Here's Network Rail's take on today's events, together with a cab's eye view of some of the route.

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/first-train-completes-test-run-between-oxford-and-milton-keynes-for-east-west-rail

I wonder how the drivers & trainers are trained on anew route that no one's worked?

Here's an unusual sight - an IET at Milton Keynes Central yesterday, by kind permission of a fellow Dull Man, James Harman.

Computer simulation these days.  And taking it slow!

I wondered too ...

I wonder how the drivers & trainers are trained on anew route that no one's worked?

**Various snips**
GWML diversion using that route whilst it would work I guess will not happen while the Ealing Broadway / Popular / NLL route is feasible, however Cotswolds services maybe.

Interesting thought for Christmases future - trains non-stop from Swindon to Euston reversing at Milton Keynes!  Perhaps the problem via Beaconsfield is that it ends up in a London terminus even more constrained than Euston?

I note that this morning there was a direct train through Old Oak Common and Claydon - both on the HS2 route.  It took 2 hours 

Edit to correct typos

Yes, that's the one - 5Q47

But who would want to travel that route? Nottingham is quicker via Birmingham.

Anyway, for the future: Bristol - Swindon - Oxford - MK▸ - Northampton - Leicester - Nottingham pls. And under the wires too

Thanks for this. I didn't spot that that train was identified as an IEP when it left Paddington.

Is the following the set, having done several runs to Bicester and back, returning from Milton Keynes to Oxford and then back to North Pole perhaps (or maybe it was never a class 80x in the first place...)?

Anyway, for the future: Bristol - Swindon - Oxford - MK - Northampton - Leicester - Nottingham pls. And under the wires too.

Mark

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:K21478/2024-10-21/detailed

It appears that GWR is operating IETs along the East/West rail for potential use as a diversionary route.

However, it is unclear to me under what circumstances this route would be utilized, especially considering there is an existing route into London from Oxford via Bicester that is not currently employed as a diversionary route.

It appears that GWR is operating IETs along the East/West rail for potential use as a diversionary route.

However, it is unclear to me under what circumstances this route would be utilized, especially considering there is an existing route into London from Oxford via Bicester that is not currently employed as a diversionary route.

Thanks for that. Realtimetrains has more too. e.g. Bletchley has seen a train from London Paddington.

Mark

https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/detailed/gb-nr:WNO/2024-10-21/0000-2359?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

Apparently the section to Bedford mentioned in yesterday's budget https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-beds-bucks-herts-68491452

I am not convinced that £240m is enough to actually do all the required work, and would like to see more detail about the funding, but it does say that trains will be running from Oxford to Bedford by 2030

Ceremonial linking of the tracks - from Network Rail


I suspect this is not supposed to be out as a general public invite (even though it is out there) so I have mirrored the invite in the members archive - if you are logged in and interested you can find it at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/mirror/ewinvite_20240307.pdf

An event to mark the coming together of the tracks on Connection Stage One (CS1) of the East West Rail project. The final section of track connecting Bicester and Bletchley will be laid Thursday (7 March) as part of the East West Rail (EWR) project to improve rail connectivity between Cambridge and Oxford.

The NAO have just published a report of their investigation into EWR.

The full report is linked from here - a choice of three versions (I've not yet looked at any of them).

May be the camera angles, but there seem to be some heroic gradients now!

Government needs to ensure its growth plans for Cambridge are aligned with its £6-7bn investment in a new regional railway (East West Rail, Oxford to Cambridge), so it can maximise the economic benefits of the line, a new report by the National Audit Office says (NAO).

The independent public spending watchdog’s report examines the evolving context for the East West Rail (EWR), Department for Transport’s (DfT) assessment of its benefits and costs, and the arrangements in place to deliver it. The report does not provide a judgement on EWR’s value for money or examine delivery progress.

At the 2017 Autumn Budget, government announced plans to support economic growth in the region between Oxford and Cambridge. The plans included a new road project, ambitions to build up to one million homes, and investment for EWR, which the Department for Transport expects will cost around £6-7 billion.

The improved connectivity is intended to make the region more attractive to businesses and new housing development, supporting growth and jobs. The EWR project is being delivered by the East West Railway Company (EWR Co2), an arms-length body established by the DfT. However, in March 2021, DfT cancelled the road project due to value for money concerns, and in July 2021 government confirmed its approach was to support locally led planning for housing development.

Separately, in July 2023, the Department for Levelling Up Housing & Communities (DLUHC) announced a new long-term plan for locally led housing development, including plans to expand Cambridge. DLUHC intends this to enable significant housing and business development in a new section of the city, while the business case for EWR depends on development along the rail route.

Government risks the planning for both projects being at cross purposes. The two departments are now working together to align plans ahead of EWR Co’s statutory consultation on the EWR route, planned for 2024.

DfT’s cost-benefit analysis suggests that the costs of the project may outweigh the benefits. In 2021, DfT assessed that every £1 spent on the project would result in between 50p and £1.10 in benefits.3 The calculated benefits have reduced further since then; DfT estimates that there would be between 30p and 60p of benefits for every £1 spent on connection stages 2 and 3. However, these assessments do not quantify the benefit from the wider aims of the project to transform the economy of the region. DfT has concluded, most recently in May 2023, that there is a strong strategic case for the project.4

DFT has not yet decided how to power EWR trains, so the projected costs do not include the costs of electrifying the line. The department is committed to achieving a net zero carbon emissions rail network by 2050 and wants to remove diesel-only trains from UK railways by 2040. Initial estimates suggested that full electrification of the line could cost up to £1 billion. However, DfT and EWR Co are considering options, including partial electrification or alternative approaches to full electrification of the line, which they consider could be delivered at a lower cost.

EWR Co is coordinating activity with local authorities, universities, local enterprise partnerships and England’s Economic Heartland5 to identify growth opportunities at stations along the EWR route. The company still has more to do to respond to the concerns6 of local residents, some of which could be negatively affected by the project and are unhappy with how EWR Co has engaged with them.

HM Treasury has recently established a cross-government board (the Board) to support the development of a shared vision for growth associated with EWR. To improve the chances of unlocking the economic benefits from its investment, the NAO recommends that DLUHC, DfT and the Board should establish effective cross-department governance that complements and bolsters the local stakeholder partnerships being created in the region, to focus on achieving the benefits of East West Rail.

    "The rationale for East West Rail rests on its wider strategic aims of increasing economic growth in the Oxford to Cambridge region.

    “To maximise the economic benefits from its investment in East West Rail, government must ensure stronger strategic alignment between departments and with wider local growth initiatives, so that there is a shared, coherent vision for the future of the region, and the contribution that the East West Rail project will make to it is clear.”
    Gareth Davies, head of the NAO

...I think that the South Wales Metro is going to be a real eye-opener when it's complete and the English see the difference a decent regional metro makes.

Personally I can’t think of any rail project that is more likely to be a huge success than this one.

Proposed Oxford to Cambridge railway line compared with Britain’s bendiest road

Richard Fuller, Conservative MP for North East Bedfordshire, claimed a proposed section of the East West Rail line running between Bedford and Cambridge was “full of twists and turns, and ups and downs”.

[snip]

“Back when governments and other people knew how to build railways in the Victorian age, of course they chose a straighter, less hilly route.”

I 'liked' this from the same page on the EWR website 'Under powering our trains':

"We’re focused on delivering a net zero carbon railway. We’re continuing to evaluate a range of technological solutions for powering our trains and we’ll share more information at the statutory consultation."

Anybody want to save EWR (and therefore the country) a few pounds by telling them the answer to this statement without needing to do an evaluation or consultation and a clue the answer isn't hybrid or diesel trains?

It's easy to tell the difference between the two. Cambridge North has a week-round service, whereas Cambourne...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_axHV2wx8RA

I read that as "Cambridge North" not "Cambourne North" - I wonder if people will get confused.   Are there main line platforms too at Tempsford?  Without them I would imagine the local reception of the new station might be mixed. 

Route update including the chosen route for Bedford–Cambridge (new station at Tempsford, then via Cambourne North, approaching Cambridge from the south):

The East West Rail (EWR) Project is set to introduce new rail services between Oxford and Cambridge in 3 distinct phases referred to as connection stages 1 to 3 (CS1 to CS3).

CS1 aims to introduce passenger services between Oxford and Milton Keynes between December 2024 and September 2025.

This prior information notice notifies industry that the government intends to negotiate an amendment to the current Chiltern national rail contract (NRC) for the introduction of CS1 services under that contract.

Communication of the benefits of East West Rail (EWR) will focus on the economic prospects for the region resulting from the work rather than the journey time benefits required by the Department for Transport business case documents.

UK Infrastructure Bank non-executive director Bridget Rosewell, who was a commissioner for the National Infrastructure Commission until January this year, said at an Westminster Forum event on Next steps for the Oxford to Cambridge region that EWR had learned lessons from how High Speed 2 (HS2) handled the business case data.

Rosewell said: “HS2 did indeed lose the publicity battle – and I did warn them about this in 2005 – that if you say its about saving 20 minutes on the trip to Birmingham, you will lose. However, those are the transport criteria [needed for the Department for Transport (DfT) business case] and it is not about capacity, it is not about jobs or any of the things that you think a business case should be about.”

Campaigners fighting a £5bn rail project have said they just "want somebody to make a decision".

Bedford's Protect Poets group oppose the East-West Rail link being built between Oxford and Cambridge.

When doubt was cast on its future in July, the Department of Transport (DfT) said it would be decided by the new prime minister, now known as Liz Truss.

East-West Rail said it would "work closely with the new government to make important decisions".

Well, he ain't gonna be PM, and may not even be Transport Secretary when Penny gets the keys to No. 10.

Well, he ain't gonna be PM, and may not even be Transport Secretary when Penny gets the keys to No. 10.

Transport Secretary Grant Shapps has said that he believes the remaining phases of the East West Rail project should be scrapped.

Speaking to LBC earlier this week, Mr Shapps made the revelation while talking about what he would do to cut spending if he were Prime Minister.

Removing electrification of the current build phase was certainly not showing sufficient ambition.

Electrification would offer rolling stock performance benefits alongside better alignment with Network Rail’s ongoing Traction Decarbonisation Network Strategy in making sure that the new infrastructure does not form a ‘diesel island’ within the wider network.17 Further infill electrification projects would be required on the wider network to achieve fully electrified East West Main Line routes and should be factored into a long-term strategy which places East West Rail infrastructure as a significant core section of a decarbonised network.

Meanwhile on page 73


Of course Swindon is not a city and no longer has Honda.....

Six months on, and Network Rail has signed up to the "more through services" vision:

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/North,%20West%20and%20Central/East%20West%20Main%20Line%20Strategic%20Statement%202022.pdf

It essentially says that without through running beyond Oxford and Bedford/Cambridge, EWR's benefits will be restricted to the immediate local corridor - because changing at London will remain more attractive for other journeys.

Lots of interesting tables in the PDF, but the map on p50 is particularly intriguing, basically envisaging EWR becoming a "southern CrossCountry".

Swindon has an important knowledge sector
and is also a key market for financial and
professional services with Zurich, Capita and
Nationwide all based in the city. Swindon’s
Honda manufacturing plant is also evidence of
the importance of the engineering sector in the
town

The East West Rail Consortium has rebranded as the East West Main Line Partnership, seemingly to emphasise their desire for trains to continue west of Oxford and east of Cambridge: https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/2021/09/30/east-west-rail-consortium-relaunches-as-the-east-west-main-line-partnership/

With construction of the Oxford-Bletchley/ Milton Keynes section of East West Rail well underway, the Partnership is championing the long term opportunity for true, coast to coast connectivity, achieved through an East West Main Line, with services running from Norfolk and Suffolk all the way through to South Wales.

The Partnership has six key areas of focus for the East West Main Line:
 

•    Oxford-Cambridge: Working with our partners to support delivery at the earliest opportunity, and no later than 2030
•    Coast-to-coast connectivity: Realising opportunities east of Cambridge to Norwich and Ipswich; and west of Oxford to Swindon, Bristol and South Wales
•     North-south connectivity: Including the Aylesbury-Milton Keynes link and opportunities for new journeys using intersection with radial main lines
•     Interchange and strategic transport hubs: Frictionless interchange, including with other modes
•     A 21st century main line: Ensuring East West Rail supports the environment and the communities it serves. This includes making it electrified and ‘digitally-enabled’ (providing digital connectivity to nearby communities) from the start. It must also be built with communities at its heart – with appropriate mitigation during construction, and quality local connectivity to stations when it is opened
•     Freight: Ensuring East West Rail contributes to the requirements of the national rail freight strategy, while also making the strongest case for prioritisation of the Felixstowe-Nuneaton corridor.

These proposals will allow South Western Railway and Great Western Railway to consider how to provide attractive connections at Salisbury, whilst recognising the constraints of operating a reliable railway through many complex junctions on both routes, and the single line sections west of Salisbury.

If we need to get to a decarbonised society as soon as possible then I suggest writing to Mr Xi and Mr Modi urgently...

Some good points made above along the lines of 'better to get something that is positive in some respects, but not ideal, than to hold out for perfect and get nothing'... That is a very convincing argument in the short term, and if we can do it without building any more diesel trains then I think that argument does work. My big worry is that not electrifying EWR from day one will contribute to (or result in) another order for diesel-mechanical multiple units.

We need to get to a decarbonised society as soon as possible and Network Rail's vision for what a decarbonised railway would look like (the TDNS) has no place for a large number of trains that cannot collect traction electricity from overhead wires and/or third/fourth rail. Thanks to Northern's class 195 order, Britain is already in a position where it will have more non-electric trains in 2050 than will be needed on a decarbonised railway, and Transport for Wales (TfW) is busy making this suituation even worse with their build of 77 more pure DMUs. If we want a decarbonised railway by 2050, we must reduce TfW's order and not order any more diesel-only trains.

One of the things I've learned in campaigning is to have a strong technical discussion of all the options, but then to move on to accept and support fully what's on offer if it's good-to-excellent rather than holding out for the near-perfect.   Campaigning for an "appropriate" train service for Melksham, best evaluation was that an hourly service would be ideal; we accepted and continue to support a service every 2 to 2.5 hours, but did NOT press forward earlier suggestions of adding only a couple of middle-of-the-day (off peak as was) journeys.

I am going to suggest that a passenger train service and a freight route from Oxford to / via Bletchley to Bedford with prospects / plans onwards to Cambridge and with reasonably frequent trains is worthy of support, even if they are diesel powered; perhaps that's far from ideal, but it's also far, far better than nothing. I would strongly encourage "passive provision" for future electrification in works done to safeguard that option for a potential following phase.  And my logic is that I think the service as suggested (but not electric) can and will succeed, and can and will gain local sentiment and support.  There is an element of possibility that failing to electrify at the stage will push that back in the queue - "you've already had one big tranche of investment" - but that is a risk that should be accepted.

Except it's not just about emissions, is it? Once the initial outlay has been made, electric trains are cheaper to run, cheaper to maintain, faster, quieter, and put less wear on the track. It pays for itself over time.

The future needs to be electric if we are serious about climate change.
Each individual scheme is indeed negligible on a global scale. But there is no hope for the environment if everyone says  "my bit/this bit is too small to matter"

...but is a reason not to waste capital on an electrification scheme which will, at best, make a marginal change in emission levels in its early years.

I was with you until I came to this.  Yes it will make a difference, because a large number of small changes is what we need to do.  Me walking on a short journey rather than take the car will make only a small difference, but if we all do it....

Itworls the other way as well.  If we all say my small change will make no difference there will be no change . 

Running electric trains instead of diesels on this stretch will not make a scintilla of difference to the global output of carbon dioxide - the planet doesn't care from whereabouts the carbon dioxide was emitted.

It does 'feel' sensible with all the work being done that everything should be done at once - electrify the darned thing while you rebuild it must be cheaper in the long term than taking two major engineering bites?

EastWest Rail lends its self to future electrification provided if new units are purchased they have an electrical traction system and not mechanical also the capability to have Pans and transformers fitted at a future date

Can someone confirm when all the clearance work is being done.  Obviously new structures will have electrification clearances, but are they upgrading existing structures for electrification?

Can someone confirm when all the clearance work is being done.  Obviously new structures will have electrification clearances, but are they upgrading existing structures for electrification?

I'm not sure that the price difference between electrifying the line while it is under construction and electrifying it after completion is that great.

I understand that, as a rule of thumb, about half the cost of electrifying an existing line is the cost of getting it ready to be electrified, that is sorting out signal cabling runs, clearing the drains and relocating them where necessary, rebuilding bridges to permit wires, closing level crossings, realigning the track where necessary, signalling and so on and so forth.

All this work will have been done in order to reopen the railway and the position of the services will be known - this removes roughly half the cost of electrification. This means that when the time comes to electrify the remaining tasks that needs to be done on the plain line is installation of the feeder points and other electrical supply gubbins, the planting of the masts and the running of the wires. All these things can be done off-line or during nighttime possessions without needing a blockade.

From the BBC


And noting


It does 'feel' sensible with all the work being done that everything should be done at once - electrify the darned thing while you rebuild it must be cheaper in the long term than taking two major engineering bites?

From the BBC


And noting


It does 'feel' sensible with all the work being done that everything should be done at once - electrify the darned thing while you rebuild it must be cheaper in the long term than taking two major engineering bites?

It is of "paramount importance" that a £5bn direct rail line between Oxford and Cambridge uses electric trains, an MP has said.

The East West Rail project aims to connect the university cities by the end of the decade, but its electrification is yet to be confirmed.

MP Layla Moran said: "We're in a climate emergency. No rail line should be designed for diesel by default."

A DfT spokesperson said: "The government is committed to decarbonising East West Rail by 2050, and a review is being undertaken to look at all long-term options for electrification."

Not sure if the closure of Fenny Stratford has come up here before and I have missed it, or it is just coming to attention courtesy of the MK Citizen


Personal recollection - recent years staying at a hotel near this station and commuting to work just one stop up the line (Bow Brickhill); no easy alternative available - significant walk in to Bletchley if I had caught the train from there, and the journey I took was short but crossed the M1 with no suitable alternative available.

We have identified two ways this part of the line could be upgraded:

Concept 1: The existing hourly stopping service would continue to serve all Marston Vale Line stations, with a new limited-stop EWR service calling at two stations – Woburn Sands and Ridgmont – four times an hour.  The hourly stopping service at intermediate stations would enable a change onto a faster EWR train at either Woburn Sands   or Ridgmont, for connections to Oxford   and Cambridge. The ability to change to the faster EWR services at Ridgmont will make journeys from some intermediate stations to either Bletchley or Bedford quicker. Two EWR Oxford - Cambridge trains and two EWR Bletchley - Cambridge each hour would   call at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont.   These trains would take 22 minutes to   travel from Bletchley to Bedford. The   hourly-stopping service would need to   wait in additional sections of track known as ‘passing loops’ to allow faster EWR trains to overtake so may need to run more slowly, and the timetable would be modified. Most of the stations would see minimal - if any – upgrades, but the station at Ridgmont would need to be relocated to enable passing loops to be built and Bedford St Johns station would also be relocated.

Concept 2: There would be five new merged stations on the Marston Vale Line – all five would benefit from at least two EWR services every hour, and some would have four. This would mean more communities have access to more frequent and faster services, direct to more locations.  Two EWR stopping trains would run every hour between Bletchley and Cambridge calling at all five stations. These trains would take 27 minutes to travel from Bletchley to Bedford instead of 42 minutes today. In addition, two EWR OxfordCambridge trains would call at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont. These trains would take 22 minutes to travel from Bletchley   to Bedford. These services would replace the current hourly stopping service and the ten existing intermediate stations would be merged, creating five new modern stations with better facilities in locations more suitable for existing needs and to ensure that the right transport infrastructure is in place for the growth that is already starting to happen in the local area. Some residents would need to travel a little further to their nearest station, but EWR are developing plans for improved pedestrian and cycle routes, as well as working with local stakeholders on better public   transport connections. Given the increased frequency and speed   of the service, even for those who do have   to travel further to the station, overall journey durations are likely to be shorter or at least the same as they are today. Upgraded and new stations would be designed from the start to ensure that onward transport – whether by bike, car, bus or on foot – is convenient and minimises disruption by reducing traffic in constrained  village centres.

Merged stations have been considered in the following locations:

•    Woburn Sands station relocated   a short distance to the west of   the current station

•    Ridgmont station relocated between the current Aspley   Guise and Ridgmont stations   (in a similar location to that required by Concept 1)

•  Lidlington station relocated a short distance to the east of the existing Lidlington station

•  Stewartby station relocated between  the current Stewartby  and  Kempston Hardwick stations

•  Bedford St Johns station relocated a short distance to the south   or west

All of these stations on the line would benefit from direct connections east between Bedford and Cambridge. Woburn Sands and Ridgmont would have direct services to stations   west – like Oxford or Bicester,   whilst for the others this would be   a short interchange. Whilst we have identified these five locations by working with local stakeholders, we are open to your suggestions for alternative merged station options, provided the overall number does not increase beyond five   in Concept 2. Both of these concepts are viable options. We recognise that despite its reliability challenges and low usage, the existing service is important for some members of the community. It would though be a missed opportunity if we were not to at least consider the alternative, given the potential benefits it offers to local residents both today and for the future.

Both of these concepts   would require:

•    Changes to the way vehicles and pedestrians cross the railway, replacing level crossings with safer alternatives to enable a faster, more frequent and more reliable train service 

•  Improvements to the track, including the reinstatement of   a second track between Bletchley and Fenny Stratford

•  A range of improvements to Bletchley station, which would become an important hub with the extension of East West Rail’s services to Bedford   and Cambridge

•    Consideration of how to carry out the required upgrades, which could involve the suspension of the existing train service between Bletchley and Bedford, during the construction period.

•  When we have reviewed responses in relation to these concepts, we will prepare designs in greater detail for each of them, along   with assessments of their effects. We will share these at our statutory consultation. 

•  Details about where to access more information and how to respond to this consultation can   be found in the final section of   this document.

When we have reviewed responses in relation to these concepts, we will prepare designs in greater detail for each of them, along with assessments of their effects.  We will share these at our statutory consultation.

Milton Keynes Council has asked rail bosses to think again about a string of controversial proposals in the plans to reopen the Oxford to Cambridge rail line.

The Labour/Lib Dem alliance strongly supports EWR's plans to re-open the line, which will link Oxford and Cambridge via at Bletchley and Bedford.

But to carry out the plan, EWR is proposing to completely close Fenny Stratford station, as well as level crossings in Fenny Stratford and Woburn Sands.

But surely we want a new rail link to run through areas with people who might be passengers? ....

The campaign states a northern route into Cambridge would, among other arguments, have at least seven times fewer residents living within 200m (656ft) of the line and less impact on the environment.

I doubt that you are ever going to find a set of people who would be happy about their homes being demolished.