East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

[ABB125]

82 minutes seems more believable as the journey time from Oxford, and just some typically dodgy Cambridge News reporting.

Thanks, I'm sure when I read the route options document last year it wasn't this long. Seems much more reasonable from Oxford (although faster would be better!).

 

[swt_passenger]

82 minutes seems more believable as the journey time from Oxford, and just some typically dodgy Cambridge News reporting.

Indeed I think that’s right, checking the quote again, the previous paragraph to the one @ABB125 quoted a few minutes ago refers to “two cities” presumably Oxford and Cambridge, rather than Bedford and Cambridge...

 

[DaveN]

Yes the consultation document says Oxford to Cambridge time of 82 minutes.

 

[camflyer]

82 minutes seems more believable as the journey time from Oxford, and just some typically dodgy Cambridge News reporting.

The EWR consultation quoted 82 minutes for Oxford to Cambridge using route E.

https://eastwestrail-production.s3....tion/fe0f74c338/EWR-Consultation-Document.pdf

I wouldn't trust the Cambridge News to get anything right without checking the original source. They can't even copy and paste a press release properly.

 

[HowardGWR]

Usage stats are 189k per year.

Divide by 312 days per year (no Sunday service), it's more like 600 per day.

No doubt discuss accurate allocation between St Johns and Midland.

Yes it was my maths I am afraid, apols.
Still, not a 'remote station' total and undoubtedly useful for South Bedford. Perhaps someone could confirm.

 

[Tobbes]

Yes it was my maths I am afraid, apols.
Still, not a remote station total and undoubtedly useful for South Bedford. Perhaps someone could confirm.

I would have thought that you'd close St Johns (new) - what services will be calling there? It'll need a total rebuild to get two long platforms in, lifts and access, and it'll cost a fortune. Given that it's currently all of 4 mins running time to Midland, presumably a better local bus service to Bedford Midland would be better use of money? If there was to be a southern Bedford station, it would make more sense to me to build it down by the A6 as a parkway.

 

[al green]

I had a letter from DfT this morning saying that TWAO for EWRL Western section Bicester-Bedford has been approved. There don’t appear to have been any significant changes although I haven’t seen the Inspector’s report. It said decision letter will be available shortly on their website, which presumably will also have the Inspectors report.

 

[eastdyke]

I had a letter from DfT this morning saying that TWAO for EWRL Western section Bicester-Bedford has been approved. There don’t appear to have been any significant changes although I haven’t seen the Inspector’s report. It said decision letter will be available shortly on their website, which presumably will also have the Inspectors report.

That's good news.
The decision letter should appear here [Gov.UK: Transport and Works Act (TWA) applications and decisions]:
https://www.gov.uk/government/colle...n-letters#2020-twa-decisions-and-applications
Just scroll down to the list.
Note the timescale, around 18 months from initial application.

 

[Neen Sollars]

Yes it was my maths I am afraid, apols.
Still, not a 'remote station' total and undoubtedly useful for South Bedford. Perhaps someone could confirm.

H. I was a bit confused regarding whether EWR would go through Bedford Midland from the Marston Vale line via B St John`s or whether it would have to join the MML around the site of proposed Wixams station . Hooverboy responded saying he thought it was not viable (no reason given) for EWR to enter BM on the existing route. So the new line would swing round to the south past Kempston via old quarry workings to join the MML head north and into BM. This would leave B St John`s and a stretch of the old MV line potentially redundant. I simply asked whether any of the redundant site could be used for car parking which appears to be at a premium. My initial question was raised because Phase 2 EWR is expected to connect with Bedford or BM. My question was how would it actually join Bedford as the route for the Central section was undecided. I had visions of a brand new 100 mph line switching to the existing single track MV around Kempston pending a Central section route decision. But I guess they have a couple of years before the new track laying gang reach Kempston?

 

[Glenn1969]

Wikipedia seems to suggest they may rebuild a station on the original site at St Johns for EWR

 

[Tobbes]

Wikipedia seems to suggest they may rebuild a station on the original site at St Johns for EWR

Wikipedia surely wrong, as that would require a reversal to reach Bedford Midland.

 

[jopsuk]

Cambourne into Cambridge will be very interesting when it comes to detailed route choice.

The old railway route is more or less inconceivable. The radio telescope, the busway (and associated busy cycle-way)- these are rather in the way. Plus Cambridge South has always been slated to be served by EWR.

 

[edwin_m]

H. I was a bit confused regarding whether EWR would go through Bedford Midland from the Marston Vale line via B St John`s or whether it would have to join the MML around the site of proposed Wixams station . Hooverboy responded saying he thought it was not viable (no reason given) for EWR to enter BM on the existing route. So the new line would swing round to the south past Kempston via old quarry workings to join the MML head north and into BM. This would leave B St John`s and a stretch of the old MV line potentially redundant. I simply asked whether any of the redundant site could be used for car parking which appears to be at a premium. My initial question was raised because Phase 2 EWR is expected to connect with Bedford or BM. My question was how would it actually join Bedford as the route for the Central section was undecided. I had visions of a brand new 100 mph line switching to the existing single track MV around Kempston pending a Central section route decision. But I guess they have a couple of years before the new track laying gang reach Kempston?

Not sure exactly what you are suggesting here, but if it involves joining the west side of the MML then I think that's very unlikely as the EWR trains would have to cross on the flat to the east side to get to the station.

 

[Tobbes]

Cambourne into Cambridge will be very interesting when it comes to detailed route choice.

The old railway route is more or less inconceivable. The radio telescope, the busway (and associated busy cycle-way)- these are rather in the way. Plus Cambridge South has always been slated to be served by EWR.

I'd missed that the consultation ruled out the northerly approach, which I think is a missed opportunity. But if Cambourne station is up by the A428 (ie, at the top of the hill), then it would make sense for the line to join WAML west of the M11 to avoid the cost of a bridge, but as close to it as possible to limit the extra distance. There needs to be a crossing of the A10, presumably somewhere Harston and Hauxton, and some non-trival earthworks as Cambourne is c. 230ft ASL and Comberton c90ft at 2 miles away, which (if my maths is right) I make about 1 in 75. It isn't the Lickey, but is there a Group Standard for maximum inclines on newbuild railways?

 

[HowardGWR]

When I mentioned not closing St John's I was never thinking that the new through expresses would call there but assumed the local Marston Vale ones still would. There will be expresses won't there, otherwise what is the point of the reconnected lines?

 

[jopsuk]

I'd missed that the consultation ruled out the northerly approach, which I think is a missed opportunity.

The realistic northern approach would have had to go north of Histon & Impington and Milton- never mind just how well the busway is used, there's other practical reasons (eg access to CRC, Milton Road) that mean that the old St Ives branch corridor would not have been workable.

 

[bspahh]

The realistic northern approach would have had to go north of Histon & Impington and Milton- never mind just how well the busway is used, there's other practical reasons (eg access to CRC, Milton Road) that mean that the old St Ives branch corridor would not have been workable.

I agree that the old route South of the Science Park is a non-starter above ground. New level crossings in the middle of a city are not going to happen. In a tunnel, it would be possible, but a load more money, and the rest of the route is already going to be a stretch.

I can't see that politicians are going to want to propose getting a railway to cross a shiny, new A14.

 

[Tobbes]

The realistic northern approach would have had to go north of Histon & Impington and Milton- never mind just how well the busway is used, there's other practical reasons (eg access to CRC, Milton Road) that mean that the old St Ives branch corridor would not have been workable.

Thanks @jopsuk - I was under the misapprehension that Milton Rd and CRC access could have been overcome. What I was really hoping for was a Cambs Metro tram/train running out to St Ives/Huntingdon and possibly Ramsey in the NW and Haverhill in the SE which I thought I'd read about somewhere (with a tunnel under Cambridge itself connecting Madingley Rd with the Sidgwick site and then over to the station.

 

[ewrfan]

Good and brave decision - but a detailed map would be really helpful. I presume the large cost reflects not just the new route, but includes a major rebuild of Bedford Midland?

The press release contains the most detailed map available, until the exact route is decided: https://eastwestrail.co.uk/latest-n...ption-between-bedford-and-cambridge-announced

 

[eastdyke]

When I mentioned not closing St John's I was never thinking that the new through expresses would call there but assumed the local Marston Vale ones still would. There will be expresses won't there, otherwise what is the point of the reconnected lines?

Services envisaged are fasts, semi-fasts and (for Marston Vale) stoppers. Plus perhaps 1 freight path per hour.
A lot of money is being spent in Marston Vale as part of phase 2B (TWAO now apparently approved) and this includes work to the Stations at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont to enable the semi-fasts to stop, as well as new bridges to replace level crossings and the upgrades of other level crossings which remain. Plus all the usual civils, renewals, pw, signalling etc etc associated with line speed increases.
I have always been totally sceptical that the resulting arrangements will enable the full potential of EWR to be realised, especially as we approach 2050. I believe that more works will be needed before then.

 

[camflyer]

The realistic northern approach would have had to go north of Histon & Impington and Milton- never mind just how well the busway is used, there's other practical reasons (eg access to CRC, Milton Road) that mean that the old St Ives branch corridor would not have been workable.

Well, yes, an approach which joined the mainline north of Milton would have avoided messing around with Milton Rd and left the Busway intact but it wouldn't have got around the need for a turnaround at Cambridge Central to continue to Ipswich and Norwich.

Maybe in 20 years time when "EastWest Rail 2" is proposed then we could add a northern loop out of Cambridge but for now it's a dead idea.

 

[eastdyke]

Well, yes, an approach which joined the mainline north of Milton would have avoided messing around with Milton Rd and left the Busway intact but it wouldn't have got around the need for a turnaround at Cambridge Central to continue to Ipswich and Norwich.

And also would not enable EWR to serve Cambridge (South) seen as essential, without turnbacks there (not at all likely) or continuing to say, Stansted (perhaps even less likely with the capacity constraints there).

 

[Tobbes]

And also would not enable EWR to serve Cambridge (South) seen as essential, without turnbacks there (not at all likely) or continuing to say, Stansted (perhaps even less likely with the capacity constraints there).

This is going to cost £3-4bn. Stansted is the most logical destination (and I say that with Ipswich being my local station and work taking me to both Cambs and Oxford), so it always made more sense to me to run EWR to an improved Stansted rather than Ipswich/Norwich which could be equally well served with accellerated 2tph services to Cambs.

 

[richieb1971]

Ewr will go through the new St John's station at Bedford as all the trains do now. It will add a few mins on route a due to slow track.
As for the future of St John's it will stay as its close to the hospital and college.

Route a would have gone under the mml and would never have joined it.

 

[D365]

Ewr will go through the new St John's station at Bedford as all the trains do now. It will add a few mins on route a due to slow track.

I dare say this is planned to be fixed?

 

[rdlover777]

if i may ask, will ownership of the line be handed over to Network Rail upon completion/signing off fit for use?

 

[camflyer]

This is going to cost £3-4bn. Stansted is the most logical destination (and I say that with Ipswich being my local station and work taking me to both Cambs and Oxford), so it always made more sense to me to run EWR to an improved Stansted rather than Ipswich/Norwich which could be equally well served with accellerated 2tph services to Cambs.

The purpose of EWR was always to improve links between Ipswich/Norwich in the east through Cambridge, MK to Oxford and further west. Stansted was never part of the plan.

I'm all for improving rail links to Stansted (I'd like to make it the terminus of Crossrail 2) but there would be huge amounts of infrastructure work needed in the area which is way beyond the scope and budget of EWR.

 

[ashkeba]

I'd missed that the consultation ruled out the northerly approach, which I think is a missed opportunity. But if Cambourne station is up by the A428 (ie, at the top of the hill), then it would make sense for the line to join WAML west of the M11 to avoid the cost of a bridge, but as close to it as possible to limit the extra distance.

The WAML is not west of the M11 north of Stansted. The map doesn't show EWR anything like that far south.

 

[edwin_m]

I dare say this is planned to be fixed?

The slow track around St Johns is down to the tight curve so not easily fixed. As it's close to Midland where all trains will presumably stop, it doesn't make a big difference to journey times.

The WAML is not west of the M11 north of Stansted. The map doesn't show EWR anything like that far south.

I'm expecting it to dodge south from Cambourne and join the Royston line somewhere west of the M11, using its route into Cambridge including Cambridge South station. But the map does allow for other options including looping round to the south and joining the Bishops Stortford line from the east.

 

[mr_jrt]

I still think the ideal is to enter Cambridge from the north and run down to Stansted on a widened 4 track route from the new junction down to Cambridge station, but as it's entering from the south, then I think joining the WAML would be madness given how congested it is, especially as you would have to cross the Shepreth branch to do so. I wonder if it will be grade separated with the Shepreth branch...