and E prior to Cambourne.

As an aside, I note that the options from Cambourne both curve south after passing that community and turn to enter Cambridge from the South, rather than carrying more or less straight on close to Bar Hill and picking up the old St Ives branch at Impington and joining the main line through Cambridge at an extended Cambridge North station with platforms on the East / West line.   I suspect no-one has the stomach to suggest an experiment with dual use guided bus and guided train on a combo-track ... and here I was thinking Cambridge was up for (b)leading edge solutions.

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/haveyoursay for the maps.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Acting Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, Option 24/7 Melksham Rep
Do you have something you would like to add to this thread, or would you like to raise a new question at the Coffee Shop? Please [register] (it is free) if you have not done so before, or login (at the top of this page) if you already have an account - we would love to read what you have to say!

You can find out more about how this forum works [here] - that will link you to a copy of the forum agreement that you can read before you join, and tell you very much more about how we operate. We are an independent forum, provided and run by customers of Great Western Railway, for customers of Great Western Railway and we welcome railway professionals as members too, in either a personal or official capacity. Views expressed in posts are not necessarily the views of the operators of the forum.

As well as posting messages onto existing threads, and starting new subjects, members can communicate with each other through personal messages if they wish. And once members have made a certain number of posts, they will automatically be admitted to the "frequent posters club", where subjects not-for-public-domain are discussed; anything from the occasional rant to meetups we may be having ...

 
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 [14] 15 16 ... 23
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.2 | SMF © 2006-2007, Simple Machines LLC Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
This forum is provided by customers of Great Western Railway (formerly First Great Western), and the views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that the content provided by one of our posters contravenes our posting rules (email link to report). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page