East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line

[Chris116]

I see the TV news is making a lot out of £794 million of new money for the East West line but can't understand how this is money is for the Bicester to Bletchley section given the amount of money that must already have been spent on things such as the Bletchley flyover. Is this a case of announcing money that has already been spent? 

[Nearholmer]

I’d be surprised if Mr Schspps is completely sure himself.

[railroadbill]

So would I.  Also there seems to have been some criticism about  electrification not being part of the project, but Shapps said that hyrodrogen fuel cell or battery powered trains could "bypass electrification" so that's ok then.

[jamie92208]

27 minutes ago, railroadbill said:

So would I.  Also there seems to have been some criticism about  electrification not being part of the project, but Shapps said that hyrodrogen fuel cell or battery powered trains could "bypass electrification" so that's ok then.

Roger Ford's bionic duckweed is obviously growing well in the corridors of power. Perhaps they'll i stall giant catapults at each station.

 

Jamie

[2750Papyrus]

I can't see anything relating to this announcement on the East-West website, which I might have expected for an announcement regarding significant new investment.

[corneliuslundie]

But is it new? Or environmentally friendly recycled money?

Jonathan

[lmsforever]

I still wonder if the Aylesbury MK service will actually happen given all the cuts that have happened on this project.We need this train as the buses are very poor so virtually everyone drives not good surprised our local greens are not being vocal about it.Think the wires should have been kept as friegt would have been favoured and the wires would have reached Oxford.

[Bernard Lamb]

4 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

But is it new? Or environmentally friendly recycled money?

Jonathan

Hidden in the fine print there was a reference to this being the exact destination of money that had been announced some time ago.

This time he was being fairly accurate.

The media of course spun it to suit.

Bernard

[Mike Storey]

6 hours ago, Chris116 said:

I see the TV news is making a lot out of £794 million of new money for the East West line but can't understand how this is money is for the Bicester to Bletchley section given the amount of money that must already have been spent on things such as the Bletchley flyover. Is this a case of announcing money that has already been spent? 

 

Well, it's £760m for Bicester to Bletchley (and £34m for "a reopening of the Ashington to Newcastle line", which will actually need about £130m, or more). 

 

I would guess that the initial monies were only for enabling works, such as the viaduct and other such issues, to prove viability for GRIP5. One would therefore assume that the funds are awarded, for construction, on the basis of a contingency element of c.10%, as opposed to the c.20% plus requirement of GRIP4. But given the more recent reforms (Optimism Bias particularly) to rail projects funding, those percentages may now be out of date.

 

What surprises me more (apart from the farcical absence of electrification and the announcement for the NE, which I presume will be the subject of another thread), is no real announcement about progression beyond Bletchley/MK towards Cambridge - not even an increased amount for construction feasibility. Surely the scheme has reached the stage where it needs more funds to prove the correct route choice now?

 

[melmerby]

4 hours ago, corneliuslundie said:

But is it new? Or environmentally friendly recycled money?

Jonathan

It's probably part of the 1 Billion that was "cut" from infrastructure spending, being announced as new money so everyone's happy!

[Zomboid]

Bionic duckweed for Ashington might make sense, since it'll be a branch line, and as an existing route there's not as much benefit to putting electrification in before it's needed.

 

But Oxford to Bletchley will link the GWML and WCML, and could well be a trunk route, in which case it'll need wires in due course. (Assuming the GWML project actually gets finished in due course). Not doing it at this stage is the kind of false economy that we specialise in, in England at least.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Zomboid

[Pete the Elaner]

10 minutes ago, Zomboid said:

Bionic duckweed for Ashington might make sense, since it'll be a branch line, and as an existing route there's not as much benefit to putting electrification in before it's needed.

 

But Oxford to Bletchley will link the GWML and WCML, and could well be a trunk route, in which case it'll need wires in due course. (Assuming the GWML project actually gets finished in due course). Not doing it at this stage is the kind of false economy that we specialise in, in England at least.

 

That is very true but I can see how it happens.

Initial budget is deemed too expensive, so it gets cut. I guess electrification will be one of the items which gets removed.

 

It seems that French accountants use different tricks:

Using HS2 as an example:

The budget for HS2 includes all the stations.

The budget for a TGV line only includes the line itself. Costs for stations are hidden within the budgets for the towns/cities which they serve.

 

Edit - I forgot to add that because of the budget cut, the initial work was done badly or incomplete. It then has to be rectified or completed at a higher overall cost than what the original budget was for, but everyone is happy because this gets added to a different budget so most people are unaware of it.

Edited January 23, 2021 by Pete the Elaner
Addenum

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Zomboid said:

 

 

But Oxford to Bletchley will link the GWML and WCML, and could well be a trunk route, in which case it'll need wires in due course. (Assuming the GWML project actually gets finished in due course). Not doing it at this stage is the kind of false economy that we specialise in, in England at least.

What happened to the "Electric Spine"?

That was supposed let electrically hauled freight get from the South Coast to the Midlands.

[jamie92208]

7 hours ago, melmerby said:

What happened to the "Electric Spine"?

That was supposed let electrically hauled freight get from the South Coast to the Midlands.

It got quietly dumped some years ago along with electrification of  Oxford to Bletchley.

 

Jamie

[D826]

Agree with all the above.  Given altered loadings post Covid, the proclivities of residents in Oxford and Cambridge, (and Aylesbury proclaimed itself a cycling town some years back)*, one would hope that aside from the disappointment around propulsion the rolling stock might:

 

1) have comfortable seats - those on the stock introduced on the Hertford loop are rock hard. Could double as ironing boards.

2) seats that line up with windows.

3) leg room

4) properly offer and support choice in sustainable transport by integrating with cycling and public transport.  

 

 

Really think the post Covid railway will need to address these issues, generally, rather than just cramming the punters in.

 

Cambridge station (and the new one nearer the Science Park) integrate transport modes  well, ( whatever ones thoughts about the merits of the guided busway) .Other stations  need to emulate  that.

 

Based on the length of time it's taken to reopen Oxford to Bletchley- which was at least mothballed, it will be another 30 years till it reaches Cambridge - what with route feasibility/objections to Transport and Works Orders/ Compulsory Purchase Orders etc.**

 

*I used to cycle across Aylesbury from Broughton to the good old Sir Henry Floyd secondary school, via Tring Road, Hazells Roundabout, Exchange Street, Oxford Road.  That would now be the cycling equivalent of drinking a cup of Saki, tying a Banzai scarf round you head, climbing into a Mitsubishi Zero, and pointing yourself at the nearest available aircraft carrier!

 

**don't know what infrastructure delivery route, (let alone geographical route), the section from Bedford to Cambridge will take.

 

Be fantastic to see trains running from Oxford to Bletchley AND from Aylesbury- my Father drove it north of Aylesbury in the 60s.  Back to the future folks.

 

Best regards

 

Matt W 

[DY444]

The DfT has reverted to mid-2000s mode where it was implacably opposed to electrification and everything was pinned on unproven or non-existent future technology, which, as has been said, is when Roger Ford dubbed such things as bionic duckweed.  It took about 3-4 years last time for the DfT to realise its position was ridiculous. 

 

I doubt the DfT is going to listen to anybody who knows what they are talking about and so, like last time, I think it is going to have to go round the loop again and find out for itself that these new technologies have only got very limited practical uses and that electrification is the only answer to most questions in most circumstances.  There is then the danger, also like last time, that it realises it needs a big programme, insists on too much too quickly to catch up the time lost whilst it wandered wide-eyed down all the dead ends of magic fairy dust technologies, and the industry in its attempts to find "novel" ways to do it quickly messes it up again.  Hopefully next time round somebody in the chain has got the nous to ensure that the agreed programme is actually deliverable.

 

I don't think there is any doubt at all that the DfT will eventually get the right answer but I think it is going to take the embarrassment of backing completely the wrong horse before it does. 

[Edwin_m]

11 hours ago, melmerby said:

What happened to the "Electric Spine"?

That was supposed let electrically hauled freight get from the South Coast to the Midlands.

 

1 hour ago, DY444 said:

The DfT has reverted to mid-2000s mode where it was implacably opposed to electrification and everything was pinned on unproven or non-existent future technology, which, as has been said, is when Roger Ford dubbed such things as bionic duckweed.  It took about 3-4 years last time for the DfT to realise its position was ridiculous. 

 

I doubt the DfT is going to listen to anybody who knows what they are talking about and so, like last time, I think it is going to have to go round the loop again and find out for itself that these new technologies have only got very limited practical uses and that electrification is the only answer to most questions in most circumstances.  There is then the danger, also like last time, that it realises it needs a big programme, insists on too much too quickly to catch up the time lost whilst it wandered wide-eyed down all the dead ends of magic fairy dust technologies, and the industry in its attempts to find "novel" ways to do it quickly messes it up again.  Hopefully next time round somebody in the chain has got the nous to ensure that the agreed programme is actually deliverable.

 

I don't think there is any doubt at all that the DfT will eventually get the right answer but I think it is going to take the embarrassment of backing completely the wrong horse before it does. 

The Electric Spine was one of those schemes that got announced as part of that big programme (though "programme" probably conveys too much of a sense of coherence).  My personal theory is that the Coalition parties couldn't agree on much else in the way of transport policy, so when some good news was called for they would just announce another electrification scheme, based on the flimsiest of assessments and costings.

 

At the time the Electric Spine, or at least the part that ran via Bedford and Leicester, made very little sense as a freight scheme as it was promoted.  Using the then planned MML electrification to Sheffield would have given access to precisely zero intermodal freight terminals, so it would also have needed electrification onwards at least to the ECML at Doncaster or the Doncaster-Leeds line at South Kirkby.  Due to limited capacity on the double track through Market Harborough, the alternative route via Corby would probably have had to be electrified too, if much electric freight was to be operated.  There is now at least a terminal near East Midlands Airport that would provide some reason for freight to use the route, but electrification of both EWR and MML north of Kettering or Market Harborough has been cancelled.  

Edited January 24, 2021 by Edwin_m

[Mike Storey]

22 hours ago, Pete the Elaner said:

 

It seems that French accountants use different tricks:

Using HS2 as an example:

The budget for HS2 includes all the stations.

The budget for a TGV line only includes the line itself. Costs for stations are hidden within the budgets for the towns/cities which they serve.

 

 

 

That may well be true, but it is hard to bear out. The last three LGV schemes included no new stations whatsoever (perhaps one). They all used conventional tracks for first, last or interim legs. It is true that the minor modifications undertaken at a few stations to accept the TGV's, were budgetted separately, but would have hardly figured in the grand sums.

 

The fact is that the French have shown they can build such lines to budget, and to some extent, to time. What has been a major disaster is that the cost risk has been placed on private consortia, which get their money back through track access charges, leading to some of the highest in Europe, and significantly reduced train pairs operating compared to that originally envisaged. Much the same problem has been inherited by HS1 in Kent, vis their current review.

 

[Mike Storey]

11 hours ago, D826 said:

 

 

**don't know what infrastructure delivery route, (let alone geographical route), the section from Bedford to Cambridge will take.

 

Matt W 

 

The geographical route was chosen last February, 2020 ( https://eastwestrail.co.uk/latest-news/bedford-to-cambridge-preferred-route-option-announced ) but, apart from one other press release about this section, concerning not consultation, but how to consult, about the exact footprint, there has been sweet fanny adams. Strange. It's almost like they don't want to get on with it.......

[Chris116]

18 minutes ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Strange. It's almost like they don't want to get on with it.......

Sadly, I fear you may have hit the nail on the head! 

[D826]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

The geographical route was chosen last February, 2020 ( https://eastwestrail.co.uk/latest-news/bedford-to-cambridge-preferred-route-option-announced ) but, apart from one other press release about this section, concerning not consultation, but how to consult, about the exact footprint, there has been sweet fanny adams. Strange. It's almost like they don't want to get on with it.......

Appreciate that Mike, but would describe that as a broad corridor, not a specific route capable of forming a Transport and Works Act order, any other legislative approach to project delivery or upon which to base impacts and mitigation.   Be very interested in the alignment when it becomes clearer, and want to see it delivered in my lifetime!

 

Best regards

 

Matt W

[2750Papyrus]

There should have been route refinement and informal consultation last year but the latter was interrupted by the Covid crisis.  Formal consultation on preferred route and request for funding was scheduled for 21/22.  eastwestrail website has quite a lot of detail, from which this is an abstract

https://eastwestrail-production.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/public/Preferred-Route-Option-Announcement/Files/f84ce55503/EAS019_RouteOptionsTable_Landscape_280120_v3.pdf

[Mike Storey]

1 hour ago, 2750Papyrus said:

There should have been route refinement and informal consultation last year but the latter was interrupted by the Covid crisis.  Formal consultation on preferred route and request for funding was scheduled for 21/22.  eastwestrail website has quite a lot of detail, from which this is an abstract

https://eastwestrail-production.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/public/Preferred-Route-Option-Announcement/Files/f84ce55503/EAS019_RouteOptionsTable_Landscape_280120_v3.pdf

 

True, but they also stated (back in May/June) that they were seeking alternative ways to consult, because of the crisis. None of that happened, instead another notice about how to consult, and no real progress obvious. You would have thought that a year was enough to produce some tentative, actual line of route options, as most of that work can be done with a combination of outside surveys and tabletop work, neither of which has been prohibited by Covid restrictions. To me, this just looks like foot dragging, and will do nothing to gain approvals and next stage funding in 2021, or possibly 2022, if there are serious objections and an Inquiry.

[Michael Hodgson]

On 24/01/2021 at 08:49, D826 said:

Agree with all the above.  Given altered loadings post Covid, the proclivities of residents in Oxford and Cambridge, (and Aylesbury proclaimed itself a cycling town some years back)*, one would hope that aside from the disappointment around propulsion the rolling stock might:

 

1) have comfortable seats - those on the stock introduced on the Hertford loop are rock hard. Could double as ironing boards.

2) seats that line up with windows.

3) leg room

4) properly offer and support choice in sustainable transport by integrating with cycling and public transport.  

 

 

Really think the post Covid railway will need to address these issues, generally, rather than just cramming the punters in.

 

Cambridge station (and the new one nearer the Science Park) integrate transport modes  well, ( whatever ones thoughts about the merits of the guided busway) .Other stations  need to emulate  that.

 

 

 

Cyclists see bikes as an expression of personal liberty and there are an awful lot of bikes at both ends of that route  Commuters who have to stand on an overcrowded train see bikes as an offensive weapon with an oily chain making their journey to work even more unpleasant.  It wasn't a problem when trains had guards and guards had vans where you could stick your bike out of the way.   If you want to allow bikes on trains, there needs to be somewhere more suitable than blocking the exit doors on a modern unit.

 

As for the Cambridge end, the new North station is all very well, but there is also real demand for a South station catering for traffic for the ever-growing Addenbrookes/Papworth campus.  The line is already at capacity between the city and Shepreth Junction where the Kings Cross and Liverpool Street routes meet, and that stretch would have to be quadrupled if that is to be built.  The A428 is currently being upgraded to dual carriageway between Caxton Gibbet and Black Cat roundabout (St Neots) and massive new housing developments are generating much more traffic locally.  I don't think it will be that long before a parallel rail connection will have to follow, running from somewhere near the hospitals to the ECML a little to the south of St Neots and adjacent to these road works which themselves will no doubt take some years.  

[D826]

Ok - very helpful that link 2750 Papyrus,  so it's a Development Consent Order process.  So precise route will be necessary for the Environmental Statement, and, by the time this gets off the ground, Biodiversity Net Gain, etc, etc, ad nauseam, ad nauseam.

 

Matt W