Would it? The original alignment doesn’t connect to Bedford Station or Town Center, runs through nature reserves and over several major roads, as well as across a flood plain. The alignment through Sandy and Potton is completely gone under development and a radio telescope now sits on the approach to Cambridge. All this and it doesn’t serve Camborne or Cambridge South….
@@iman2341True, the Bedford St John’s bit is fixed though however Sandy would be a major problem as would the radio telescopes. However this will be a great success, even better if they’d electrified it.
Since the Marston Vale line is a fairly rural route I can understand the need to ensure there's not as much noise and disruption for local communities, but it is disappointing to hear about the reduced tph and line speed.
The Marston Vale line upgrade does seem disappointing, but I hadn't realised there are over 30 level crossings to contend with, which even with the reduced scope are going to be expensive to deal with
@@iman2341 Probably DfT calling for value engineering and what we end up with a minimal viable product . Otherwise the DfT wouldn't agree to provide funding.
Lots of heavy infrastructure upgrades is crucial to EWR as this would be the central core of connecting the Midland cities more efficiently. Disappointing that some aspects have been scaled back, but it's better than being cancelled. I'm placing my bets that the line speed will be upped to 75mph - a nice number that Network Rail thinks is suitable. Although I might feel sorry for passengers on the line - they've had no service for nearly a year due to the 230 fiasco, and soon enough they'll have to face periodical closures for route upgrades. Not a good look to increase passenger numbers!
That's also my view with regard to line speed. With several level crossings retained I can't see it over 75mph, if that. This will have a big effect on journey times. The reduction to 3tph with only one fast is also a shame. More money has been saved with only one passing loop. The effects of inflation are biting hard.
I read some proposals at some point of moving the the stabling sidings at Bedford south some ways near an existing depot. I can’t see how they’ll be able to retain Fenny Stratford station and still double track that section of line
@@Rail_Focus Some of the engineering proposals online talk about building a new station near the A5 to replace Bow Brickhill as one of the options, but from what I remember there was relatively little about Fenny Stratford at all.
Three trains per hour is very short sighted...especially with only one of those trains stopping at all stations. Effectively that is one train per hour for a lot of the people living along the line. That really is not going to help remove car dependency in those communities. A higher line speed and electrified trains would have reduced the impact of each stop. Resiting stations to allow passing loops is good. But if that work is not giving people in all the stations the same sort of service pattern that London Overground has (4 trains per hour) then this line is likely to become "a victim of it's own success" and need remedial work later. They definitely should have increased the line speed to 100 mph. But I think they should also have considered building one or two four track sections, designed so that the express trains could run at full speed and the stopping services could actually be run slowly enough to allow the express trains to overtake them on the same section. If the section was built with future proofing that would allow 8 or more trains per hour (four express trains overtaking four stopping trains) they could start off with two express trains and two stopping services, but also have somewhere to go if the line became more successful than originally planned. Looking at projects like the Thameslink, DLR and London Overground, they have all rehabilitated lines that were previously thought to be useless and once they have gained the trust of the commuters all those projects needed to have extra investment, because they could not handle the amount of passenger traffic they induced. I really look forward to East West Rail opening and becoming a success. But if it does become a success and we need to immediately have to start having talks about a new plan of engineering works to increase capacity, that's going to be frustrating for the passengers the line attracts. If we get a new government, in the upcoming election, I hope it is not too late for lobbyists to get extra investment pumped into East West Rail.
@@Rail_Focus They had loads of heavy rail machinery out for weeks, and the whole banking up to the track looks new. I assumed they were doing something needed for this.
I contacted EWR about the Bedford proposals that are mentioned here. The answers were wishy washy and never explained how 3 bridges in Bedford would be taken out of service without major disruption, how Thameslink 12 car trains would stable at Bedford when 2 of the 12 car lanes would be occupied by EWR and how 2 new tracks through Bedford would eat away at the very limited parking we already have. As a resident of Bedford I feel like there is lots of "Proposals" but there is no plans on how it will be accomplished. To be honest I don't know how Bedford station can realistically accomodate 2 new tracks without a huge multi storey car park and a mezzanine and putting the station out of sunlight. There just isn't enough room. You could move the station to south of Ford end road and put stables north of Bedford Station in some fields ajacent to the A6 but none of this is in the current plans.
@@andrewreynolds4949 South is the wrong direction. You need stabling to be north of Bedford so the train can enter the station and after 2 minutes move out again. All the congestion in Bedford is due to those Thameslink trains eating up the platforms.
If you would like to consider supporting the channel click: www.patreon.com/Chris_Rail_Focus or become a Member here on RUclips
Should ŕemove it and renew the rail.
That’s a lot of level crossings to close - I’m not surprised by the timescale!
If they hadn't built the white elephant in the room (guided busway) this would have been so much easier!
Would it?
The original alignment doesn’t connect to Bedford Station or Town Center, runs through nature reserves and over several major roads, as well as across a flood plain. The alignment through Sandy and Potton is completely gone under development and a radio telescope now sits on the approach to Cambridge.
All this and it doesn’t serve Camborne or Cambridge South….
@@iman2341True, the Bedford St John’s bit is fixed though however Sandy would be a major problem as would the radio telescopes. However this will be a great success, even better if they’d electrified it.
Since the Marston Vale line is a fairly rural route I can understand the need to ensure there's not as much noise and disruption for local communities, but it is disappointing to hear about the reduced tph and line speed.
The Marston Vale line upgrade does seem disappointing, but I hadn't realised there are over 30 level crossings to contend with, which even with the reduced scope are going to be expensive to deal with
@@Rail_FocusDoes rather beg the question though, if you’re going to the trouble of closing 95% of the crossings, why not do it all properly….
@@iman2341 Probably DfT calling for value engineering and what we end up with a minimal viable product . Otherwise the DfT wouldn't agree to provide funding.
Honestly early access is always worth it for these, a solo loving the info
Lots of heavy infrastructure upgrades is crucial to EWR as this would be the central core of connecting the Midland cities more efficiently. Disappointing that some aspects have been scaled back, but it's better than being cancelled. I'm placing my bets that the line speed will be upped to 75mph - a nice number that Network Rail thinks is suitable. Although I might feel sorry for passengers on the line - they've had no service for nearly a year due to the 230 fiasco, and soon enough they'll have to face periodical closures for route upgrades. Not a good look to increase passenger numbers!
That's also my view with regard to line speed. With several level crossings retained I can't see it over 75mph, if that. This will have a big effect on journey times. The reduction to 3tph with only one fast is also a shame. More money has been saved with only one passing loop. The effects of inflation are biting hard.
3tph still isn’t bad at all
I read some proposals at some point of moving the the stabling sidings at Bedford south some ways near an existing depot.
I can’t see how they’ll be able to retain Fenny Stratford station and still double track that section of line
I think they're on about moving and building a new 2 track station
@@Rail_Focus Some of the engineering proposals online talk about building a new station near the A5 to replace Bow Brickhill as one of the options, but from what I remember there was relatively little about Fenny Stratford at all.
The closing of so many level crossings will displease the community in Marston Vale. The price of progress.
Yup, not going to be popular. But it seems about half will be replaced in some way
The new East-West line is coming along very nicely. Nice to see it coming back again with the section between Bedford-Cambridge still to be decided.
Three trains per hour is very short sighted...especially with only one of those trains stopping at all stations. Effectively that is one train per hour for a lot of the people living along the line. That really is not going to help remove car dependency in those communities. A higher line speed and electrified trains would have reduced the impact of each stop.
Resiting stations to allow passing loops is good. But if that work is not giving people in all the stations the same sort of service pattern that London Overground has (4 trains per hour) then this line is likely to become "a victim of it's own success" and need remedial work later.
They definitely should have increased the line speed to 100 mph. But I think they should also have considered building one or two four track sections, designed so that the express trains could run at full speed and the stopping services could actually be run slowly enough to allow the express trains to overtake them on the same section. If the section was built with future proofing that would allow 8 or more trains per hour (four express trains overtaking four stopping trains) they could start off with two express trains and two stopping services, but also have somewhere to go if the line became more successful than originally planned.
Looking at projects like the Thameslink, DLR and London Overground, they have all rehabilitated lines that were previously thought to be useless and once they have gained the trust of the commuters all those projects needed to have extra investment, because they could not handle the amount of passenger traffic they induced. I really look forward to East West Rail opening and becoming a success. But if it does become a success and we need to immediately have to start having talks about a new plan of engineering works to increase capacity, that's going to be frustrating for the passengers the line attracts.
If we get a new government, in the upcoming election, I hope it is not too late for lobbyists to get extra investment pumped into East West Rail.
What was. the work that just finished east of fenny against caldecotte? I assumed it was connected to this.
Not sure, but doubt it was connected to the EWR, unless it was exploratory works.
@@Rail_Focus They had loads of heavy rail machinery out for weeks, and the whole banking up to the track looks new. I assumed they were doing something needed for this.
I contacted EWR about the Bedford proposals that are mentioned here. The answers were wishy washy and never explained how 3 bridges in Bedford would be taken out of service without major disruption, how Thameslink 12 car trains would stable at Bedford when 2 of the 12 car lanes would be occupied by EWR and how 2 new tracks through Bedford would eat away at the very limited parking we already have. As a resident of Bedford I feel like there is lots of "Proposals" but there is no plans on how it will be accomplished. To be honest I don't know how Bedford station can realistically accomodate 2 new tracks without a huge multi storey car park and a mezzanine and putting the station out of sunlight. There just isn't enough room. You could move the station to south of Ford end road and put stables north of Bedford Station in some fields ajacent to the A6 but none of this is in the current plans.
There are proposals to move the stabling siding complex some ways to the south
@@andrewreynolds4949 South is the wrong direction. You need stabling to be north of Bedford so the train can enter the station and after 2 minutes move out again. All the congestion in Bedford is due to those Thameslink trains eating up the platforms.
@@atomiswave1971 Don't take that up with me, I have nothing to do with it
Is their any news on northern powerhouse rail? Q
Nope, all gone very quiet on NPR. Only plans being progressed at the moment are for the TRU
Does anyone know when it will be re opened?
I do talk about the timeframe towards the end, plus I talk more about the full E-W route in the next video
In the time it took you to watch this, the Chinese built another mile of high speed line😅.
🤣😭
China is a country if you stand up to the Government it kills you, not much of a comparison.
And how much money are they losing running it?
@@andrewreynolds4949 How much money will EWR lose, if or when it ever gets finished?
@@esmeephillips5888 Less than China does!