East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line

[woodenhead]

When you look at the amount of earthworks and reconstruction involved to bring a mothballed line back to full use, then it makes you wonder how the guys with the Revolution VLR proposal can imagine a cheap model for building a railway using their technology.

 

Ok the trains may be light, but building a line from scratch or reopening a long closed line is going to require earthworks and infrastructure even if the track is pre-fabricated, the signalling minimal and the buildings kits.

[Northmoor]

1 hour ago, woodenhead said:

When you look at the amount of earthworks and reconstruction involved to bring a mothballed line back to full use, then it makes you wonder how the guys with the Revolution VLR proposal can imagine a cheap model for building a railway using their technology.

 

Ok the trains may be light, but building a line from scratch or reopening a long closed line is going to require earthworks and infrastructure even if the track is pre-fabricated, the signalling minimal and the buildings kits.

It is the point always missed by those who keep going back over the same tried, tested and failed ground, to try to make rural and lightly-used branch lines viable by making the rolling stock lighter.

 

It is the cost of infrastructure and the staff that make railways a high volume business.  Just because your train weighs half as much, doesn't mean the driver costs you half the salary.

[jamie92208]

And the other thing to remember is that standards have changed. Particularly with the relatively new science of soil mechanics making changes necessary to embank ents and cuttings.

 

Jamie

[stivesnick]

Some photos taken yesterday on a visit to the route. A very deserted Bletchley Station - only Bedford services were running and at the site of the new Winslow Station.

 

Nick 

 

 

 

 

[Edwin_m]

On 11/04/2022 at 15:17, Northmoor said:

It is the point always missed by those who keep going back over the same tried, tested and failed ground, to try to make rural and lightly-used branch lines viable by making the rolling stock lighter.

 

It is the cost of infrastructure and the staff that make railways a high volume business.  Just because your train weighs half as much, doesn't mean the driver costs you half the salary.

A train that can operate more like a tram might be useful in this context, by allowing steeper gradients and tighter curves and even a limited degree of street running where necessary.  This might make it easier to re-open a route where some sections have been built over.  However, per seat, trams are more expensive than trains so this isn't necessarily a low-cost solution.  

[Nearholmer]

It’s quite challenging in engineering terms to create a “tram-train” that is fit for the roller coaster gradients and curves needed on “tram” sections, but which can also bash along at a decent pace on “inter town/village” railway sections, which is what makes them expensive.

 

I’ve yet to try the Sheffield-Rotherham service - maybe a day out is called for.

 

But, you need a lot of passengers per hour to justify anything like that, way beyond what most “rural” areas will ever produce. TBH, I think that infrastructure-guided systems cease to be the right solution below a given level of demand, and that decent bus provision, which is the biggest hole in U.K. transport strategy, is more suitable. The trick, though, has to be making buses more attractive than cars, and it isn’t an easy one to pull.

[stivesnick]

8 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

I think that infrastructure-guided systems cease to be the right solution below a given level of demand, and that decent bus provision, which is the biggest hole in U.K. transport strategy, is more suitable. The trick, though, has to be making buses more attractive than cars, and it isn’t an easy one to pull.

 

Totally agree. The legacy of Mrs Thatcher saying the people who use buses are failures many years ago still applies. Local Councillors and media reporters tend not to use buses so a low priority in the media. 

 

The benefit of having some big infrastructure is that it gets coverage during construction, for example "new bridge put in place" and you can have an opening which provides useful publicity. 

 

A new bus service tends to get little coverage and the bus companies do not appear to promote their services. The Government has its new bus fund available this year and will be interesting to see how this is used. Assuming you can get the drivers, a 30 minute frequency of direct buses between market town across the country and linking to railway stations should work. 

 

To bring the subject back on topic - does anyone know what bus links are planned between Buckingham and the new Winslow Station? 

 

Nick

 

[corneliuslundie]

Off topic but slightly relevant.

In Wales we have a national network of about 15 services supported and organised by the Welsh Assembly. That has ben pretty successful. As a perhaps extreme example, you can get on a bus in Wrexham, change at Newtown (where the connections are often pretty good) and Brecon and get to Swansea - the bus from Newtown goes on to Cardiff. Now, I understand that the WA is going to take control of all supported services, which are now  "run" by he relevant county councils. It will be interesting to see if they can do as good a job as they have with the long distance ones. Sometimes local control is better but that then depends on the attitude locally. As with railways several decades ago, some counties just ignored them while others supported them, vide the difference between Gwent and Glamorgan.

So what is Bucks CC attitude to railways? (see, back on topic).

Jonathan

 

[Edwin_m]

Indeed, buses could do a lot more for our public transport network if they had consistent integration (between themselves and with rail) and priority over other traffic.  This would allow a bus service to approach the quality and reliability of a train service, and would be entirely adequate for many missing transport links in areas where traffic congestion isn't an issue (possibly feeding into trains for the journey into the city where buses become unreliable).  Rail reopenings could then be much more targeted on where rail is genuinely the best option - for the avoidance of doubt and to get back on topic, I suggest that is the case for East West Rail.   

[John Isherwood]

33 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

Indeed, buses could do a lot more for our public transport network if they had consistent integration (between themselves and with rail) and priority over other traffic.  This would allow a bus service to approach the quality and reliability of a train service, and would be entirely adequate for many missing transport links in areas where traffic congestion isn't an issue (possibly feeding into trains for the journey into the city where buses become unreliable).  Rail reopenings could then be much more targeted on where rail is genuinely the best option - for the avoidance of doubt and to get back on topic, I suggest that is the case for East West Rail.   

 

Having been professionally involved in urban highway design for most of my forty year career, I can assure you that finding roadspace for bus priority in what are still basically Victorian road systems is nigh-on impossible.

 

CJI.

[Edwin_m]

1 hour ago, cctransuk said:

 

Having been professionally involved in urban highway design for most of my forty year career, I can assure you that finding roadspace for bus priority in what are still basically Victorian road systems is nigh-on impossible.

 

CJI.

That's largely true, but less so if there is the political will to drastically curtail the use of cars and reassign the roadspace.  That's why I suggested that buses in more rural areas should connect with trains for the journey into the city.  In the case of EWR a bus interchange at Winslow could provide a service from Buckingham to Oxford for example.  But it probably wouldn't work without schedule and fares integration with the train, which is close to impossible in a deregulated framework.  

Edited April 18, 2022 by Edwin_m

[Welly]

4 hours ago, stivesnick said:

 

Totally agree. The legacy of Mrs Thatcher saying the people who use buses are failures many years ago still applies. Local Councillors and media reporters tend not to use buses so a low priority in the media.

Maggie never actually said that - it was some Duchess who said that when she queued for a bus in the rain after her divource! https://fullfact.org/news/margaret-thatcher-bus/

[John Isherwood]

34 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

That's largely true, but less so if there is the political will to drastically curtail the use of cars and reassign the roadspace.  That's why I suggested that buses in more rural areas should connect with trains for the journey into the city.  In the case of EWR a bus interchange at Winslow could provide a service from Buckingham to Oxford for example.  But it probably wouldn't work without schedule and fares integration with the train, which is close to impossible in a deregulated framework.  

 

It's not largely true - it is THE truth, believe me!

 

As my career was spent in Cambridge, where the railway station is not within easy walking distance of the city centre - (a not uncommon situation) - I am acutely aware of the problem of accommodating public transport in city centres where it is not practicable to wholly exclude private and commercial motor traffic.

 

The example of Europe is invariably bandied about in these discussions - forgetting that much of urban Europe underwent an necessary total redesign post WWII, as a consequence of war damage. Fortunately, (or not, depending upon your perspective), this did not happen in the UK - with the notable exception of heavily targetted conurbations such as Plymouth and Coventry.

 

There are no obvious, easy solutions to the problems of urban congestion in the UK - but the enforced shift in energy use MAY be a spur to improving matters.

 

CJI.

[Nearholmer]

We are, as a nation, way, way too accommodating of private motoring at the expense of other options though, even now, when you’d have thought the penny would have dropped. 
 

Cambridge, and I presume therefore your work, is a pretty good example of what can be done to get a saner balance between private motoring and other options (although it still has overloaded bits), and as a result is a pleasanter place to be than many. Most towns/cities haven’t bitten that bullet yet.

[melmerby]

27 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

We are, as a nation, way, way too accommodating of private motoring at the expense of other options though, even now, when you’d have thought the penny would have dropped.

Drivers are well versed at complaining about the extortionate cost of motoring, fuel company profiteering etc which is crippling their household budget, then driving a few hundred yards in a gas guzzling large 4x4, on a fine day just to buy a pack of fags and the Daily Wail, when they could easily walk and keep themselves fitter.

[Edwin_m]

2 hours ago, cctransuk said:

 

It's not largely true - it is THE truth, believe me!

 

As my career was spent in Cambridge, where the railway station is not within easy walking distance of the city centre - (a not uncommon situation) - I am acutely aware of the problem of accommodating public transport in city centres where it is not practicable to wholly exclude private and commercial motor traffic.

 

The example of Europe is invariably bandied about in these discussions - forgetting that much of urban Europe underwent an necessary total redesign post WWII, as a consequence of war damage. Fortunately, (or not, depending upon your perspective), this did not happen in the UK - with the notable exception of heavily targetted conurbations such as Plymouth and Coventry.

 

There are no obvious, easy solutions to the problems of urban congestion in the UK - but the enforced shift in energy use MAY be a spur to improving matters.

 

CJI.

Paris and Madrid are interesting in that context.  Both had major highway building in the later 20th century but retain a lot of older areas with narrow streets.  In recent years both have followed fairly aggressive anti-car policies.  

 

In a lot of cases it's the "inner suburbs" rather than the city centres that create the problem, as the roads aren't wide enough for bus priority and they are too far out for city centre traffic restrictions, that largely rely on places being in walking distance.  Cambridge (back on topic, sort of) has talked about various rapid transit schemes over the years, with varying degrees of practicality, but it probably needs tunneling to access the centre, which is difficult to justify in a fairly small city.  However that's more due to narrow streets and cycles than to cars.  

[Nearholmer]

I take a more robust view: we could prioritise buses and cycling, but we choose to give excessive weight to the demands of private motoring, so don’t.

 

Our older town centres worked before mass car use; they could again after.

 

None of which has anything to do with rural transport, except perhaps that one of the things that makes “going into town on the bus” unattractive is the tedious grind through the traffic on the outskirts that extends trip time.

[corneliuslundie]

But one post hit it on the head. We need an integrated system, with through ticketing and co-ordinated timetables, so you can get on a bus in a rural area, transfer to a train, transfer back to a bus for the final leg and it all works seamlessly with connections that work properly etc.

But that goes against the philosophy in the UK of every man for himself and free enterprise.

It can work. In the "old" days there were bus connections to north Devon which were in the Southern Railway timetable. I think that actually lasted beyond nationalisation of the railways. I suspect that deregulation of buses did for it. There may be other examples.

Jonathan

[RJS1977]

On 11/04/2022 at 13:39, woodenhead said:

When you look at the amount of earthworks and reconstruction involved to bring a mothballed line back to full use, then it makes you wonder how the guys with the Revolution VLR proposal can imagine a cheap model for building a railway using their technology.

 

Ok the trains may be light, but building a line from scratch or reopening a long closed line is going to require earthworks and infrastructure even if the track is pre-fabricated, the signalling minimal and the buildings kits.

 

How much infrastructure needs to be replaced in a reopening will depend largely on how the line is to be used. I'm quite surprised to see a number of road overbridges being replaced as part of the works, though I can think of three possible reasons:

 

* Improving clearances to W10 gauge

* Works that had been scoped when electrification was part of the project and haven't been de-scoped since

* Bridges which are going to require renewal in the near future but which are being renewed now rather than disrupt the railway in a few years' time.

 

By contrast of course, were the line being reopened as a heritage line, with reduced service frequency, 25mph speed limit, and much smaller budget, I would have expected much less by way of infrastructure renewal.

[john new]

13 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

But one post hit it on the head. We need an integrated system, with through ticketing and co-ordinated timetables, so you can get on a bus in a rural area, transfer to a train, transfer back to a bus for the final leg and it all works seamlessly with connections that work properly etc.

But that goes against the philosophy in the UK of every man for himself and free enterprise.

It can work. In the "old" days there were bus connections to north Devon which were in the Southern Railway timetable. I think that actually lasted beyond nationalisation of the railways. I suspect that deregulation of buses did for it. There may be other examples.

Jonathan

All the above PLUS some form of discounted car hire scheme if you get there by train over x miles from home. In too many instances I can get to within a few miles of where I want to go by public transport but when you arrive you need a vehicle as there are no buses or even taxis. Outcome the whole journey is done by car, an example of this is my current Easter break visiting family - the 300 miles to get to within 8 miles of the destination easily covered by our local bus* and then various main line options to York; however, from there onwards out to the village where my mother lives is too poor a service to be of any use. Also add in luggage issues and transport simply becomes a non-starter.

 

* because local parking is in too short a supply we have an anomalously good bus service out to the Island as ridership is high.

[martinT]

44 minutes ago, Nearholmer said:

None of which has anything to do with rural transport, except perhaps that one of the things that makes “going into town on the bus” unattractive is the tedious grind through the traffic on the outskirts that extends trip time.

... that & the fact that buses have to traipse around other villages rather than take the shortest route from one's own village. In my case cycling the 6 miles into Cambridge is usually as quick as catching the bus (& I can choose my own deparature time).

 

[John Isherwood]

2 hours ago, Nearholmer said:

Our older town centres worked before mass car use; they could again after.

 

Unfortunately, work life patterns, human expectations and physical fitness are no longer what they were, pre-mass car use.

 

You can't simply turn back the clock - or do we have to un-invent every aspect of technology and improved living standard that has occurred since the 1940s?

 

I'm afraid that your 'more robust' view is wholly unrealistic, and would never be acceptable to the vast majority of the populace.

 

CJI.

[Nearholmer]

I honestly believe that making town centres pleasant, workable, liveable places, by getting a grip on car-domination would be to turn the clock forward, not back, but I fully accept that most people don’t see it that way yet, but I do see hopeful signs that younger people aren’t quite as besotted by cars as older people were at the same age.

[Mike Storey]

23 hours ago, RJS1977 said:

 

How much infrastructure needs to be replaced in a reopening will depend largely on how the line is to be used. I'm quite surprised to see a number of road overbridges being replaced as part of the works, though I can think of three possible reasons:

 

* Improving clearances to W10 gauge

* Works that had been scoped when electrification was part of the project and haven't been de-scoped since

* Bridges which are going to require renewal in the near future but which are being renewed now rather than disrupt the railway in a few years' time.

 

By contrast of course, were the line being reopened as a heritage line, with reduced service frequency, 25mph speed limit, and much smaller budget, I would have expected much less by way of infrastructure renewal.

 

I believe the 2020 Act allows for "passive provision" for future electrification, which may explain the bridge replacements.

 

[Nearholmer]

The other factor is planned house building, making allowance for increased road traffic in bridge designs.

 

The area close in to MK, but actually in Bucks (Aylesbury Vale) is the subject of a very controversial development, with MK unitary authority council strongly objecting because it will ‘parasite’ on local services, overload roads etc. The same is happening on the Border with Mid-Beds area.