East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line

[Nearholmer]

Oddly enough, following the new A421 alignment probably wouldn’t have provoked anything like the same challenges, because of where it is, i.e. sweeping past the back of most established settlements. The road, which is very wide fence-to-fence, was built without a great deal of controversy. The thing about the railway is that it is right in the middle of several places

[Bernard Lamb]

1 hour ago, melmerby said:

Am I the only one thinking about all the opposition that would have drawn?

Indeed.

But which pressure group should get what they want?

Too late now, but I do thinkthat a dual road and rail route would have been a good option.

Bernard

[Arun Sharma]

44 minutes ago, Bernard Lamb said:

 

" but I do thinkthat a dual road and rail route would have been a good option."

 

If DoT are going to pretend that we have any form of  joined-up transport system, the idea that when planning land grabs to build [trunk] roads, there should be a capability to build a railway in that land space is a sensible one. Imagine the transport system we would have had if say, the M6[T], M25 and say, A14 roads had been built with an extra lane occupied by a railway carrying probably, mainly freight around [rather than through] London to the South and East coast container terminals.

In reality, local and national politicians have long been opposed to their territory being bypassed. In the not so recent past, I was talking to the [then] Commissioner for Transport [when Ken Livingstone was Mayor]. he told me unequivocally that he [and the Mayor] opposed the creation of a London orbital railway because the London Mayorality wanted people [transiting from West to East etc.,] to have to change trains and use the underground because they would then spend [more] money in London.

With that sort of mindset, it is hardly surprising that there is resistance to building railways.

Edited March 8 by Arun Sharma

[phil-b259]

15 hours ago, Bernard Lamb said:

What is wrong with putting the roads under the railway rather than over it?

Bernard

Nothing per se - but…..

 

(1) Generally diving under the railway is more disruptive as it usually requires a railway closure to remove the ground and slide / lift a bridge into position where as an over bridge can be done bit by bit using overnight possessions.

 

(2)  Depending on the ground conditions and the water table diving down under the railway might require the installation of pumps and a structure designed such that it cannot ‘float’ upwards due to water pressure.

 

(3) Because of the requirement to provide 16ft 6 clearance to the roadway (and thus avoid becoming a target for bridge bashes / prevent it being signed as a low bridge) but keep the slopes to an acceptable gradient them then your approaches will need to be longer than they would be for an overbridge as the U.K. railway structure gauge (even with OLE) is still significantly lower than what new build roads need.

Edited March 8 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

6 hours ago, Arun Sharma said:

 

In reality, local and national politicians have long been opposed to their territory being bypassed. In the not so recent past, I was talking to the [then] Commissioner for Transport [when Ken Livingstone was Mayor]. he told me unequivocally that he [and the Mayor] opposed the creation of a London orbital railway because the London Mayorality wanted people [transiting from West to East etc.,] to have to change trains and use the underground because they would then spend [more] money in London.

 

There is also the logic that if rail traffic has to be routed through London then any infrastructure upgrades which are designed to benefit through traffic will also have the potential to benefit Londoners.

 

i.e. A particular scheme might not generate a positive BCR if it’s benefits only a due to Londoners but if it also helps people living outside the capital then those extra benefits might just be enough to turn the BCR positive.

[phil-b259]

13 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It isn’t a “fundamentally rural landscape”, as in no houses or anything else for large distances around though, is it?

 

 

A fundamentally rural landscape indicates that settlements are:-

 

(1) surrounded by fields, farms woodlands etc

(2) The settlements themselves are discrete entities and not overly large.

 

A fundamental rural landscape does not mean a absence of settlement - the Majority of North Yorkshire, Somerset, Cumbria or indeed Bedfordshire comfortably fits into the 'fundamentally rural' category

 

A fundamentally urban area would be indicated by

(1) Settlements merging into one another with no disconsiderable break between them

(2) An absence of agriculture or woodlands

(3) Green spaces being things like parks or Graveyards, etc

 

Go and have a look at Satellite mapping and compare Wandsworth- Feltham with Blectchley - Bedford and the difference is obvious!

[Nearholmer]

Of course it’s not SW London, but neither are several of the busy LCs in places where a flyover could be put in without massive intrusion, which is the key point, and why the flyover proposals created such opposition. The busy LCs aren’t in the green bits, they’re in the brown bits.

 

Woburn Sands is possibly one of the more challenging, in that the road is plenty busy, and this is what is looks like:

 

 

Fenny Stratford is a much less busy for through traffic, but gives access to several large builders merchants, so a lot of lorry movements, and the space for slopes up either side is very restricted (there’s a junction with the old A5 just off the bottom of the photo):

 

 

Some of the others aren’t so challenging, and one, Bow Brickhill, could probably have been created already with a bit of forethought, because an area of land there is currently being developed as yet another warehouse estate, and a road realignment etc could probably have been terraformed into that, but there are reasons why EWR has backed-off from the earlier proposals: cost, time, and the opposition provoked by intrusion of big, tall structures in low-rise places.

 

The service now proposed on this section is 3TPH in each direction, so even with a more modest line speed and very smart signaling the barriers will be shut for a fair proportion of each hour, so things won’t be painless!
 

 

Edited March 8 by Nearholmer

[phil-b259]

14 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

It

 

Look at each LC on the route in turn, and you will find that several of the really troublesome (as in busy road traffic) ones are in places where sticking a big flyover in would create immense intrusion, which is why the consultation yielded such negative feedback around those options.

 

 

 

Actually its not as bad as you are trying to claim! Firstly several of the crossings are more or less in open country / have no settlement around them  (Stewartby, Kempston Hardwick, Milbrook etc)

 

Secondly options exist in some locations to provide bridges away from the current crossing sites for motor vehicles (which could also help remove traffic from the centre of the settlements.

 

Thirdly in some cases alternative routes for motor vehicles that bridge the railway already exist (albut with some minor alterations needed to the road network).

 

Granted there are a couple of tricky spots - Woburn Sands being the biggest one where there doesn't look to be any easy way to by-pass the crossing area with new roads and in that case a overbridge could well be said to be intrusive - BUT if the majority of the other crossings were got rid of then having one crossing on the whole line would not cause that much of a problem.

 

But take a look at these - and by the way I would love to know just how you can claim that bridges at the likes of Broadmead Road are going to be hideously intrusive when there isn't a single property anywhere near it!

 

[phil-b259]

18 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Of course it’s not SW London, but neither are several of the busy LCs in places where a flyover could be put in without massive intrusion, which is the key point, and why the flyover proposals created such opposition. The busy LCs aren’t in the green bits, they’re in the brown bits.

 

Woburn Sands is possibly one of the more challenging, in that the road is plenty busy, and this is what is looks like:

 

 

Fenny Stratford is a much less busy for through traffic, but gives access to several large builders merchants, so a lot of lorry movements, and the space for slopes up either side is very restricted (there’s a junction with the old A5 just off the bottom of the photo):

 

 

Some of the others aren’t so challenging, and one, Bow Brickhill, could probably have been created already with a bit of forethought, because an area of land there is currently being developed as yet another warehouse estate, and a road realignment etc could probably have been terraformed into that, but there are reasons why EWR has backed-off from the earlier proposals: cost, time, and the opposition provoked by intrusion of big, tall structures in low-rise places.

 

The service now proposed on this section is 3TPH in each direction, so even with a more modest line speed and very smart signaling the barriers will be shut for a fair proportion of each hour, so things won’t be painless!
 

 

 

Why the obsession with replicating vehicle crossings at exactly the same place as the level crossing is currently located. One of the advantages of motor vehicles is they travel faster than people can walk so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever why they cannot be diverted some distance away from the crossing site to get over the railway without world ending!

 

Its a different matter for pedestrians - but footbridges are generally smaller and easier to fit into constrained locations, particularly if you shut the road!

[Nearholmer]

Well, you’ve drawn a lot of red lines on aerial photos, and an entire team of designers at EWR did much the same, but at a far greater level of detail, to preliminary engineering design and costing, and the upshot of your red lines, or their work would be the same: lots of cost, and lots, and lots of construction time, in several instances in the teeth of very firm opposition. Which isn’t the way to get a project delivered.

 

As I keep saying, my bet is that some of these flyovers will come back on the agenda once people get fed-up with sitting in their cars at level crossings. Some of the ones towards Bedford might also go, one at a time, because the number of new houses, and other things, planned in that area is huge, which may push road traffic levels over the brink for LCs.

 

Incidentally, Ridgmont baffles me; I can’t see why the LC is now needed there at all, because there is road access out to the main road on either side of it already.

Edited March 8 by Nearholmer

[Grovenor]

Or copy Malbourne and lift the railway up out of the way, with public open space under it giving enhanced amenity and crossing opportunities between the two halves of the town. 🤨

[Northmoor]

2 minutes ago, Grovenor said:

Or copy Melbourne and lift the railway up out of the way, with public open space under it giving enhanced amenity and crossing opportunities between the two halves of the town. 🤨

Yep, recreate the Liverpool Overhead Railway (or much of the Dockland Light Railway) through the middle of Bedfordshire.....  Actually I do wonder if at some locations, having the railway "humped" over the road might be a better solution than diverting the road, although much more disruptive to the railway while under construction.  Modern units passing non-stop aren't going to be slowed by a 1in40 slope on the approach to the bridge, and it helps with braking and acceleration for those that are stopping.

[phil-b259]

5 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

Well, you’ve drawn a lot of red lines on aerial photos, and an entire team of designers at EWR did much the same, but at a far greater level of detail, to preliminary engineering design and costing, and the upshot of your red lines, or their work would be the same: lots of cost, and lots, and lots of construction time, in several instances in the teeth of very firm opposition. Which isn’t the way to get a project delivered.

 

As I keep saying, my bet is that some of these flyovers will come back on the agenda once people get fed-up with sitting in their cars at level crossings. Some of the ones towards Bedford might also go, one at a time, because the number of new houses, and other things, planned in that area is huge, which may push road traffic levels over the brink for LCs.

 

I fully understand that my suggestions are just lines drawn on satellite imagery - but they also debunk the myth that replacing any of the crossings by bridges will always be intrusive to the community / require demolition etc.

 

Ridgemont should have gone ages ago what with the flyover right next door.

 

Bow Bricknall, Milbrook, Stewartby, Kempson Hardwick and Broadmead Lane are all easily bridgeable and in reality there are no serious grounds in terms of 'intrusion' etc to oppose these other than NIMBYs wanting to flex their muscles.

 

Appley Guise and Liddington do present problems in that to avoid intrusiveness then replacement road vehicle bridges would have to be some distance away from the current crossing point to prevent visual intrusion / demolition - plus there is that danger that the associated new roads etc could lead to unwanted housing development. There is also the question if those new roads should be the railways responsibility to fund given they would to some degree also act as by-passes for the villages, plus the sheer quantity of new roads means it wopuld most likely torpedo the BCR from an aciuntants perspective.

 

Woburn Sands is particularly difficult as there isn't an easy way top create a bypass road so in this case the crossing would most likely have to stay.

 

Fenny Startford requires the adaptation of the road network in the area to divert road traffic over the existing bridge to the west and the requisitioning of what may be private roads on an industrial estate so is legally complex.

 

[melmerby]

A railway at a high level immediately makes space for retail & other business opportunities underneath.

[icn]

On 08/03/2024 at 08:48, Bernard Lamb said:

What is wrong with putting the roads under the railway rather than over it?

Bernard

They do this literally all the time in Switzerland. Works fine. Needs money and planning - and I think with that we've already uncovered the problem. To be fair, the other solution is to tunnel the railway line when there are issues - again, money is needed.

 

Not every single crossing gets replaced, some get closed and/or replaced with self-powered-transport-only underbridge, but the new crossings have higher capacity anyway so you don't need as many of them.

[Tony Teague]

Surely if we want to encourage rail travel & rail freight at the cost of road travel and freight haulage we should simply accept that road users will be inconvenienced and will squeal in the process!

The problem is that no-one has the guts or sufficient power to do this, nor is it reflected in any 'transport policy' - and thus the endless consultations, escalating costs and lack of progress.

Of course we all pay for this, regardless of whether we are road or rail supporters - the price of democracy perhaps?

(written as a rail enthusiast who almost exclusively travels by road).😄

[2750Papyrus]

Apparently, tracklaying between Bicester and Bletchley has been completed.

 

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/news/latest-stories/east-meets-west

 

Sadly, the BBC coverage quickly submerges this achievement in a nimbyfest.

[Nearholmer]

2 hours ago, Tony Teague said:

Surely if we want to encourage rail travel & rail freight at the cost of road travel and freight haulage we should simply accept that road users will be inconvenienced and will squeal in the process!

I’m highly sympathetic to that line of argument, but despite arguing with Phil about the particulars of various crossings, I agree with him that LCs are a potential safety problem, and that when they are as close together as on this line, the signalling arrangements necessary begin to restrict the throughput of trains, in this case by pulling the speed ceiling down, so they aren’t by any means great things to have around.

[Arun Sharma]

3 hours ago, 2750Papyrus said:

Apparently, tracklaying between Bicester and Bletchley has been completed.

 

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/news/latest-stories/east-meets-west

 

Sadly, the BBC coverage quickly submerges this achievement in a nimbyfest.

Did they really mean: The Long Welded Rail Train (LWRT) has delivered 427 rails totalling 216 metres in length. That would make the average delivered piece of rail about 50.58 cm long [or 19.9inches in real money].

Edited March 9 by Arun Sharma

[KCL]

On 08/03/2024 at 22:26, phil-b259 said:

 

Actually its not as bad as you are trying to claim! Firstly several of the crossings are more or less in open country / have no settlement around them  (Stewartby, Kempston Hardwick, Milbrook etc)

 

Secondly options exist in some locations to provide bridges away from the current crossing sites for motor vehicles (which could also help remove traffic from the centre of the settlements.

 

Thirdly in some cases alternative routes for motor vehicles that bridge the railway already exist (albut with some minor alterations needed to the road network).

 

Granted there are a couple of tricky spots - Woburn Sands being the biggest one where there doesn't look to be any easy way to by-pass the crossing area with new roads and in that case a overbridge could well be said to be intrusive - BUT if the majority of the other crossings were got rid of then having one crossing on the whole line would not cause that much of a problem.

 

But take a look at these - and by the way I would love to know just how you can claim that bridges at the likes of Broadmead Road are going to be hideously intrusive when there isn't a single property anywhere near it!

 

 

[KCL]

The locations at Kempston Hardwick were subject to a development plan some years ago. It was for a mixed residential site of 1000 homes and business park. The plans included replacing the two level crossings with bridges and a new railway station. 

 

In the last six months, Universal Studios have acquired the site and intend building a 450 acre theme park between the Marston Vale line and the Midland mainline.  The planned station of Wixams on the Midland mainline and a new station close to Kempston Hardwick could be used to service the site. More detailed plans from the developers are expected later this year.

[2750Papyrus]

Attached item is on local BBC news.  What a shame that compliance with budget is claimed but no cost forthcoming in answer to a straightforward question.  I also found the comparison with HS2 unnecessary.

 

The new railway coming to Beds and Bucks - BBC Sounds

 

 

 

 

[KingEdwardII]

On 09/03/2024 at 16:19, Arun Sharma said:

Did they really mean: The Long Welded Rail Train (LWRT) has delivered 427 rails totalling 216 metres in length.

Not for the first time does a journalist prove to be an absolute numpty when it comes to maths. Their reading comprehension is scarcely any better either.

 

Yours, Mike

[1E BoY]

On Wednesday (13th March) I took a round robin trip from Bletchley to London and back out to Bedford. I caught the 1547 from Bedford to Bletchley Class 150 (150139) so as to travel the line, which I had not done for a couple of years. I took particular notice of the level crossing situation and noticed that at most there were traffic queues, the nearer we got to Bletchley the longer the queue (notably at Woburn Sands and Bow Brickhill). 

 

As I was waiting for the 1105 to Harrow & Wealdstone, this car train was waiting to leave the branch which was awaiting the road on to the main line. I can only imagine the traffic queues at the level crossings when this passed through. It was observed entering the sidings at Wembley an hour later.

 

Another thing that I noticed on the north side of the line was the vast amount of discarded track panels. Most of them had trees growing out of them. Whoever gets the job of upgrading the Bletchley to Bedford route is going to have to do some track recovery before they do anything else!

 

Edited March 15 by 1E BoY
Picture changed

[simon b]

42 minutes ago, 1E BoY said:

 

 

Another thing that I noticed on the north side of the line was the vast amount of discarded track panels. Most of them had trees growing out of them. Whoever gets the job of upgrading the Bletchley to Bedford route is going to have to do some track recovery before they do anything else!

 

 

Would be great if the old track could be taken to Risborough to help with the independent line project, that worked well during the Aylesbury branch work last year.