East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line

[rodent279]

24 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

This is more of why it is so frustrating to watch the MV: an opportunity to create this sort of truly liveable environment is being fumbled. There are bright spots, planners are trying hard, but the legislative, procedural, and administrative environment that they operate in ties at least one hand behind their back.
 

Some bits of Milton Keynes are “very Dutch”, to the degree that when I went to Medemblik I got confused and thought I’d returned home, and in a more sensible world the learning from that could and would be rolled forward.

 

Anyway, I will try hard today not to rant about this any more; I’m aware that I’ve  diverted and rather misused this thread, for which I apologise.

But even MK was half baked-wasn't it supposed to have a light rail or monorail system?

[Nearholmer]

It could certainly do with one, extending into the MV as that is redeveloped, but I’ve never been sure how seriously light rail or monorail was considered when MK was designed. For sure there are contemporary artists impressions, and there are ‘urban legends’ that some of the space beside grid roads was meant for it, but whether anyone every really meant it, who knows? What is for sure is that MK was designed at the very point when the private car was seen as the salvation of mankind, so as well as having good cycling and walking provision, it is sure as heck car-centric in some respects.

 

 

Edited October 26, 2023 by Nearholmer

[Pete the Elaner]

More amusing developments on the Bletchley-Bedford section.

It seems that rail replacement buses are still providing the service. I was shown a report last night that during driver re-training & route re-acceptance for the class 150s to go into service, 1 hit a car on a level crossing.

I would consider that unfortunate except the report went on to say that the train had suffered significant damage but the car could not be identified because it had been driven away.

What? A 2 car 150 weighs 70T. Even the heaviest of cars weighs no more than 1/20 of that. There is no way the car could possibly be driveable after anything other than a minor scrape.

It is just another example of how the ToC treat this line with real contempt & will use any excuse to avoid running a service on it.

[The Stationmaster]

47 minutes ago, Pete the Elaner said:

More amusing developments on the Bletchley-Bedford section.

It seems that rail replacement buses are still providing the service. I was shown a report last night that during driver re-training & route re-acceptance for the class 150s to go into service, 1 hit a car on a level crossing.

I would consider that unfortunate except the report went on to say that the train had suffered significant damage but the car could not be identified because it had been driven away.

What? A 2 car 150 weighs 70T. Even the heaviest of cars weighs no more than 1/20 of that. There is no way the car could possibly be driveable after anything other than a minor scrape.

It is just another example of how the ToC treat this line with real contempt & will use any excuse to avoid running a service on it.

Look where the coupler and electrical connection are in the photos on the previous oage.  if the latter was damaged it could well mean a visit to main works for repair.  That is an immediate big cost and will take time.

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, Pete the Elaner said:

More amusing developments on the Bletchley-Bedford section.

It seems that rail replacement buses are still providing the service. I was shown a report last night that during driver re-training & route re-acceptance for the class 150s to go into service, 1 hit a car on a level crossing.

I would consider that unfortunate except the report went on to say that the train had suffered significant damage but the car could not be identified because it had been driven away.

What? A 2 car 150 weighs 70T. Even the heaviest of cars weighs no more than 1/20 of that. There is no way the car could possibly be driveable after anything other than a minor scrape.

It is just another example of how the ToC treat this line with real contempt & will use any excuse to avoid running a service on it.

I think that it was the driver that got away.  Probably sloppy journalism. 

 

Jamie

[lmsforever]

I am afraid that Britain is more than forty years behind the Netherlands the attitude towards development being the main one , new house development in the UK is based on the cram it all in principle.Getting oneself around is automatically is taken to be by car be it to school,shopping ,work is to be by car and seeing the area outside a school you would think that no one could walk  some trips being literally two minutes..I cannot see any change coming along in the near future due to the policy now in place  that sees the only way to house anyone is to gobble up as much land especially green belt and cover it with houses with no regard to whether people want them.Here in Aylesbury the town has become surrounded by what amount to mini towns with no thought to the increase of cars.Also our town is regularly gridlocked with all roads at a standstill .EWR is a link that is happening despite all attempts by the DFT to stop it being built  and consistently do their best to downscale what has been built .The Bedford to Cambridge section is to be built to a lower spec and as for Bletchley Bedford the chances of a decent service and stations that people could use, the DFT are totally against any that would be useful.I cannot see a change coming and the future is not going to be good and as long as the DFT are allowed to override the needs of the people for good public transport. 

[Ray H]

20 hours ago, Ray H said:

We shouldn't forget freight capacity - OK overnight but there'll be a need for day time paths as well. 

 

Is it worth looking at 2 trains per hour instead of every 30 minutes - say a 20 + 40 minute interval?

 

Another idea could be to re-model one of the intermediate stations between Bletchley and Bedford so that it has four platforms. All trains would call with the fast overtaking the slow. It is difficult to plot this out without knowing the run times of the fast trains but I think it would have the effect of increasing the TPH figure, probably enough to facilitate at least one freight path per cycle.

 

Skip stopping is another idea to effectively increase line capacity but it does mean that travel between some adjacent stations (if there is any) might not possible but that could possibly be overcome by having a different skip pattern in each direction such that people could get to the station they want by a change of direction at specific stations - skip stopping doesn't necessarily mean missing out alternate stations.

 

I wonder how long it will be before the single line sections between Bedford and Bletchley start to affect the maximum service level/punctuality?

[Edwin_m]

30 minutes ago, Ray H said:

 

Another idea could be to re-model one of the intermediate stations between Bletchley and Bedford so that it has four platforms. All trains would call with the fast overtaking the slow. It is difficult to plot this out without knowing the run times of the fast trains but I think it would have the effect of increasing the TPH figure, probably enough to facilitate at least one freight path per cycle.

 

Skip stopping is another idea to effectively increase line capacity but it does mean that travel between some adjacent stations (if there is any) might not possible but that could possibly be overcome by having a different skip pattern in each direction such that people could get to the station they want by a change of direction at specific stations - skip stopping doesn't necessarily mean missing out alternate stations.

 

I wonder how long it will be before the single line sections between Bedford and Bletchley start to affect the maximum service level/punctuality?

According to November's Modern Railways, they are looking at adding a loop somewhere on the Marston Vale but haven't decided between keeping all the stops or closing some with better service at the others.  They propose to double the single track at Fenny Stratford.  There's no direct mention of the one at the Bedford end but discussion of St Johns having only one platform and being unsuitable suggests the section will be doubled, which is what I've understood from previous articles or documents.  

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, Ray H said:

Another idea could be to re-model one of the intermediate stations between Bletchley and Bedford so that it has four platforms.

Why four platforms?

Why not just do what the GWR did on several of it's double track mainlines and put the platforms on a loop?

Fast trains sailed through, stoppers at the platform.

With suitable planning the services could be timed so that the fasts can overtake the stoppers at these stations.

[Bernard Lamb]

9 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It could certainly do with one, extending into the MV as that is redeveloped, but I’ve never been sure how seriously light rail or monorail was considered when MK was designed. For sure there are contemporary artists impressions, and there are ‘urban legends’ that some of the space beside grid roads was meant for it, but whether anyone every really meant it, who knows? What is for sure is that MK was designed at the very point when the private car was seen as the salvation of mankind, so as well as having good cycling and walking provision, it is sure as heck car-centric in some respects.

 

 

At that time the idea of providing walking and cycling facilities was to get these people off the road........ so that motor traffic could drive at 40mph plus in an urban environment. A similar situation was started around the Barbican in London, with high level walkways and wide roads such as London Wall. That did not last long.

Bernard

[melmerby]

3 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

At that time the idea of providing walking and cycling facilities was to get these people off the road........ so that motor traffic could drive at 40mph plus in an urban environment. A similar situation was started around the Barbican in London, with high level walkways and wide roads such as London Wall. That did not last long.

Bernard

Redditch is like that with 70mph dual carriageways running through it but there are no footpaths on those roads at all, the pedestrians and cyclists go elsewhere and the housing estates the roads pass through are barely visible from those roads.

Running off those 70mph roads are several single carriageway main roads, many 40mph and then the slower estate roads off those.

 

It's very much a product of the 60s-70s car culture.

 

As it was already a substantial town, as a "New Town" that was just an add-on to what was already there, those parts being laid out in the normal way, with houses each side of main roads as was usual during the first half of the 20th century

 

[Ray H]

14 hours ago, melmerby said:

Why four platforms?

Why not just do what the GWR did on several of it's double track mainlines and put the platforms on a loop?

Fast trains sailed through, stoppers at the platform.

With suitable planning the services could be timed so that the fasts can overtake the stoppers at these stations.

 

That would work even better as far as tph is concerned, adding the extra two platforms could provide a faster journey for some locals though.

[Rugd1022]

18 hours ago, Ray H said:

 

Another idea could be to re-model one of the intermediate stations between Bletchley and Bedford so that it has four platforms. All trains would call with the fast overtaking the slow. It is difficult to plot this out without knowing the run times of the fast trains but I think it would have the effect of increasing the TPH figure, probably enough to facilitate at least one freight path per cycle.

 

Skip stopping is another idea to effectively increase line capacity but it does mean that travel between some adjacent stations (if there is any) might not possible but that could possibly be overcome by having a different skip pattern in each direction such that people could get to the station they want by a change of direction at specific stations - skip stopping doesn't necessarily mean missing out alternate stations.

 

I wonder how long it will be before the single line sections between Bedford and Bletchley start to affect the maximum service level/punctuality?

 

A couple of flies in the ointment are the level crossings all along the route and the deceptively steep gradient at Ridgemont, it's quite difficult for a freight to get a decent run between the two single line sections at each end. On many occasions I've set off from either end with gusto, only to be brought almost to a stand because the barriers are still up at each LC. The single line sections are frankly a pain in the Aris', the points at the Fenny end are 20mph and 15mph at the Bedford end, plus the very sharp curve up into St.Johns doesn't help. The loop at Forders is handy but doesn't seem to get used much. NR spent £35m remodelling and resignalling and it feels like it's gone to waste in a way.

[The Stationmaster]

2 hours ago, Rugd1022 said:

 

A couple of flies in the ointment are the level crossings all along the route and the deceptively steep gradient at Ridgemont, it's quite difficult for a freight to get a decent run between the two single line sections at each end. On many occasions I've set off from either end with gusto, only to be brought almost to a stand because the barriers are still up at each LC. The single line sections are frankly a pain in the Aris', the points at the Fenny end are 20mph and 15mph at the Bedford end, plus the very sharp curve up into St.Johns doesn't help. The loop at Forders is handy but doesn't seem to get used much. NR spent £35m remodelling and resignalling and it feels like it's gone to waste in a way.

Some of it definitely went to waste Nidge ( I don't mean the money I made out of it - that was obviously well spent!!).  The basic problwem seems o to have been that whoever wrote the spec - if indeed there actually was one - didn't understand simple things like line capacity, braking distances, or signal siting in relattion to level crossings.  So the scheme effectively asked for far more than it was capable of giving without some clear decisions about the level crossings and the single line bits at the ends.  Hence monety was wasted (but not on the work I did to get NR out a hole because it couldn't do it themselves).

 

The SPAD Risk review meetings - where I was the secretary for a number of them - also revealed some distinct lack of thought at the specification stage.

[Pannier Tank]

2 hours ago, The Stationmaster said:

The SPAD Risk review meetings - where I was the secretary for a number of them - also revealed some distinct lack of thought at the specification stage.

 

I would think that the Down Home Signal at Woburn Sands was top of the SPAD Risk list?

[The Stationmaster]

9 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

 

I would think that the Down Home Signal at Woburn Sands was top of the SPAD Risk list?

We had to do all the signals capable of displaying a red aspect - before the were erected (hence some emerging as under-braked)

[jamie92208]

Just for general information the latestModern Railways arrived today and there is a series of articles about EWR.  One includes something about the Bletchley to Bedford Section but I haven't had time to read it yet.  More important thi gs such as chopping logs for the fire.  It's cold and wet all of a sudden down here. 

 

Jamie

[phil-b259]

On 26/10/2023 at 18:33, melmerby said:

Why four platforms?

Why not just do what the GWR did on several of it's double track mainlines and put the platforms on a loop?

Fast trains sailed through, stoppers at the platform.

With suitable planning the services could be timed so that the fasts can overtake the stoppers at these stations.

Because it’s not as simple as that!

 

A loop just as long as the platform (GWR style with slow speed turnouts) doesn’t help line capacity because all the deceleration prior to the station call and acceleration afterwards has to take place on the main line thereby getting in the way of faster trains.

 

If you really want to make a serious difference using loops then they need to be several signal sections long with high speed turnouts thus allowing trains to exit / rejoin the main line as close to line speed as possible with all the deceleration / acceleration being done in the loop itself.

 

However building a loop for which extends a good couple of miles either side of the station is inevitably going to cost a lot more and no doubt require extensive land acquisition to provide the widened formation - and given the current obsession with cutting spending on rail projects it’s clear that’s not going to be allowed to happen.

 

Hence the need to find solutions based on skip stopping etc (which is what happens on the Elizabeth line in West London) so as to try and squeeze the maximum number of paths from what you already have.

[VarsityJim]

I wonder how much the reinstatement (and brand new alignment) cost of the whole Oxford to Cambridge line will be, compared to how much it would have cost to ‘properly’ mothball it all and reopen everything on the same alignment? (New high level station at Bletchley excluded) 🤔

[rodent279]

23 minutes ago, VarsityJim said:

I wonder how much the reinstatement (and brand new alignment) cost of the whole Oxford to Cambridge line will be, compared to how much it would have cost to ‘properly’ mothball it all and reopen everything on the same alignment? (New high level station at Bletchley excluded) 🤔

You'd still have to double track it, the single line section was in place in the mid-80's, and although the second line remained in place, it was nowhere near fit for reuse. So, some drainage works apart, most of what is being done would be necessary anyway.

[Nearholmer]

The drainage was totally defunct over long lengths well before it closed, and I can’t imagine that  mothballing would have included  restore that, so not a lot different I’d say.

 

There are mothballed lines in France where there are 20cm diameter trees growing in the four-foot, so I think mothballing is really more about preserving the line f route and property than anything much else.

[Bernard Lamb]

52 minutes ago, VarsityJim said:

I wonder how much the reinstatement (and brand new alignment) cost of the whole Oxford to Cambridge line will be, compared to how much it would have cost to ‘properly’ mothball it all and reopen everything on the same alignment? (New high level station at Bletchley excluded) 🤔

Unfortunately it is not possible to build a single track line on the footprint of an old doube track line, that meets modern standards. A problem that came to light in Scotland with the Borders line.

Once you accept that, then a wider deviation from the original route becomes more attractive.

East of Bedford not much exists, so anything goes.

It does seem much easier to update roads that follow the same route. Black Cat to Caxton being the current example. But that takes us into political territory.😀

Bernard

[rodent279]

It's much the same as asking how much the Werrington flyover diveunder cost compared to if the GN&GE had been mothballed. Even if it had been mothballed, there are so many level crossings on the March-Spalding section (roughly 1 per mile I think?), that it would have involved a boat load more work to restore than just fettling up the track.

As it is, the line is so far gone that it would be a total rebuild, you might as well just build a totally new railway.

Edited October 31, 2023 by rodent279

[VarsityJim]

12 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

Unfortunately it is not possible to build a single track line on the footprint of an old doube track line

Whereabouts is it proposed to go from once double track to single track on the Oxford to Cambridge route? Thanks 

[Bernard Lamb]

30 minutes ago, VarsityJim said:

Whereabouts is it proposed to go from once double track to single track on the Oxford to Cambridge route? Thanks 

???

What is that all about?

I never mentioned single or double track, or indeed any proposals.

I simply made a statement about how much more land is required by a modern railway than was required by the original.

Bernard