Discussion:
Oxford to Cambridge rail route.
(too old to reply)
Robin9
2016-12-06 10:20:23 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
We have some Cambridge residents here plus numerous
railway enthusiasts. As part of a speech about returning
responsibility for track maintenance and improvement to
train operators . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zmf6q3d

. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.

Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows


--
Robin9
Recliner
2016-12-06 15:44:01 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin9
We have some Cambridge residents here plus numerous
railway enthusiasts. As part of a speech about returning
responsibility for track maintenance and improvement to
train operators . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zmf6q3d
. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.
Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?
It's often been discussed here and in the railway press -- have you missed
them all? Perhaps the minister just knows more than you do?

It clearly won't follow the old route, and there are various ideas for what
new alignment should be used.
tim...
2016-12-06 18:56:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin9
We have some Cambridge residents here plus numerous
railway enthusiasts. As part of a speech about returning
responsibility for track maintenance and improvement to
train operators . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zmf6q3d
. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.
Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?
It's government kit flying

This line has as much chance of being privately funded as the A14
improvements did.

tim
Recliner
2016-12-07 12:50:06 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
We have some Cambridge residents here plus numerous
railway enthusiasts. As part of a speech about returning
responsibility for track maintenance and improvement to
train operators . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zmf6q3d
. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.
Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?
It's government kit flying
This line has as much chance of being privately funded as the A14
improvements did.
Not necessarily. It could go ahead if the government guarantees the
revenues, which is effectively what happens with PFI deals.
tim...
2016-12-08 15:20:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
We have some Cambridge residents here plus numerous
railway enthusiasts. As part of a speech about returning
responsibility for track maintenance and improvement to
train operators . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zmf6q3d
. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.
Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?
It's government kit flying
This line has as much chance of being privately funded as the A14
improvements did.
Not necessarily. It could go ahead if the government guarantees the
revenues, which is effectively what happens with PFI deals.
well reading a few more newspaper reports, it does seem that the plan isn't
necessarily for it to be *funded* by the private sector (as some of the
initial headlines proclaimed), but merely for the private sector to be in
control of the build and operation.

But I still suspect that if it turns out to need 100% funding from HMG, it
wont go ahead.

I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.

tim
Roland Perry
2016-12-09 08:09:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
It's government kit flying
This line has as much chance of being privately funded as the A14
improvements did.
Not necessarily. It could go ahead if the government guarantees the
revenues, which is effectively what happens with PFI deals.
well reading a few more newspaper reports, it does seem that the plan
isn't necessarily for it to be *funded* by the private sector (as some
of the initial headlines proclaimed), but merely for the private sector
to be in control of the build and operation.
But I still suspect that if it turns out to need 100% funding from HMG,
it wont go ahead.
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.
Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-12-11 12:27:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Recliner
Post by tim...
It's government kit flying
This line has as much chance of being privately funded as the A14
improvements did.
Not necessarily. It could go ahead if the government guarantees the
revenues, which is effectively what happens with PFI deals.
well reading a few more newspaper reports, it does seem that the plan
isn't necessarily for it to be *funded* by the private sector (as some of
the initial headlines proclaimed), but merely for the private sector to be
in control of the build and operation.
But I still suspect that if it turns out to need 100% funding from HMG, it
wont go ahead.
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.
Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to Norwich)
already exists.
From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at all,
that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.

There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and as
there are already established customers for the local stations west of
Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.

There is limited demand from Cambridge, or even Norwich to Oxford, and if
you want to use it as part of a longer journey to the SW then via London is
almost certainly going to be better for you. (and the via somewhere else
applies equally for freight.)

As to local journeys, well how big a source is Sandy going to be? And if
that's at the expense of making the mainline station less convenient for
London commuters (as appears to be suggested), that idea isn't going to go
down too well with them is it?

And then there's the idea that it opens up parts of the countryside for "new
build estates". Well, we don't make decisions on where to put these
developments in the rest of the county based upon access to a rail line,
even where it already exists. You will recall that I have been following
the plans in my locality for new build developments and absolutely none of
them (about 8 @ 5,000+ houses) has been proposed aside by an existing
railway, even when simply moving it to a field a mile or 2 east or west
would provide that possibility. Never is the opportunity of an overspill
town for commuting to London been seen as a rational for creating this
development, they are always based upon each development being locally
sustainable with 100% of the new occupants working locally using, if they
have to use PT, local buses into the adjacent town centre.

Now you may think that as a planning policy, that is wrong, and I wouldn't
disagree at all with you if you did. But if we are going to have a planning
policy for new build developments based upon commuting into London, then we
need to start that by trialing it on an existing line, not use it as a
reason for a new build one. So I don't buy this as a reason for the line
being "useful" at all.

tim



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Roland Perry
2016-12-12 08:51:30 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.
Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.
From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.
There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.
East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.

I share your doubts about building the new Sandy-Shepreth line and would
probably have chosen a Hitchin north chord instead.
--
Roland Perry
Basil Jet
2016-12-12 10:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
I share your doubts about building the new Sandy-Shepreth line and would
probably have chosen a Hitchin north chord instead.
With no ECML interchange? IME the interchanges with other lines have to
be at major stations where most trains already stop, or the interchange
possibilities will never work out that well.
Roland Perry
2016-12-12 11:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Roland Perry
I share your doubts about building the new Sandy-Shepreth line and would
probably have chosen a Hitchin north chord instead.
With no ECML interchange?
That would be at a new Sandy station on the same site as the proposed
one. Just the exit for E/W trains would be south on the ECML rather than
across-country via Bassingbourne.
Post by Basil Jet
IME the interchanges with other lines have to be at major stations
where most trains already stop, or the interchange possibilities will
never work out that well.
We appear to be living in a post-StAlbanisation world. Where new
stations mean more stops. See Edinburgh Gateway and Cambridge North.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-12-12 14:33:50 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern section.
Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.
From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at all,
that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.
There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and as
there are already established customers for the local stations west of
Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.
East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.
but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed, and
therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if there
are any)

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Roland Perry
2016-12-12 16:05:21 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant
local journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern
Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.
From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.
There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services
and as there are already established customers for the local stations
west of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers
could be advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.
East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.
but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,
No it's not.
Post by tim...
and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections
(if there are any)
So would a track on either a closed track bed (which it's not) or a new
track bed (which it is).
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-12-12 16:51:10 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern
Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.
From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.
There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.
East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.
but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,
No it's not.
so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if
there are any)
So would a track on either a closed track bed
The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.
Post by Roland Perry
(which it's not) or a new track bed (which it is).
so your argument is that it's on a new alignment

still doesn't negate my point that East of Bedford is the completely new
build, West of Bedford is existing track

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Roland Perry
2016-12-12 17:36:08 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant
local journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern
Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.
From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else
at all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.
There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services
and as there are already established customers for the local
stations west of Bedford opening up more destinations for these
travelers could be advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a
complete white elephant.
East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.
but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,
No it's not.
so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then
Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?

And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections
(if there are any)
So would a track on either a closed track bed
The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
(which it's not) or a new track bed (which it is).
so your argument is that it's on a new alignment
See "new alignment" vs "closed track bed".
Post by tim...
still doesn't negate my point that East of Bedford is the completely
new build,
On "closed track bed", or something else?
Post by tim...
West of Bedford is existing track
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-12-13 10:16:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern
Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.
From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.
There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.
East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.
but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,
No it's not.
so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then
Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?
As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful "profitable"
service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was relevant here was
that the route was new build and not simply a restoration of a passenger
service on a freight line, and therefore zillions of times more expensive to
build.

It was you who started nit-picking about whether the route was on
long-closed track bed or a completely new route, but that's irrelevant to my
point.
Post by Roland Perry
And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".
you claimed that it wasn't a closed track

I naturally assumed that you thought it a currently open (in part) track
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if
there are any)
So would a track on either a closed track bed
The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section

The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ freight
line and the Eastern Section is the part East of Bedford that is currently
open fields (or whatever). You can put the bit in the middle in whichever
section you like.

It just happens that this terminology also fits in with the likely service
pattern which will see many trains running to (and probably terminating at}
MK just off somewhere about the mid point of the route.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
(which it's not) or a new track bed (which it is).
so your argument is that it's on a new alignment
See "new alignment" vs "closed track bed".
Post by tim...
still doesn't negate my point that East of Bedford is the completely new
build,
On "closed track bed", or something else?
It doesn't' matter. It is new build and therefore much more expensive to
do.
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
West of Bedford is existing track
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
we are

I am explaining my rational by referring back to the rest of the route

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Recliner
2016-12-13 10:37:42 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
I remain convinced that there is little demand for significant local
journeys on the route and no strategic need for the Eastern
Did you mean "Central section"? The Eastern section (Cambridge to
Norwich) already exists.
From anywhere on (or beyond) the Eastern section to anywhere else at
all, that can't already by done by a sensible alternative.
There is obvious potential for Oxford and Aylesbury to MK services and
as there are already established customers for the local stations west
of Bedford opening up more destinations for these travelers could be
advantageous. But East of Bedford it's a complete white elephant.
East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.
but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,
No it's not.
so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then
Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?
As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful "profitable"
service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was relevant here was
that the route was new build and not simply a restoration of a passenger
service on a freight line, and therefore zillions of times more expensive to
build.
It was you who started nit-picking about whether the route was on
long-closed track bed or a completely new route, but that's irrelevant to my
point.
Post by Roland Perry
And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".
you claimed that it wasn't a closed track
I naturally assumed that you thought it a currently open (in part) track
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
and therefore has to meet new higher standards at road intersections (if
there are any)
So would a track on either a closed track bed
The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section
The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ freight
line
Really? When did a train of any description last run between Bletchley and
Calvert?

It's been disused for years, and allegedly some of the track has been
nicked.
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-14 01:31:56 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful
"profitable" service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was
relevant here was that the route was new build and not simply a
restoration of a passenger service on a freight line, and therefore
zillions of times more expensive to build.
I wouldn't assume new construction is much more expensive than restoring a
mothballed freight route or a line currently open like the Marston vale
section.

I was surprised to see estimated costs for the various East-West Rail
sections which shown the most expensive bit to be the Marston Vale upgrade.
A lot of work has since been done on that section but, new construction
doesn't generate so much compensation to existing operators. Its costs are
also a lot more predictable as HS1 discovered.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2016-12-15 10:42:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.
but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,
No it's not.
so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then
Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?
As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful "profitable"
service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was relevant here
was that the route was new build and not simply a restoration of a
passenger service on a freight line, and therefore zillions of times
more expensive to build.
It was you who started nit-picking about whether the route was on
long-closed track bed or a completely new route, but that's irrelevant
to my point.
Why then did you bring up the topic? "it is ... on a closed track bed".
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".
you claimed that it wasn't a closed track
I naturally assumed that you thought it a currently open (in part) track
Rather than say what things *aren't*, more clarity would emerge if you
said at the time what you thought they *were*,

To try to nail down this blizzard of shifting goalposts, the current
preferred C2-2 route is on existing tracks to just south of Bedford,
then 39km of new build to Shepreth, where it joins the existing tracks.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section
It would be more helpful if you used the same terms as everyone else,
especially Network Rail.
Post by tim...
The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ
freight line and the Eastern Section is the part East of Bedford that
is currently open fields (or whatever). You can put the bit in the
middle in whichever section you like.
It just happens that this terminology also fits in with the likely
service pattern which will see many trains running to (and probably
terminating at} MK just off somewhere about the mid point of the route.
The service pattern used for the latest (2016) study is:

1 train per hour (tph) London Paddington - Oxford - Cambridge semi-fast

1 tph Bletchley - Cambridge semi-fast; and

1 tph Bristol - Cambridge, with alternate trains extended to Norwich or
Ipswich.

Plus optionally 1 tph Bournemouth - Manchester (currently
-Oxford-Banbury) diverted via Bletchley, Bicester and WCML.

The possibility of a Cambridge - MK - Manchester service was discounted
due to insufficient through passengers being forecast versus the need to
buy new (rather than divert existing) rolling stock.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-12-15 11:32:16 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
East of Bedford is still part of the Central section.
but it is the complete new build part, albeit on a closed track bed,
No it's not.
so which part of Bedford (St John's) to Sandy has track in situ then
Are you completely incapable of looking at the plans for yourself?
As I was just discussing the route's potential as a useful "profitable"
service, I didn't really see it necessary. All that was relevant here was
that the route was new build and not simply a restoration of a passenger
service on a freight line, and therefore zillions of times more expensive
to build.
It was you who started nit-picking about whether the route was on
long-closed track bed or a completely new route, but that's irrelevant to
my point.
Why then did you bring up the topic? "it is ... on a closed track bed".
because I missed out, "presumably..."

Do you never make mistakes?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
And how come suddenly "closed track bed" turns into "track in situ".
you claimed that it wasn't a closed track
I naturally assumed that you thought it a currently open (in part) track
Rather than say what things *aren't*, more clarity would emerge if you
said at the time what you thought they *were*,
I did say what I thought it was - "a closed track bed".

That I was wrong doesn't change the fact that I said it.
Post by Roland Perry
To try to nail down this blizzard of shifting goalposts, the current
preferred C2-2 route is on existing tracks to just south of Bedford, then
39km of new build to Shepreth, where it joins the existing tracks.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
The point is that West of Bletchley is not "closed" - technically anyway.
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section
It would be more helpful if you used the same terms as everyone else,
especially Network Rail.
and how am I supposed to know what these terms are?

do you really expect me to go an plough through a pile of someone else's
documents just to make a small point?

Is that really reasonable?
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ
freight line and the Eastern Section is the part East of Bedford that is
currently open fields (or whatever). You can put the bit in the middle in
whichever section you like.
It just happens that this terminology also fits in with the likely service
pattern which will see many trains running to (and probably terminating
at} MK just off somewhere about the mid point of the route.
1 train per hour (tph) London Paddington - Oxford - Cambridge semi-fast
1 tph Bletchley - Cambridge semi-fast; and
1 tph Bristol - Cambridge, with alternate trains extended to Norwich or
Ipswich.
Plus optionally 1 tph Bournemouth - Manchester (currently -Oxford-Banbury)
diverted via Bletchley, Bicester and WCML.
and what about the Oxford to Marylebone and the long proposed Aylesbury to
MK services, that will also use the line?

tim



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Roland Perry
2016-12-18 09:36:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Why then did you bring up the topic? "it is ... on a closed track bed".
because I missed out, "presumably..."
Do you never make mistakes?
The mistake of claiming I'd brought up the subject (of closed track
beds) is a bit fundamental.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section
It would be more helpful if you used the same terms as everyone else,
especially Network Rail.
and how am I supposed to know what these terms are?
do you really expect me to go an plough through a pile of someone
else's documents just to make a small point?
It's not a small point. It's on the front page of the East-West Rail
website, and has featured in numerous news articles this year when the
preferred *central* corridor was announced.

As well as myself reminding you at least twice, earlier in the thread.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ
freight line and the Eastern Section is the part East of Bedford that
is currently open fields (or whatever). You can put the bit in the
middle in whichever section you like.
It just happens that this terminology also fits in with the likely
service pattern which will see many trains running to (and probably
terminating at} MK just off somewhere about the mid point of the route.
1 train per hour (tph) London Paddington - Oxford - Cambridge semi-fast
1 tph Bletchley - Cambridge semi-fast; and
1 tph Bristol - Cambridge, with alternate trains extended to Norwich
or Ipswich.
Plus optionally 1 tph Bournemouth - Manchester (currently
-Oxford-Banbury) diverted via Bletchley, Bicester and WCML.
and what about the Oxford to Marylebone and the long proposed Aylesbury
to MK services, that will also use the line?
None of those use the line from Bedford to Cambridge (which is the one
whose business case is currently being examined by TPTB).
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-12-18 11:43:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Why then did you bring up the topic? "it is ... on a closed track bed".
because I missed out, "presumably..."
Do you never make mistakes?
The mistake of claiming I'd brought up the subject (of closed track beds)
is a bit fundamental.
I didn't say that you brought it up

it was just my suggestion of what route would be followed, but whether it
was a closed track bed or new build was incidental to my point

I really don't know why you made an issue of it (my original mistake)
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section
It would be more helpful if you used the same terms as everyone else,
especially Network Rail.
and how am I supposed to know what these terms are?
do you really expect me to go an plough through a pile of someone else's
documents just to make a small point?
It's not a small point. It's on the front page of the East-West Rail
website, and has featured in numerous news articles this year when the
preferred *central* corridor was announced.
I don't need to go to a web site to see whether the route is on a "improved"
line already in situ or new build (where on old track bet or new alignment).
I know that from my knowledge fop the UK rail network.

And it is only that (first) difference that was critical to my point.

So I didn't bother
As well as myself reminding you at least twice, earlier in the thread.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in situ
freight line and the Eastern Section is the part East of Bedford that is
currently open fields (or whatever). You can put the bit in the middle
in whichever section you like.
It just happens that this terminology also fits in with the likely
service pattern which will see many trains running to (and probably
terminating at} MK just off somewhere about the mid point of the route.
1 train per hour (tph) London Paddington - Oxford - Cambridge semi-fast
1 tph Bletchley - Cambridge semi-fast; and
1 tph Bristol - Cambridge, with alternate trains extended to Norwich or
Ipswich.
Plus optionally 1 tph Bournemouth - Manchester
(currently -Oxford-Banbury) diverted via Bletchley, Bicester and WCML.
and what about the Oxford to Marylebone and the long proposed Aylesbury to
MK services, that will also use the line?
None of those use the line from Bedford to Cambridge (which is the one
whose business case is currently being examined by TPTB).
At the time of your intervention I wasn't discussing the business case for
the extension to Cambridge in isolation. I was discussing it in the context
of the use of a privately operated special purpose vehicle (or whatever it
is called) for the development, and AFAIA that proposal is for the complete
line to Oxford.

Hence the reason why my use of East and West refers to parts of that
complete line. The West part being the part that is, I believe, currently
funded and the East the part that is not.

If you changed the thread of some sub-set of that you should have made it
clearer, because I didn't notice

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Roland Perry
2016-12-19 14:02:11 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Why then did you bring up the topic? "it is ... on a closed track bed".
because I missed out, "presumably..."
Do you never make mistakes?
The mistake of claiming I'd brought up the subject (of closed track
beds) is a bit fundamental.
I didn't say that you brought it up
Who wrote "why then did you bring up the topic?"
Post by tim...
it was just my suggestion of what route would be followed, but whether
it was a closed track bed or new build was incidental to my point
I really don't know why you made an issue of it (my original mistake)
Because you pile on more mistakes with every posting, it's become
ridiculous.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
I thought we were discussing east of Bedford.
I am explaining my terminology: Eastern section and Western section
It would be more helpful if you used the same terms as everyone
else, especially Network Rail.
and how am I supposed to know what these terms are?
do you really expect me to go an plough through a pile of someone
else's documents just to make a small point?
It's not a small point. It's on the front page of the East-West Rail
website, and has featured in numerous news articles this year when the
preferred *central* corridor was announced.
I don't need to go to a web site to see whether the route is on a
"improved" line already in situ or new build (where on old track bet or
new alignment). I know that from my knowledge fop the UK rail network.
We've moved on, to trying to get you to realise it's the
"West/Central/Eastern" terminology that you are mistaken about.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
As well as myself reminding you at least twice, earlier in the thread.
Post by tim...
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
The Western section is the part West of Bletchley that is an in
situ freight line and the Eastern Section is the part East of
Bedford that is currently open fields (or whatever). You can put
the bit in the middle in whichever section you like.
It just happens that this terminology also fits in with the likely
service pattern which will see many trains running to (and probably
terminating at} MK just off somewhere about the mid point of the route.
1 train per hour (tph) London Paddington - Oxford - Cambridge semi-fast
1 tph Bletchley - Cambridge semi-fast; and
1 tph Bristol - Cambridge, with alternate trains extended to
Norwich or Ipswich.
Plus optionally 1 tph Bournemouth - Manchester (currently
-Oxford-Banbury) diverted via Bletchley, Bicester and WCML.
and what about the Oxford to Marylebone and the long proposed
Aylesbury to MK services, that will also use the line?
None of those use the line from Bedford to Cambridge (which is the
one whose business case is currently being examined by TPTB).
At the time of your intervention I wasn't discussing the business case
for the extension to Cambridge in isolation. I was discussing it in
the context of the use of a privately operated special purpose vehicle
(or whatever it is called) for the development, and AFAIA that proposal
is for the complete line to Oxford.
AFAIA it's just for the Bedford-Cambridge section.
Post by tim...
Hence the reason why my use of East and West refers to parts of that
complete line.
THE COMPLETE LINE IS OXFORD TO THE COAST
Post by tim...
The West part being the part that is, I believe, currently funded and
the East the part that is not.
THE EASTERN PART IS ALREADY BUILT. IT'S FROM CAMBRIDGE TO THE COAST.
Post by tim...
If you changed the thread of some sub-set of that you should have made
it clearer, because I didn't notice
I GIVE UP. YOU'VE BEEN TOLD THIS STUFF OVER AND OVER AGAIN.
--
Roland Perry
Robin9
2016-12-12 15:33:39 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago


--
Robin9
Roland Perry
2016-12-12 16:07:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin9
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.
Not really. It would have been a drain on the finances, and thus likely
to have knock-on effects (closures) elsewhere.
--
Roland Perry
tim...
2016-12-12 16:55:40 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin9
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.
what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all those years
ago)

as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all because
some of it (presumably) has been built over

tim




---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
Roland Perry
2016-12-12 17:40:43 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.
what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all those
years ago)
as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all
because some of it (presumably) has been built over
Not just built over (Radio telescope, M11, Trumpington Meadows Estate,
Trumpington P&R, Guided Bus; as well as numerous other stretches
including a school and housing estate in north Sandy and quite a lot of
roads/buildings in south east Bedford) but also a very wiggly route you
couldn't suddenly have 100mph trains careering along.
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-13 10:24:59 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.
what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all those
years ago)
as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all
because some of it (presumably) has been built over
Not just built over (Radio telescope, M11, Trumpington Meadows
Estate, Trumpington P&R, Guided Bus; as well as numerous other
stretches including a school and housing estate in north Sandy and
quite a lot of roads/buildings in south east Bedford) but also a very
wiggly route you couldn't suddenly have 100mph trains careering along.
People don't seem to realise how paltry the Cambridge-Oxford train service
was until 1967. Trains were slow and infrequent.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
tim...
2016-12-14 16:19:28 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.
what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all those
years ago)
as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all
because some of it (presumably) has been built over
Not just built over (Radio telescope, M11, Trumpington Meadows
Estate, Trumpington P&R, Guided Bus; as well as numerous other
stretches including a school and housing estate in north Sandy and
quite a lot of roads/buildings in south east Bedford) but also a very
wiggly route you couldn't suddenly have 100mph trains careering along.
People don't seem to realise how paltry the Cambridge-Oxford train service
was until 1967. Trains were slow and infrequent.
1953
M-F
It's not clear which, if any, are through trains
Cambridge d 7:37 9:29 11:18 2:05 4:40 6:15 9:45
Bletchley a 9:14 11:00 12:53 3:42 6:16 7:55 10:57
Oxford a 10:30 1:18 2:38 6:12 9:24 --:-- --:--
Sat same number of services slightly different timings
Sun two services.

1964
M-F
Cambridge d 7:30 9:52 10:43 2:12 4:47 6:18 7:01 9:10
Bedford a 8:27 10:51 11:24 3:05 5:40 7:11 7:41 10:04
Oxford a 10:29 12:40 12:40 4:53 --:-- --:-- 9:01 10:57
Sat one extra service slightly different timings
Sun two services.

Sorry if it comes out all messed up

tim



---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-15 01:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
*Subject:* Re: Oxford to Cambridge rail route.
*Date:* Wed, 14 Dec 2016 16:19:28 -0000
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
Post by Robin9
What a pity the line between Hitchin and Bedford was
closed all those years ago.
what a pity the line from Bedford to Cambridge was closed (all
those
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by tim...
years ago)
as otherwise we wouldn't be looking for a different route at all
because some of it (presumably) has been built over
Not just built over (Radio telescope, M11, Trumpington Meadows
Estate, Trumpington P&R, Guided Bus; as well as numerous other
stretches including a school and housing estate in north Sandy and
quite a lot of roads/buildings in south east Bedford) but also a
very
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
wiggly route you couldn't suddenly have 100mph trains careering
along.
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
People don't seem to realise how paltry the Cambridge-Oxford train service
was until 1967. Trains were slow and infrequent.
1953
M-F
It's not clear which, if any, are through trains
Cambridge d 7:37 9:29 11:18 2:05 4:40 6:15 9:45
Bletchley a 9:14 11:00 12:53 3:42 6:16 7:55 10:57
Oxford a 10:30 1:18 2:38 6:12 9:24 --:-- --:--
Sat same number of services slightly different timings
Sun two services.
1964
M-F
Cambridge d 7:30 9:52 10:43 2:12 4:47 6:18 7:01 9:10
Bedford a 8:27 10:51 11:24 3:05 5:40 7:11 7:41 10:04
Oxford a 10:29 12:40 12:40 4:53 --:-- --:-- 9:01 10:57
Sat one extra service slightly different timings
Sun two services.
Sorry if it comes out all messed up
The timetable in the 1962 Varsity Handbook (valid until 16th June 1963) was
quite like that in 1964 but only 3 trains on Mondays-Fridays, 2 out and 3
back on Saturdays, went through without changing at Bletchley. There were no
through trains on Sundays and only 1 journey there and 2 back, all changing
at Bletchley.

The timetable was:

Cambridge Oxford Oxford Cambridge
dep. arr. dep. arr.
Weekdays
7.30 10.28 C 7.58 10.27
10.45 12.49 SO 9.40 11.34 SO
10.45 12.52 MF 9.48 11.44 MF
11.22 2,45 SO C 11.30 3.33 C
2.12 4.47 SO 2.48 5.21 MF
2.12 4.53 MF 2.55 5.21 SO
7.1 9.0 5.25 8.18 SO C
9.0 10.57 MF 6.48 8.54 MF
6.53 8.54 SO
7.55 10.19 SO C
7.55 10.21 MF C

Sunday
10.10 2.0 C 10.40 2.12 C
4.55 8.11 C

MF = Monday to Friday only.
SO = Saturday only.
C = Change at Bletchley; otherwise through carriages Oxford and Cambridge.

I hope it is clear which times are AM and which are PM (bold in the
original).
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2016-12-15 07:05:57 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by tim...
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
People don't seem to realise how paltry the Cambridge-Oxford train service
was until 1967. Trains were slow and infrequent.
1953
M-F
It's not clear which, if any, are through trains
Those will be the two with ~1.5hrs between the arrivals, rather than
~2.5hrs.
Post by tim...
Cambridge d 7:37 9:29 11:18 2:05 4:40 6:15 9:45
Bletchley a 9:14 11:00 12:53 3:42 6:16 7:55 10:57
Oxford a 10:30 1:18 2:38 6:12 9:24 --:-- --:--
--
Roland Perry
Roland Perry
2016-12-06 19:55:47 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Robin9
We have some Cambridge residents here plus numerous
railway enthusiasts. As part of a speech about returning
responsibility for track maintenance and improvement to
train operators . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zmf6q3d
. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.
Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?
The current plan is to ignore the old Bedford-Cambridge route entirely.

In fact, the "rebuilt" line won't even reach Bedford, merely a "Parkway"
station some way to the south of the town.

From there it will supposedly blaze a new trail pretty much due east as
far as Shepreth (and avoiding all habitation especially Sandy) where
it'll join with the existing Hitchin-Cambridge line, for services onward
on the Eastern Section (ie Cambridge-Ely-Norwich, again existing
tracks).
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-07 01:49:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Robin9
We have some Cambridge residents here plus numerous
railway enthusiasts. As part of a speech about returning
responsibility for track maintenance and improvement to
train operators . . .
http://tinyurl.com/zmf6q3d
. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.
Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?
The current plan is to ignore the old Bedford-Cambridge route
entirely.
In fact, the "rebuilt" line won't even reach Bedford, merely a
"Parkway" station some way to the south of the town.
From there it will supposedly blaze a new trail pretty much due east
as far as Shepreth (and avoiding all habitation especially Sandy)
where it'll join with the existing Hitchin-Cambridge line, for
services onward on the Eastern Section (ie Cambridge-Ely-Norwich,
again existing tracks).
Sandy could yet have a station. It's in at least one of the options.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2016-12-07 08:22:26 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Robin9
. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.
Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?
The current plan is to ignore the old Bedford-Cambridge route
entirely.
In fact, the "rebuilt" line won't even reach Bedford, merely a
"Parkway" station some way to the south of the town.
From there it will supposedly blaze a new trail pretty much due east
as far as Shepreth (and avoiding all habitation especially Sandy)
where it'll join with the existing Hitchin-Cambridge line, for
services onward on the Eastern Section (ie Cambridge-Ely-Norwich,
again existing tracks).
Sandy could yet have a station. It's in at least one of the options.
Yes, it may, but like Bedford a 'Parkway' station outside the built-up
area.
--
Roland Perry
r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
2016-12-07 09:29:38 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by Robin9
. . . a suggestion was made that the line between Bedford
and Cambridge might also be rebuilt. I've been told that part
of the right-of-way was lost decades ago when new buildings
were constructed across the trackbed.
Is this feasible? Does the Minister know something nobody
else knows?
The current plan is to ignore the old Bedford-Cambridge route
entirely.
In fact, the "rebuilt" line won't even reach Bedford, merely a
"Parkway" station some way to the south of the town.
From there it will supposedly blaze a new trail pretty much due east
as far as Shepreth (and avoiding all habitation especially Sandy)
where it'll join with the existing Hitchin-Cambridge line, for
services onward on the Eastern Section (ie Cambridge-Ely-Norwich,
again existing tracks).
Sandy could yet have a station. It's in at least one of the options.
Yes, it may, but like Bedford a 'Parkway' station outside the
built-up area.
The old station wasn't exactly in the town centre.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Roland Perry
2016-12-07 10:07:18 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Sandy could yet have a station. It's in at least one of the options.
Yes, it may, but like Bedford a 'Parkway' station outside the
built-up area.
The old station wasn't exactly in the town centre.
Station to Post Office in the centre of town: Half a mile, 9 minute
walk, according to Google Maps. (I stopped off at the station last year
because I was looking at cars in the garage on the A1).

The new station is proposed to be a third of the way to Biggleswade.
--
Roland Perry
Basil Jet
2016-12-07 10:34:03 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Sandy could yet have a station. It's in at least one of the options.
Yes, it may, but like Bedford a 'Parkway' station outside the
built-up area.
The old station wasn't exactly in the town centre.
Station to Post Office in the centre of town: Half a mile, 9 minute
walk, according to Google Maps. (I stopped off at the station last year
because I was looking at cars in the garage on the A1).
The new station is proposed to be a third of the way to Biggleswade.
Since this is about halfway between Peterborough and Kings Cross, are
they planning to make this a major stop for Virgin trains? And will
Stevenage lose the few Virgin trains it has?
Roland Perry
2016-12-07 12:03:35 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Basil Jet
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Post by Roland Perry
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
Sandy could yet have a station. It's in at least one of the options.
Yes, it may, but like Bedford a 'Parkway' station outside the
built-up area.
The old station wasn't exactly in the town centre.
Station to Post Office in the centre of town: Half a mile, 9 minute
walk, according to Google Maps. (I stopped off at the station last year
because I was looking at cars in the garage on the A1).
The new station is proposed to be a third of the way to Biggleswade.
Since this is about halfway between Peterborough and Kings Cross, are
they planning to make this a major stop for Virgin trains? And will
Stevenage lose the few Virgin trains it has?
I don't remember whether this aspect was covered in the recent-ish
study. But remember that not all Virgin trains stop at Peterborough
either, plus they'll have soopah-doopah IEPs with brisker performance
(allegedly).

You can be sure, however, that no attempt will be made to co-ordinate
the timetables for optimum changes from one line to the other.
--
Roland Perry
Someone Somewhere
2016-12-08 14:02:41 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by r***@cix.compulink.co.uk
The old station wasn't exactly in the town centre.
Are we talking about Cambridge again?
Sharman Dope
2016-12-14 10:48:27 UTC
Permalink
Raw Message
mahoneysharman at google mail dot com
Loading...