Chiltern Evergreen 3 project - ongoing discussion

[whole diary]

[IndustryInsider]

From the Buckingham Advertiser:

The presentation came as Chiltern Railway announces major changes to its Evergreen 3 project to create a new Oxford to London Marylebone service via Bicester. The project, which has faced years of delay due to a public inquiry and a new legal challenge, is now to be combined with the East-West Rail link joining Bicester with towns such as Milton Keynes and Bedford.

Good to see the projects are being combined, as returning to complete Phase 2 just a couple of years later would not have been a good use of resources.  Do we know more about timescales yet?  Date of closure?  Was anything further discussed at the OBRAG AGM^▸ (Annual General Meeting) which I'd hoped to attend but couldn't make it.

[ChrisB]

No, nothing.

The judicial review still has to take place. OBRAG is placing detailed Qs to Nr/EWR/Chiltern through a NR^» (Network Rail - home page) press rep, and we'll wait & see if they collectively respond.

The NR press guy thought they would. I'm sceptical they'll say anything more until the review is cleared

[IndustryInsider]

The judicial review still has to take place.

Do we have a date for that yet?

[swrural]

I have just searched to find a reference to this action and its reasons for application but drew a blank (other than the previous ones that have been dealt with) - does anyone have access to a copy of the application?  I assume it's the bats again, but who knows, not I anyway?    

On that subject, am I right in thinking that Wolvercote tunnel has to have single track?  It does not seem very sensible to me.  I know of a road scheme that was abandoned and orders for it revoked, where an old ruined cottage, used by bats, was demolished,as it stood in the way of the proposed road.  Prior to that, the H.A. paid for a 'cottage' to be built next door to it, but off line from the proposed scheme of course to which it was hoped that the bats would transfer.  I checked recently with the Vincent Trust, which was charged with (and paid for, I assume) with the job of effecting a transfer of said bats and they confirmed that the bats were now using the new facility very happily.

I just wonder if this information could be useful to Chiltern or the SoS, depending on whom the action has been brought against.  If any of you of the line promotion groups are in contact I will happily provide details (or 'particulars' as the GW^▸ (Great Western) would have it).   

[ChrisB]

No date set that I've heard of, nor had the NR^» (Network Rail - home page) guy.

Not a public document(s), as not a criminal case, but privately brought action. So only needs serving on 'defendents'.

I think some pax know who the judge dealing with this is.

Not bats, but working methods/detail I think. Again, no one being open anout it. There's another case affecting the diwn North Oxford Goods Loop bring converted to passenger use....

[paul7575]

On that subject, am I right in thinking that Wolvercote tunnel has to have single track?

Not at all.  The Wolvercot tunnel work to allow for double track and W10/12 gauge clearance was going to be done during the EG3 work, but being separately funded by the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about).  Chiltern's agreed plans (ie prior to East West Rail being confirmed), did not need double track through the tunnel to run the 2 tph each way timetable, but the current single track was going to be slewed to one side (and the trackbed lowered) as part of the work, so that the second track could be installed in future without another blockade.

From the TWA order inquiry statement:

4.103. While the current arrangement is adequate for the needs of the Phase 1 scheme (i.e. it is adequate to operate the proposed half-hourly London Marylebone ^ Oxford service together with existing levels of freight traffic), it will be necessary to provide a double track railway through the tunnel to cater for the traffic levels likely to materialise as part of the East West Rail Link scheme. There is inadequate headroom within the tunnel to maintain clearance to W8 freight traffic with two tracks at the level of the existing single track. It is also intended to operate W12 gauge freight traffic over the route once the East West Rail Link is completed and to electrify the route using overhead electrification equipment at some future date.
4.104. In order to provide adequate clearance for these proposed future uses, it will be necessary to lower the level of the track within the tunnel and on the approaches to it. This work will be highly disruptive to the railway and requires the closure of the line for several months. In order to avoid disruption to the new London Marylebone ^ Oxford services within the first few years of operation and to avoid the additional cost of carrying out the works separately at a later date, the Department for Transport has agreed to fund the undertaking of track lowering works through the tunnel in advance of the remainder of the East West Rail Link. These works, which together with works to certain other structures over the railway form Phase 2A of the scheme, will be undertaken during the period the railway is closed for the construction of Phase 1 works.

Paul

[eightf48544]

4.104 9above) Can't be right seems far too sensible or am I just being my usual cynical self.

[paul7575]

It's been pretty consistent throughout the Evergreen 3 published info from what I can see.

I think NR^» (Network Rail - home page) (and BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)) before them) usually do allow for future possibilities such as OHLE if they can be added at reasonable cost to what is needed anyway.  One of their engineers told me a while back that all the new footbridges going in around the SE (in the third rail area) all provide clearance for OHLE as designed...

Paul

[swrural]

Many thanks Paul, it was clearly the point about Evergreen 3 that had stuck in my memory.  Very pleased to hear the outcome and thanks for the trouble you have taken. 

Last I heard was that the people who are activists about the local common were making negative noises about the latest proposals for full upgrade and electrification but I can't really see what they can do about it as development will surely be within existing curtilage.  I don't think planning consent is needed in that case as there is no change of use.

[paul7575]

Complaining about electrification now, after all that time spent by the TWA inquiry dealing with those objecting to noisy DMUs^▸ (Diesel Multiple Unit) earlier, looks like desperation to me, but I suppose it's par for the course.

Paul

[mjones]

No doubt there will be complaints that electromagnetic fields will give them cancer... How many more years delay can be caused by spurious complaints from people who knowingly moved next to a railway line ?

[ChrisB]

Nothing to do with electrification.

As I understand it, this relates to an objector that was heard at the original enquiry, and who considers his objections to have been incorrectly dismissed by the Inspector.

[paul7575]

Ah, so once the judge has agreed with the inspector, the complaint will no doubt be about the judicial review process. What next, the ECHR, or maybe the UN?   

Paul

[TonyK]

The next step would be the Court of Appeal if the judges gives permission, or the Supreme Court if he does not. Whoever takes such a step would need to be very rich, or very poor and eligible for legal aid. Let's hope it doesn't go that far.

[Electric train]

The Judicial Review can only be on original objections, if electrification was not raised as an objection at the original public enquiry it cannot be raised in a JR.  My feeling is the objector just does not want trains running at all and would be quite happy to see the line close completely.

From the IET^▸ (Intercity Express Train) even given by Chiltern before Xmas they could have opted for "permissible rights" however this would have made it difficult to acquire the land required for bridges to close level crossings, for embankment reinforcement, new maintenance accesses etc also the cord at Bicester would a need PW^▸ (Permanent Way) Act any way.

The Evergreen scheme also takes into account the redevelopment of Oxford Stn that is why they are not doing all the work they planned to do north of Oxford Stn