East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line

[Pannier Tank]

Thinking about the changing of the UP / Down Direction on the Oxford Branch, which was originally Down to Oxford and Up to Bletchley. As the Oxford Branch at Bletchley is now accessed from the Up Slow and the Up Bedford Branch , it probably makes sense to continue that terminology assuming the Bicester to Oxford section is the same.

[melmerby]

17 minutes ago, Pannier Tank said:

Thinking about the changing of the UP / Down Direction on the Oxford Branch, which was originally Down to Oxford and Up to Bletchley. As the Oxford Branch at Bletchley is now accessed from the Up Slow and the Up Bedford Branch , it probably makes sense to continue that terminology assuming the Bicester to Oxford section is the same.

Bicester to Oxford is already "Up" following the connection with the Chiltern line.

[Pete the Elaner]

3 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

Great to see them using trains to deliver all that ballast - keeps a whole heap of HGVs off the roads.

 

Yours, Mike.

 

I deliver ballast with trains on my layout too.

It started at a friend's when we were much younger. He was building a garden railway & was asked not to tear up the grass by dragging a big bag of ballast across the lawn. He decided that a way around this was to send it by train.

Ever since then, I've ballasted by filling up wagons in the fiddle yard & sending them to the area to be ballasted.

It makes the job harder but also a lot more fun.

[Rugd1022]

22 hours ago, Tony Teague said:

What was clear from conversations with the very friendly engineers on site this morning was that after completing today's work - about 800m / 1000yds of track starting from just before Swanbourne Station - they will be switching their efforts to the second, Bletchley => Bicester line and re-commencing work from just west of the Bletchley flyover.

 

It seems that they have been awaiting further ballast drops on that side of the formation, some of which was delivered today through a second train following behind the track laying machine and seen here from the Salden Bridge a mile or so east of Swanbourne:

 

 

This train was topped and tailed by 66 952 (at the west end) and 66 598 seen here (at the east / Bletchley end).

 

The New Track Construction (NTC 2) train was powered by DR78702 with 66 501 trailing at the rear and ready to haul it back towards Bletchley.

 

Tony

 

That's 6Y71, the train I relieved on top of the flyover at Bletchley yesterday and took down to spot where you photographed it 😉.

[phil-b259]

On 07/07/2022 at 19:02, Rugd1022 said:

 

Well I asked the question today when I was on site and the general consensus is that it's convenient to have each line passing through a separate arch. Someone also mentioned that the line speed here will be 100mph, but we'll see.

 

 

 

May also be for clearance reasons.

 

Although not being electrified at present the rebuilt line will have sufficient clearances for OLE to be easily added at a later date without ANY modifications to structures / the track required.

 

Its also worth remembering what trouble arched bridges cause on the classic network with 9ft high square profile containers - putting a single line through an arch built for 2 can remove that issue too.

 

[phil-b259]

On 05/07/2022 at 23:43, VarsityJim said:

Many thanks indeed, very useful as I’m sure I’d read elsewhere that the landfill would still be in use alongside HS2 (!)

 

That was the intention - however it was judged simply too complex to keep the thing going throughout the HS2 and East - West rail works.

 

As such the tip may have been capped 'temporarily' and once the rail infrastructure is complete it may re-open in some form.

 

On the wider question of 'where is Londons waste going', the push for recycling has been making steady inroads into the volumes over the past decade - plus incineration to produce energy seems to have gained favour if it has to be deposed of.

[Edwin_m]

10 hours ago, phil-b259 said:

 

May also be for clearance reasons.

 

Although not being electrified at present the rebuilt line will have sufficient clearances for OLE to be easily added at a later date without ANY modifications to structures / the track required.

 

Its also worth remembering what trouble arched bridges cause on the classic network with 9ft high square profile containers - putting a single line through an arch built for 2 can remove that issue too.

 

Usual practice would be to provide electrification clearances where practicable, but not to re-build structures if the only reason to do so would be to provide those clearances.  Are there any arched bridges that are being left largely alone, with both tracks continuing to pass through the same arch?  If so these are likely to need work as part of any future wiring (unless electrification cost saving initiatives find ways to avoid this in the meantime).  

Edited July 11, 2022 by Edwin_m

[Mike_Walker]

In answer to "where's London's waste going" that from Northolt which used to go to Calvert now goes to the Sita Severnside energy-from-waste power plant alongside the Severn Beach branch - or it was a couple of years ago and I think it still does.

[Fat Controller]

1 hour ago, Mike_Walker said:

In answer to "where's London's waste going" that from Northolt which used to go to Calvert now goes to the Sita Severnside energy-from-waste power plant alongside the Severn Beach branch - or it was a couple of years ago and I think it still does.

Isn't a lot going to the site of the former Barrrington cement works, near Royston?

[Mike Storey]

6 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

Usual practice would be to provide electrification clearances where practicable, but not to re-build structures if the only reason to do so would be to provide those clearances.  Are there any arched bridges that are being left largely alone, with both tracks continuing to pass through the same arch?  If so these are likely to need work as part of any future wiring (unless electrification cost saving initiatives find ways to avoid this in the meantime).  

 

Yes, is the answer, but what and where is a little muddled right now. As for this bridge, it needed re-building, so will be built to the OLE standards required right now.

 

What might indeed happen (and what should have happened some years ago) is that the OLE clearances demanded should be reduced to their original BR Standard, as opposed to the European UIC standard, to which there should should (and could) have been a reasonable exemption request, which was never sent. As everyone seems to be blaming everyone else for that, very expensive, error, I guess we will never know why.

 

But, if that is pursued, then such works should prove to be more affordable in future.

 

[jamie92208]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Yes, is the answer, but what and where is a little muddled right now. As for this bridge, it needed re-building, so will be built to the OLE standards required right now.

 

What might indeed happen (and what should have happened some years ago) is that the OLE clearances demanded should be reduced to their original BR Standard, as opposed to the European UIC standard, to which there should should (and could) have been a reasonable exemption request, which was never sent. As everyone seems to be blaming everyone else for that, very expensive, error, I guess we will never know why.

 

But, if that is pursued, then such works should prove to be more affordable in future.

 

Just one problem there Mike. Some politician would have to sign off on the statutory instrument or ehatever they need and I doubt that any of the current crop woupd have the spherical objects to do that in casecsome idiot with a selfie stick touched the end of a pantograph horn. Maybe I'm being cynical. It's ead in one so young.

 

Jamie

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, jamie92208 said:

Just one problem there Mike. Some politician would have to sign off on the statutory instrument or ehatever they need and I doubt that any of the current crop woupd have the spherical objects to do that in casecsome idiot with a selfie stick touched the end of a pantograph horn. Maybe I'm being cynical. It's ead in one so young.

 

Jamie

The selfie stick question relates to the clearance to platforms.  For clearance to bridges which is the issue here, as far as I can see there's no hazard to people if it's too tight, just a risk of arcing which may cause some wire degradation and a power outage that can immediately be reset.  

[melmerby]

2 hours ago, Edwin_m said:

The selfie stick question relates to the clearance to platforms.  For clearance to bridges which is the issue here, as far as I can see there's no hazard to people if it's too tight, just a risk of arcing which may cause some wire degradation and a power outage that can immediately be reset.  

Modern insulations, used to fill the gap between wire and structure could stop any chance of arcing.

[Lambton58]

We went to London last Friday and changed trains at Bletchley.  Here's a couple of snaps taken from Platform 5 showing progress so far on the new platforms/station.  

[surfsup]

12 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

In answer to "where's London's waste going" that from Northolt which used to go to Calvert now goes to the Sita Severnside energy-from-waste power plant alongside the Severn Beach branch - or it was a couple of years ago and I think it still does.

 

It certainly still does. I didn't enjoy conducting Platform Patrols at Slough etc when that came through - as if you couldn't find a reason enough to hate being in Slough early in the morning... 

 

It was more, shall we say, particularly fragrant on a nice summers morning when snarled up in the peak commuter traffic 😷

[KingEdwardII]

10 hours ago, surfsup said:

reason enough to hate being in Slough early in the morning... 

Fan of John Betjeman are you?  🤣

 

Yours, Mike.

[Mike_Walker]

12 hours ago, Lambton58 said:

We went to London last Friday and changed trains at Bletchley.  Here's a couple of snaps taken from Platform 5 showing progress so far on the new platforms/station.  

Good grief!  A lesser-spotted 230 in service?

[Lambton58]

13 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

Good grief!  A lesser-spotted 230 in service?

The good weather seems to have brought them out in numbers!   Here's one not long out of hibernation back in March passing Woodley's Farm Crossing near Woburn Sands. It's taken a while but we do seem to have a full service now, with no bus replacements.  Although I've seen them passing loads of times, circumstances and the pandemic meant that I hadn't travelled on one until last week for our London jaunt and a couple of trips to Bedford.  And I must admit they're better than I was expecting and they seem fine for the Bletchley / Bedford service.  Not sure about them for a longer journey like Bletchley to Oxford though.

Ralph

 

[Nearholmer]

I don’t think they were ever intended for the longer trips, and given how many of them there are, such a small fleet would imply a sort of ‘once a fortnight’ service.

 

BTW, I think most of the not-trains on this line over the past two years have been a function of poorly staff, not poorly trains, in that when staff availability has collapsed due to covid, this route gets bustituted to release what staff are available to work the longer/busier routes.

 

Which brings up the question of what trains are intended for the reopened line. I’m sure I’ve read somewhere, but have forgotten.

[Mike_Walker]

There's no intention of using the 230s between Bletchley and Oxford!

 

As to what will be used, the jury is still out.  New-builds seem unlikely so 158s or 175s have been mentioned but as far as I know no final decision has been made.

[Lambton58]

1 hour ago, Nearholmer said:

BTW, I think most of the not-trains on this line over the past two years have been a function of poorly staff, not poorly trains, in that when staff availability has collapsed due to covid, this route gets bustituted to release what staff are available to work the longer/busier routes.

That's my understanding too.  I think there may also have been issues with staff recruitment and training, which meant that 'enjoyed' the bustitutes service for longer than maybe intended.  I used it once to/from Bedford and it was an interesting experience.  Some lively driving via routes I wouldn't have thought of to get from station to station.

[martinT]

2 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

There's no intention of using the 230s between Bletchley and Oxford!

 

As to what will be used, the jury is still out.  New-builds seem unlikely so 158s or 175s have been mentioned but as far as I know no final decision has been made.

This Wiki page:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail_Class_196   suggests that new Class 196 DMUs are being considered for use on the line. It references an article '196s for East West Rail' in Modern Railways.

 

Martin

[Nearholmer]

The was a tender for new stock issued in I think 2020, but i dont think ive read of an order being placed, so my surmise is that enough stock will be squeezed out from other existing fleets or orders to give sufficient. My only, very selfish, concerns are: will it have bike spaces, and will the operator be one that has a sane bike policy?

 

 

Edited July 13, 2022 by Nearholmer

[Davexoc]

12 hours ago, Mike_Walker said:

As to what will be used, the jury is still out.  New-builds seem unlikely so 158s or 175s have been mentioned but as far as I know no final decision has been made.

 

By the time of opening there might be some Voyagers kicking around, when Avanti replace theirs with bi-mode 800s. Unless they are joining the rest at XC, which would probably bring about the end of XC HSTs.

And then won't there possibly be some redundant Meridians from EMR looking for homes as well?

[stewartingram]

I can't remember where I saw it, but apparently in the last couple of days, Grant Shapps stated that "if he was in charge" (don't forget he was running for PM, though I don't think he still is), he would cancel EWR to save money!