Train Graphic
Great Western Passengers' Forum Great Western Coffee Shop - [home] and [about]
Read about the forum [here].
Register and contribute [here] - it's free.
article index - [here]
 19/06/2019 - TransWilts Design entries end
22/06/2019 - Steam on the District
24/06/2019 - National Rail Safety Week
25/06/2019 - First Group Shareholder mtg
26/06/2019 - TransWilts Stakeholder Conf.
29/06/2019 - Melksham Carnival
Random Image
Train Running @GWR Twitter Acronyms/Abbreviations Station Comparator Rail news GWR co. site Site Style 1 2 3 4 Chat on off
Next departures • Bristol Temple MeadsBath SpaChippenhamSwindonDidcot ParkwayReadingLondon PaddingtonMelksham
Exeter St DavidsTauntonWestburyTrowbridgeBristol ParkwayCardiff CentralOxfordCheltenham SpaBirmingham New Street
June 16, 2019, 03:50:58 am *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Forgotten your username or password? - get a reminder
Most liked recent subjects
[139] GWR Community Rail Conference, 14th (and 13th) June 2019
[134] Local trains not running? Semifast IETs can now call at all s...
[44] What would YOU put into railway / travel room 101??
[36] Metrowest Status
[26] Newly restored "Flying Scotsman" back in service - o...
[20] Portishead Line reopening for passengers - ongoing discussion
News: A forum for passengers ... with input from rail professionals welcomed too
 
   Home   Help Search Calendar Login Register  
Pages: 1 ... 13 14 [15] 16
  Print  
Author Topic: East - West Rail update (Oxford to Bedford) - ongoing discussion  (Read 75568 times)
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 358


View Profile
« Reply #210 on: March 08, 2019, 10:24:23 pm »

The consultation document sets out the analysis of the routes into Cambridge as follows-

Quote
7.3. Tunnelled approaches from the west were considered within a corridor from near Barton through to Church End and Fulbourn. It was anticipated that a
dual-track tunnel could provide an interchange with Cambridge station below ground. While a tunnelled approach was believed to be technically feasible, it
was rejected due to the significant cost (estimated to be between £1 billion and £1.7 billion) and interchange journey time penalties at Cambridge station. The
least cost tunnelled option that was considered would have required a tunnel of around 5.5 kilometres and result in potentially significant adverse impacts
on Grantchester Meadows. In addition, a tunnelled approach would not provide direct east-west connectivity to the proposed new Cambridge South station
serving the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, thereby foregoing an opportunity to support growth, housing and employment. It would also not directly serve
Cambridge North and support growth in the surrounding area.
7.4. The main options for approaching Cambridge from the north that were considered were using the route of the existing guided busway that links Cambridge
to Histon, St. Ives and Huntingdon, or connecting to the West Anglia Main Line north of Milton. These options were rejected due to the additional route length
resulting in journey time penalties and the need for a reversing movement at Cambridge for onward trains to Ipswich and Norwich. Routes that would use the
existing guided busway would also be expected to impact adversely on existing users of the busway by requiring them to interchange between the bus and
train if they were travelling to or from central Cambridge. Approaching Cambridge from the north would also not provide direct east-west connectivity to the
proposed new Cambridge South station (unless trains could run on to the new Cambridge South station after serving Cambridge station, which would still
result in longer journey times). It would therefore not maximise the opportunity to support growth, homes and jobs around the Cambridge South station (though
it would provide better connectivity to support growth and development around Cambridge North station).
7.5. EWR Co have re-visited the case for approaching Cambridge from the north in the context of the current strategic objectives for EWR and identified the
following issues:
• It would require potential modifications to the new Cambridge North station and adding more tracks to a longer section of the West Anglia Main Line (fourtracking of the West Anglia Main Line immediately to the south of Cambridge is likely to be required anyway to support the proposed new Cambridge South
station), both of which are likely to add significant cost.
• It would be expected to incur higher capital and operating costs and result in slower journey times due to the greater route length. This would reduce
the benefits for transport users and the wider economy across the Oxford-Cambridge Arc and also have an adverse impact on opportunities to support
new homes.
• Existing local transport infrastructure (the guided busway) appears to cater for growth opportunities to the north of Cambridge and therefore an additional
railway service to improve local connectivity to the north of Cambridge may not be required.
• Approaching Cambridge from the north would not directly serve the proposed new Cambridge South station, thereby foregoing an opportunity to support
growth, housing and employment.
• It would require a reversing move and journey time penalties for any onward journeys to and from Norwich, Ipswich and other destinations to the east of
Cambridge.25
25 Onwards services to and from the east of Cambridge (for example to and from Norwich and Ipswich) are not currently included in the indicative train service specification for EWR services and are not currently part of EWR Co’s remit.
However this could be considered at a later date if there was evidence of sufficient demand.
East West Rail
Technical Report
26
7.6. The main option considered for approaching Cambridge from the south was to connect to the West Anglia Main Line slightly to the south or north of Great
Shelford. This option performed best against the key evaluation criteria, including generating shorter journey times and greater transport user benefits, and
would be expected to generate greater growth and housing opportunities across the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, for example around an interchange with the East
Coast Main Line. Approaching Cambridge from the south would also provide the best connectivity for the proposed new Cambridge South station and the
employment opportunities that it supports, as well as allowing for onward journeys to Ipswich and Norwich without a reversing move and significant journey
time penalties. Approaching Cambridge from the south was therefore selected as the preferred option.
7.7. Based on the further, recent analysis of the options for approaching Cambridge, the previous decision to approach Cambridge from the south rather than
the north is considered to remain sound when considered against the current strategic objectives for EWR. However, of the five route options that are
being taken forward for consultation, Routes B and E could alternatively approach Cambridge from the north if new information is provided to EWR Co through
the consultation that suggests this would be better than approaching Cambridge from the south as currently shown in the indicative route maps.

This all makes good sense to me!
Logged
ellendune
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 3236


View Profile
« Reply #211 on: March 08, 2019, 10:46:13 pm »

Personally Option E makes most sense to me:

  • It gives a through route with interchange in Bedford
  • It maximises the possibility of co-routing with the A428 Improvement
  • It opens up new opportunities for station at Cambourne
  • It opens up new opportunities for station at south of St Neots with possible ECML interchange
  • It enters Cambridge from the South as discussed below.

Routes south of Cambourne would take traffic from Royston
Routes south of Bedford would not allow interchange with the MML at Bedford
Logged
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25376



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #212 on: March 09, 2019, 06:07:46 am »

The consultation document sets out the analysis of the routes into Cambridge as follows-

Long quote ....

This all makes good sense to me!

In summary, the logic reads ...
1. To the north, long way round, trains end up needing to reverse and extra lines needed north of Cambridge
2. Along the St Ives branch - oops we've put a guided busway in there and it is can and will carry lots of people
3. Tunnel direct in underneath.  Very expensive and how do we run trains beyond?
4. Clearish countryside and serves new Cambridge South on the way in.

In classic style, my summary highlights the issues with items (1) to (3) and gives the positives of (4).  The quoted report is somewhat fuller and somewhat less biased.    But I do get the feeling that there's a trade-off between serving Cambridge North and Cambridge South, with the bias put on South as an enabler now than North is up and running.   Way out of territory here - just that I've done so much work in and around Cambridge.   I'm very used to the cross London journey; the biggest need (for me personally) is a decent hotel at Cambridge North within walking distances of all the businesses.  I suspect it might be coming.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
eightonedee
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 358


View Profile
« Reply #213 on: March 09, 2019, 06:36:22 pm »

Grahame - I prefer your version!

BTW, I though East-West's response to the Woodland Trust was counterproductive. Better surely to engage at an early juncture, rather than generate an atmosphere of mistrust at the outset.
Logged
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6583

He who laughs last hasn't got all the facts.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #214 on: March 19, 2019, 10:51:55 am »

Stephen Barker, engineering director at the East West Rail Company, on the next steps of the scheme - http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Comment/east-west-rail-the-next-steps
Logged

Currently muddling along the Guingamp-Carhaix line

http://twitter.com/research_gwchat
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7245


View Profile
« Reply #215 on: March 19, 2019, 10:55:37 am »

Good to see Stephen Barker so involved in this part of the project, as he was for the Bicester to Oxford section.
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
Rhydgaled
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 1353


View Profile WWW
« Reply #216 on: March 19, 2019, 09:20:10 pm »

I understood the rationale of the bi-mode/trimode was to restore a proper full stopping service all the way between Reading and Oxford, mitigating the adverse impact of the dreadful decision to cut the electrification to Oxford short at Didcot.
Cut the GWML electrification short at Didcot? I understood that Didcot-Oxford and Bristol electrification were (somewhat sensibly) postponed to allow resignalling/remodelling to take place first. Unlike Cardiff-Swansea and, tragicly, most of the Midland Main Line which are cancelled.

Of course, this should be after funds are found to electrify Didcot to Bedford....
I'd settle for Didcot to Bletchley at this point. Apart from Didcot-Oxford, which as noted above should happen anyway, most of the route concerned will be taken out of use anyway for construction of East West Rail, meaning electrification can be done without disruption to services. The GWML would then cease to be an 'electric island', gaining an electrified connection to the WCML, potentially useful for class 92s coming up from Southampton (if Reading-Basingstoke electrification has survived the cutbacks).

When Swindon - Bristol Temple Meads is wired up too it would also make a Bristol - Milton Keynes service possible with class 387s, providing a service to call at new stations such as Wootton Bassett. That could run alongside bi-mode suburban or regional units (depending on calling pattern etc.) doing Oxford - Bedford and Aylesbury - Bedford services.
Logged

----------------------------
Don't DOO it, keep the guard (but it probably wouldn't be a bad idea if the driver unlocked the doors on arrival at calling points).
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25376



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #217 on: March 20, 2019, 06:20:51 am »

I understood the rationale of the bi-mode/trimode was to restore a proper full stopping service all the way between Reading and Oxford, mitigating the adverse impact of the dreadful decision to cut the electrification to Oxford short at Didcot.
Cut the GWML electrification short at Didcot? I understood that Didcot-Oxford and Bristol electrification were (somewhat sensibly) postponed to allow resignalling/remodelling to take place first. Unlike Cardiff-Swansea and, tragicly, most of the Midland Main Line which are cancelled.

Good to see you, Rhydgaled.

As I understand it (I'm open to correction) ... Swansea is cancelled.  Bristol and Oxford are postponed (i.e. still on the books) but no schedule as to when they'll happen; worrying that the postponement feels indefinite to the extent that the question "will it even happen" may be asked.

Logic might be that when the now-skilled team gets to Cardiff they move on to these other two connecting and postponed elements - but then the question is asked "or are they moved on to Welsh Valleys", do they go to another project away from our area, or is the team "released" until it needs to be reformed ...
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
Bmblbzzz
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 2028


View Profile
« Reply #218 on: March 20, 2019, 12:19:55 pm »

Hopefully not released. They should be kept on doing some line or other, just to keep up momentum, maintain those skills, etc, aiming to complete a modest quantity each year rather than a grand big bang once every generation. Whether that will happen though...

As for Swindon to Temple Meads, I understood this was being terminated at Thingley Jnctn pending some unknown solution to a problem with the cant or arc or something going through Bath station? Can't remember where I got that from though; probably somewhere here!
Logged

Day return to Infinity, please.
Red Squirrel
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 2935


There are some who call me... Tim


View Profile
« Reply #219 on: March 20, 2019, 12:49:22 pm »

Hopefully not released. They should be kept on doing some line or other, just to keep up momentum, maintain those skills, etc, aiming to complete a modest quantity each year rather than a grand big bang once every generation. Whether that will happen though...

As for Swindon to Temple Meads, I understood this was being terminated at Thingley Jnctn pending some unknown solution to a problem with the cant or arc or something going through Bath station? Can't remember where I got that from though; probably somewhere here!

Isn't there about 14km of OHLE in place between Thingley Jct and Chippenham? Is this going to be energised, or will it become known as Chris Grayling's Washing Line?
Logged
ChrisB
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 9971


View Profile Email
« Reply #220 on: March 20, 2019, 01:46:39 pm »

I understood the rationale of the bi-mode/trimode was to restore a proper full stopping service all the way between Reading and Oxford, mitigating the adverse impact of the dreadful decision to cut the electrification to Oxford short at Didcot.
Cut the GWML electrification short at Didcot? I understood that Didcot-Oxford and Bristol electrification were (somewhat sensibly) postponed to allow resignalling/remodelling to take place first. Unlike Cardiff-Swansea and, tragicly, most of the Midland Main Line which are cancelled.

fyi - MML electrification just announced to npw go as far as Kettering (that's where the electrical pick-up was agreed to be)
Logged
IndustryInsider
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 7245


View Profile
« Reply #221 on: March 20, 2019, 03:55:07 pm »

Do you mean Market Harborough, Chris?
Logged

To view my cab run over the new Reading Viaduct as well as a relief line cab ride at Reading just after Platforms 12-15 opened and my 'before and after' video comparison of the Cotswold Line Redoubling scheme, see: http://www.dailymotion.com/user/IndustryInsider/1
rogerw
Transport Scholar
Hero Member
******
Posts: 661



View Profile
« Reply #222 on: March 20, 2019, 04:44:54 pm »

Quote
Isn't there about 14km of OHLE in place between Thingley Jct and Chippenham? Is this going to be energised, or will it become known as Chris Grayling's Washing Line?
Thingley Jct is just west of Chippenham and is where the grid supply point is.  At present there are some posts but no wires between Thingley and Chippenham.  Do you mean between Wootton Bassett and Chippenham?
Logged

I like to travel.  It lets me feel I'm getting somewhere.
grahame
Administrator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 25376



View Profile WWW Email
« Reply #223 on: March 20, 2019, 05:09:03 pm »

Quote
Isn't there about 14km of OHLE in place between Thingley Jct and Chippenham? Is this going to be energised, or will it become known as Chris Grayling's Washing Line?
Thingley Jct is just west of Chippenham and is where the grid supply point is.  At present there are some posts but no wires between Thingley and Chippenham.  Do you mean between Wootton Bassett and Chippenham?

From Swindon to Royal Wootton Bassett is in and switched on

From RWB to Cockelebury Lane bridge - about 1km before Chippenham - is in process of being wired and will be turned on

From Cocklebury Lane through Chippenham Station to Thingley  - various supports in place, but issues with Chippenham Station Listed Footbridge and cleareance I believe, and no wires at the moment

From Thingley Junction - various bridges rebuilt, track lowered in Box Tunnel, etc ...but no electrics.   (Yet ?)

Not sure if and how power from Thingley will be fed from the junction into the nearest overheads a couple of miles up the track - the substation at Thingley looks spectacular, and I know a cable was run 4 or 5 miles to it from the nearest National Grid substation.  Don't know if and when it will be in use.
Logged

Coffee Shop Admin, Vice Chair of Melksham Rail User Group, on the board of TravelWatch SouthWest and of RailFuture
Lee
Global Moderator
Hero Member
*****
Posts: 6583

He who laughs last hasn't got all the facts.


View Profile WWW
« Reply #224 on: March 21, 2019, 09:55:12 am »

Claims East West Rail route through Bassingbourn backed ‘almost on a whim’ - https://www.royston-crow.co.uk/news/concerns-after-east-west-rail-route-vote-1-5949743
Logged

Currently muddling along the Guingamp-Carhaix line

http://twitter.com/research_gwchat
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 ... 13 14 [15] 16
  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 a customer 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). Forum hosted by Well House Consultants

Jump to top of pageJump to Forum Home Page