Talk:East West Rail

Islip

@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 Bletchley–Bedford section. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 10:42, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

Yes per WP:CRYSTAL. Good idea. 10mmsocket (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:26, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

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)

Bedford Town Area Constructional Impact Assessment

This has been released by East West Rail Consortium as said by Bedford Today, see here. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 11:46, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

The document is really just a preliminary engineering assessment of what works might be needed. Maybe worth adding to the External Links but a bit wp:crystal right now, also far too detailed for this article (IMO anyway). 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:15, 30 August 2024 (UTC)

100mph

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)

Top design speed or top live running speed? 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 20:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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 🌹 (talk) 21:45, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

Rolling stock on Western Section

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?) 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 18:51, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad you asked. It's puzzling me too. 10mmsocket (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

I will delete the rolling stock lines completely now as unambiguous WP:CRYSTAL violation. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:00, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

Oxford to Bicester

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)

November 2024 Consultation

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)

And It is now live. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 12:12, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

true, but how is it significant? (being non-statutory). WP:not news, WP:recentism. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 14:32, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. 𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

I guess we do need to wait for the results next year. Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 17:50, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

@JMF What about what was the inclusion of the 2021 consultation? Difficultly north (talk) Time, department skies 22:08, 15 November 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 13:58, 16 November 2024 (UTC)

Recent developments have attracted significant coverage on the BBC,

• Ten things we have learnt about East West Rail
• Details unveiled on landmark new rail route
• What is happening with East West Rail?
• Railway is a tale of two halves in Cambridgeshire
• East West Rail build to bring years of disruption
• Stations could shut on part of East West Rail line
• Level crossing closure part of new rail line plans

the specialist press,

• Rail Business Daily - East West Rail reveals latest updated design plans as public consultation opens
• Ground Engineering - East West Rail between Bedford and Cambridge to include new tunnels
• New Civil Engineer - East West Rail consults on proposals including new tunnels, bridges and station designs

and the local papers

• Biggleswade Today - Have your say on updated East West Rail plans - including new railway station at Tempsford
• Cambridge Independent - East West Rail update reveals plans for tunnels, Cambourne station details
• Oxford Mail - Oxford consultation unveiled for major rail company plans across county

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)