Jump to content

Talk:East West Rail

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Islip

[edit]

@Historicallibrarian: Just to clarify that, although what 10mmsocket says is true (that there are no plans for East West Rail Company trains to stop at Islip), that does not mean that services to Islip will cease. EWRCo trains are to be "semi-fast" but that does not mean that the Chiltern Railway stopping service will cease. There is a similar case regarding the stops on the Bletchleyโ€“Bedford section. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point, thankyou for clarifying. That's why I reverted the addition of Islip to the article as (currently) it has no relevance. 10mmsocket (talk) 14:28, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It maybe best to delete the stopping pattern table entirely until the actual timetable has been published. Historicallibrarian (talk) 16:54, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per WP:CRYSTAL. Good idea. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree (and tried before but at least then it was cited back to the EWRCo website, though IMO it was only indicative). Please go ahead and delete it. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A new proposal is a passing loop north-east of islip so that fast trains can overtake slow and freight trains. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:46, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

100mph

[edit]

Where should it be added that the top speed of the line is 100mph? This is according to the various sources of trains testing. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 20:18, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Top design speed or top live running speed? ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Network Rail, for example, reports the top speed as 100mph as seen here but whether this is design speed or not is unclear. Regardless I've added an infobox now. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 20:49, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it 100 mph throughout, or just on certain sections? I can't imagine that the junctions at Oxford and Bletchley would be laid for 100 mph. --Redrose64 ๐ŸŒน (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And anyone who has ever ridden on the Bletchley to Bedford Marston Vale Line would find it hard to believe they'd exceed 60 mph on that track, so it's clear a lot of work will need to be done. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
MVL is proposed to be raised to 75mph with the other sections between Oxford and Cambridge to be 100mph. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 13:51, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Rolling stock on Western Section

[edit]

Where did the info about rolling stock come from? Last I read, EWRCo had invited letters of interest for new designs? but in any case, surely it is WP:CRYSTAL vio to report anything before the start of services. (Surely nobody put the test trains in the infobox, did they?) ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad you asked. It's puzzling me too. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was news a couple of years ago about 10 Class 196s being leased from LNWR for this and the rolling stock of the 168s and 165s all being on the Oxford to Bicester section. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 12:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually in a very recent update, EWR said they are pursuing hybrid OHLE-battery trains. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 21:04, 1 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will delete the rolling stock lines completely now as unambiguous WP:CRYSTAL violation. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Further to my previous comment, they also said the initial services would be diesel. So I think we should at least leave in about the current rolling stock. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 11:42, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oxford to Bicester

[edit]

Probably too early to ask this but when at least the Oxford to Bletchley section opens, should this be merged into here or moved to say "Oxford to Bletchley line"? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 12:06, 31 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

November 2024 Consultation

[edit]
This is now a formal WP:BRD debate. Please contribute towards a consensus.

EWR have also announced there will be a non-statutory consultation from 14th November 2024 to 24th January 2025. As seen here. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 11:48, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And It is now live. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 12:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
true, but how is it significant? (being non-statutory). WP:not news, WP:recentism. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are various things being suggested, such as a tunnel under Bourn Airfield and another under Chapel Hill near Barrington/Haslingfield, the proposed station talked about previously actually being a relocated Stewartby, passing loops near Islip and Middle Claydon in the Oxford direction so faster trains can pass slower trains and freight trains (not sure why not in the other direction) as well as various other places along the line in each direction, closures of level crossings at Bicester and Harston, turnback facilities at Oxford Parkway, Stewartby and Cherry Hinton and many other associated works. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 16:27, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are various things being suggested (my emphasis). So it is ephemeral, well short of even a wp:crystal violation. I really fail to see how it is at all encyclopaedic. But if you disagree, then let's ask Wikipedia talk:WikiProject UK Railways for others to pitch in as I think there may be a general point of policy at stake and if so we need a broader consensus. ๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we do need to wait for the results next year. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@JMF What about what was the inclusion of the 2021 consultation? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 22:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has been announced is two reviews - one statutory and one statutory. Whatever the status of both is almost irrelevant, what matters is that they are the next two stages of the approval process - they won't apply for that until both reviews are completed. Therefore one short paragraph is more than justified. 10mmsocket (talk) 06:26, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nevertheless, the non-statutory consultation is not significant, it is not a formal stage of the approval process. In a year's time, let alone ten, it will be a forgotten detail. It seems to me to be a classic WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENTISM violation. The article is already bogged down in excessive detail: this is the last straw. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Recent developments have attracted significant coverage on the BBC,
the specialist press,
and the local papers
to give just a few examples. Clearly we don't need details of every last thing that might or might not happen but a mention that there are consultations and the most significant points seems sensible.Cavrdg (talk) 11:59, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as nobody else has replied in nearly a month, other than to show it has extensive media coverage, I will update what is proposed in the new consultation later today or sometime this coming week. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 02:05, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good job! 10mmsocket (talk) 09:43, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well at least try to avoid going into detail. Terse is good. The article is already well into tl;dr territory. People can read the consultation documents on the EWRCo website.
btw, I see that the new CEO has "re-missioned" EWRCo to make it just a project management company, same as Crossrail Ltd.[1] As I assume you have noticed, I've been editing to make the article less of a diary and am looking out for a neat place to add that info (atm, I have just cited it for the latest delivery estimates). --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Restructured East West Rail can 'reset' industry's reputation, says CEO". Railway Gazette. Rail Business UK. 13 November 2024.

๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 11:49, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

What we know

[edit]
There are a multitude of changes proposed. Here is what I remember so far
    • Stewartby is to be 3 platforms with services to turn back towards Cambridge there
    • Tunnel east of Cambourne under the A428, Bourn Airfield and Highfields Caldecote via cut-and-cover method
    • New Tunnel under Chapel Hill near Barrington
    • Viaducts over Great Ouse north-west of Bedford and to the north of Bedford
    • Viaducts on approach to and away from the various options for Tempsford
    • Turnback siding in Cherry Hinton area
    • New sidings near Cambridge North, with some services possibly terminating there
    • Various passing places for fast trains to overtake slow and freight trains
    • An option to keep Marston Vale stations but with upgrades and service as is
    • When relocating Bedford St Johns, Britania Road car park will close, to be replaced by a nine-storey multistorey car park for Bedford Hospital and the line speed for that curve to be increased from 15mph to 40pmh
    • Camborne station will be located to the north of the A428, possibly in a cutting
    • Line speeds will be raised on the Marston Vale Line
    • Not all level crossings will close
    • Discontinuous electrification - overhead wires where possible but using batteries where not possible
    • Overall line speeds will be Oxford-Bletchley 100mph, Bletchley to Bedford 75mph (except for the curve in Bedford) and Bedford to Cambridge 100mph.
  • New platforms at Oxford, Bletchley, Cambridge and Bedford

I think I need to read a bit more. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 12:38, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Btw, sources for this are the Consultation Document, the Technical Report and the Technical Update. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 13:59, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We don't of course know how many of these will make it into the statutory consultation, let alone the final TWAO, which is what worried me per WP:CRYSTAL. (It is not obvious here but political proposals typically have "sacrificial lambs", ideas that the proponents don't ever expect to be accepted and are only there to draw fire from ideas that do matter and to be able to say "we listened, so we've abandoned it".) So our wording will need to be cautious and clearly speculative. And not in wp:WIKISPEAK, of course but you knew that. So no "is to be" or "will be", just "it is proposed that [...] be".
Somewhere the list needs to record the renewed opposition from the new Mayor of Bedford to the proposed demolition of houses to permit six-track runnung through Bedford. --๐•๐•„๐”ฝ (talk) 17:21, 8 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:East_West_Rail&oldid=1261917106"