Dear Network Rail Limited,

I have been thinking that Network Rail made a mistake not making passive provision for two tracks east of the West Anglia Mainline in the new single track section between Tottenham Hale and Meridian Water.

However, I have now noticed that the new footbridge is wider than expected, going further west than is necessary and there is space for a new track west of the mainline. This has led me to the conclusion that Network Rail has secretly ditched the previous plan of two suburban tracks east of the mainline, instead opting for one track east for southbound (eventually) and a second track west of the existing tracks for northbound suburban services. Of course, this would provide far better interchange between suburban and mainline services and as we know from the value engineering exercise, money is saved from not having two tracks east of the mainline.

Please provide the track layout plans that you will have produced for a quad tracking option between Copper Mill Junction and the proposed northern terminus / termini along with related business case documents for the option with one track both sides of the existing mainline.

Yours faithfully,

Philip Ridley

Dear FOI,

I am afraid that you have been misinformed, because I have in my possession a Value Engineering document, "WAML Capacity Enhancement 128008", dated 25 April 2016, which shows that around £25m was "saved", with most of the savings resulting from the removal of passive provision. This demonstrates beyond all reasonable doubt that I have been lied to in your response when it states falsely that "Network Rail has made passive provision for a fourth track north of Tottenham Hale (and to the east of the existing track) where practical". In truth, they have provided passive provision where it is immediately expedient, failing to take into account long term plans for quad tracking.

Armed with this information I thought, no Network Rail couldn't be so stupid as to build £150m of tracks east of the mainline that needs demolition possibly by 2026, surely they will have changed their mind and are now seeking that the northbound track will be west of the mainline.

It is patently ridiculous to only provide passive provision where a "programme" of works has been agreed, because most passive provision is for projects where the programme is not yet agreed, yet quad tracking of the Lea features in the Anglia Route Study with or without Crossrail 2 and this branch has been given thumbs as good value for money up by the National Infrastructure Commission in relation to Crossrail 2 unlike the New Southgate Branch that was given thumbs down. Clearly, Network Fail erred in saving a measly £25m to not provide passive provision for the four track proposal or, the planned fourth track will be on the west side of the mainline.

I am afraid that your answers fail to satisfy the basic question with no reference to the actual value engineering exercise that has occurred.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Ridley

Dear FOI,

Thanks. The recent announcement from DfT that they are allocating over £150m to deliver a fourth track from Stratford to Meridian Water, to resolve this problem reveals to me that this wasn’t planned, it was a monumental cock up to put the third track and it’s electric supply in the path of the fourth track, to save £25m at a cost of over £100m. With that cash you could have quad tracked to Brimsdown. What a waste of money.

Yours sincerely,

Philip Ridley