East West Rail: Bedford - Cambridge will it ever get built?

[ac6000cw]

The Newmarket line is of limited use for commuting because capacity is very restricted by the single line section.

But that can be sorted out at way lower cost than building a whole new railway line from Bedford - that section was years ago (up to the early 1980s) double-tracked anyway (apart from Newmarket tunnel).

Red Lodge is right next to the A11. I can remember when it was a few garages at the end of the Newmarket bypass.

So can I (I've lived in the Cambridge area since 1980).

In principle I like that idea, but it would require investment to allow the Cambridge-Ipswich trains to run more frequently than the current hourly service - and given the importance of the route to freight traffic, at least maintain current capacity for freight as well

Agreed - but with suitable signaling east of Chippenham Junction I'm sure the headways could be shorter than they are now, and for 'Cambridge commute' purposes any extra trains would probably only need to run as far as Bury.

To continue the growth of Cambridge extra investment is needed (and not just in transport), but some people on here seem to be suggesting that building EWR to Cambridge is critical to the future development of it. Nice to have, yes, but I'm not convinced it's essential for growth.

(...and I live on the east side of Cambridge, nowhere near any of the proposed EWR routes, so no personal 'Nimby' issues biasing my thinking)

 

[cle]

But that can be sorted out at way lower cost than building a whole new railway line from Bedford - that section was years ago (up to the early 1980s) double-tracked anyway (apart from Newmarket tunnel).

This should be addressed - even if the single section remains - the rest should be doubled. Many railways operate 2tph e/w services with short single sections, such as bridges or tunnels.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Look at what is happening with fracking, despite its unpopularity with Tory voters. EWR can also be pushed through in the same way, and it affects fewer constituencies than fracking

Big difference is that basically nobody wants fracking unless it's far away from them, whereas local authorities at least *do* want EWR.

Link below is the membership list of the East West Main Line Consortium (i.e. championing EWR in full). This includes 22 local authorities, who mostly will have written something supportive about EWR into their adopted Local Plans (if they have them).

About us - East West Main Line Partnership

Introduction The East West Main Line Partnership (formerly the East West Rail Consortium) consists of local authorities which share the ambition for a strategic railway connecting East Anglia with central, southern and western England and into southern Wales. Its technical work over the years...

www.eastwestrail.org.uk

To continue the growth of Cambridge extra investment is needed (and not just in transport), but some people on here seem to be suggesting that building EWR to Cambridge is critical to the future development of it. Nice to have, yes, but I'm not convinced it's essential for growth.

You may be right. However cancelling it to save money just shows a lack of seriousness about backing a fast-growing area that's bringing high quality jobs. You might not be convinced it's essential for growth, but Government has been saying the opposite for several years now.

At the end of the day, proceeding with EWR is a strategic choice i.e. need to answer Yes to these 3 Qs
- Is the Ox-Cam Arc the strategic priority of the Government?
- Does a rail link to Cambridge from the East strongly support this priority (i.e. stronger than alternatives)?
- Is the planned EWR the best infrastructure option to deliver this?

We can point at diverse sources going back many years, including 2019 Conservative Manifesto, 2021 documents on UK Government Website, and then various more recent pronouncements from Shapps and Gove that cast doubt on it. But frankly who knows as we have a completely different Government to the one we had a week ago, let alone the sunlit uplands of the Johnson Premiership.

The key learning point is therefore that recent UK Governments have been dire at delivering strategy. Because anything can be junked pretty much on a whim, wasting enormous amounts of time and money.

I've fully talked myself into the idea that EWR will be canned. D'oh!

 

[bspahh]

At the end of the day, proceeding with EWR is a strategic choice i.e. need to answer Yes to these 3 Qs
- Is the Ox-Cam Arc the strategic priority of the Government?
- Does a rail link to Cambridge from the East strongly support this priority (i.e. stronger than alternatives)?
- Is the planned EWR the best infrastructure option to deliver this?

We can point at diverse sources going back many years, including 2019 Conservative Manifesto, 2021 documents on UK Government Website, and then various more recent pronouncements from Shapps and Gove that cast doubt on it. But frankly who knows as we have a completely different Government to the one we had a week ago, let alone the sunlit uplands of the Johnson Premiership.

The key learning point is therefore that recent UK Governments have been dire at delivering strategy. Because anything can be junked pretty much on a whim, wasting enormous amounts of time and money.

I've fully talked myself into the idea that EWR will be canned. D'oh!

The government doesn't have any money to pay for a railway itself. However, if it wants GROWTH then they could fix planning laws to allow large numbers of houses to be built on both brownfield and greenfield sites, with a surcharge from the house builders to pay for the infrastructure.

The political problem with this is the gap when there are extremely cross NIMBYs and environmental campaigners, and no first time buyers in new houses. They would also struggle to get the workforce in place to actually build the stuff, particularly without migrant workers, and not just get to the point where it generates jobs after the recession is over.

This government has 2 years and I don't think that is time, or that they have the political skill, for them to sort this out, so I think the Bedford-Cambridge section will stay in the planning stage for a while yet.

 

[tspaul26]

Are you saying the only planned costs at this time are "(limited) project design and development costs."

Yes, that is what I’m saying.

If you exclude the sections that are already being built, there is no saving on the rest of the project between Bletchley and Cambridge because no funds have been committed to build it.

 

[Bald Rick]

I expect private sector financing to be part of the funding of the eastern end of East West Rail, both the existing big high tech companies (eg Astra Zeneca) and the housebuilding companies with land around Cambourne and St Neots.

private sector financing or funding?

The former has been ruled out by Governement, the latter is extremely unlikely.

 

[Basil Jet]

To continue the growth of Cambridge extra investment is needed (and not just in transport), but some people on here seem to be suggesting that building EWR to Cambridge is critical to the future development of it. Nice to have, yes, but I'm not convinced it's essential for growth.

(...and I live on the east side of Cambridge, nowhere near any of the proposed EWR routes, so no personal 'Nimby' issues biasing my thinking)

If all it's about is having some new commuter routes into Cambridge, the Sudbury - Haverhill - Shelford line looks fairly easy to reopen.

 

[Magdalia]

ut that can be sorted out at way lower cost than building a whole new railway line from Bedford - that section was years ago (up to the early 1980s) double-tracked anyway (apart from Newmarket tunnel).

I can remember double track between Coldham Lane and Newmarket too. Reinstating it would not be easy or cheap, though I concede not as expensive as EWR. But I doubt that it would deliver much extra capacity because of constraints at Cambridge and on the Haughley-Ely line. Also, the biggest growth is on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, which favours additional capacity coming in from the south.

private sector financing or funding?

The former has been ruled out by Governement, the latter is extremely unlikely.

This is a speculative discussion and I'm speculating!

Lots of things get ruled out by this government, and then get ruled back in again. Fracking and migration are examples.

What's happened in the past, and what's got us to where we are now, are no guide for the future. The only certainty is uncertainty.

I've fully talked myself into the idea that EWR will be canned. D'oh!

I'm still glass half full not glass half empty. The government has to convince the international bond and currency markets that it has a growth strategy. A big part of that is convincing the Office for Budget Responsibility of same, in time for the economic forecast due to be published on Hallowe'en. I shall be watching!

 

[ashkeba]

if it wants GROWTH then they could fix planning laws to allow large numbers of houses to be built on both brownfield and greenfield sites, with a surcharge from the house builders to pay for the infrastructure.

The political problem with this is the gap when there are extremely cross NIMBYs and environmental campaigners,

I think this government has loudly said they will ignore environmental campaigners and NIMBY as part of their imaginary anti growth caution.

A far bigger political problem is that they also dismiss charging companies for infrastructure as "nanny state" market interference. Unless it's charging companies to use rail infrastructure.

This also ignores that few markets exist without government having created the rules and regulators. It is a very strange.position for a mature political party.

 

[daodao]

I'm still glass half full not glass half empty.

@Magdalia

@Bald Rick & @A0wen usually have their ears close to the ground as to what will probably happen in terms of rail development, and neither think that EWR's extension east of Bedford is at all likely.

I think this government has loudly said they will ignore environmental campaigners and NIMBY as part of their imaginary anti growth caution.

Which government? There will be a new one in a week, with its strings pulled by the international money markets, and they won't support profligate capital expenditure on railways.

 

[Trainbike46]

@Magdalia

@Bald Rick & @A0wen usually have their ears close to the ground as to what will probably happen in terms of rail development, and neither think that EWR's extension east of Bedford is at all likely.

Really?

@Bald Rick comes across as clearly knowledgable and appears to have access to a lot of information, but @A0wen? They just seem to enjoy yelling at people for caring about the environment. They also seem to enjoy telling people that they're wrong in a rather rude manner, usually without actually providing any information. Do they have a lot posts that I've been missing where they are knowledgeable?

 

[Magdalia]

@Bald Rick & @A0wen usually have their ears close to the ground as to what will probably happen in terms of rail development, and neither think that EWR's extension east of Bedford is at all likely.

Whereas I'm following the development of macroeconomic policy very closely, and have my ear to the ground in Cambridge.

 

[cle]

This is a speculative discussion and I'm speculating!

This is a very fair point.

There are some posters who seem to exist in this self-appointed notion of policing realism, but actually just nit-pick, add nothing but negativity and trawl the threads with the sole purpose of shooting down others' speculative ideas. I don't include Bald Rick among them, to be clear.

This is supposed to be a forum of fans/hobbyists, and one would think - urbanists/progressives/pro-rail - and it should be fun, but there are a few miseries who feel their purpose is to police any ideas or speculations (again with those conditional words!) - which aren't in sync with the status quo. They should hang out in another sub-forum, this is for exactly that.

Calling someone a 'crayonista' for suggesting anything new or changing, is about as empty as crying 'woke'. It's a red flag for sure. Nobody is here fantasizing about drawing maps of swathes of new lines etc - we're talking more platform extensions, doubling/loops, new service patterns, additional frequencies etc - and many may not doable right now for various reasons, but they are still generally reasonable types of improvements grounded in reality. Have a day off.

 

[BrianW]

Really?

@Bald Rick comes across as clearly knowledgable and appears to have access to a lot of information, but @A0wen? They just seem to enjoy yelling at people for caring about the environment. They also seem to enjoy telling people that they're wrong in a rather rude manner, usually without actually providing any information. Do they have a lot posts that I've been missing where they are knowledgeable?

It took me a while (Years through covid) to 'acclimatise' to the range of opinions and the stridency of the opinion of some; and the 'electronic distance' adds to that. I'm a softee and took some criticism (crayonista etc) badly- I was 'advised' helpfully by a Moderator to recognise words of wisdom or experience as they might be considered. Bald Rick comes to mind. AOwen provides a, to my mind, necessary and valuable counter weight to many of the perhaps less well considered views. I support much of what he says. They can and do speak for themselves. Discussion/ debate/ consideration needs a range of views. History is littered wirh examples of unquestioned 'assumptions'. A Rail Forum may be expected to support rail use and development. Maybe, but we have to understand where opposition may come from, and hone our 'case'.

Decisions, esp on big projects, are often made by 'amateurs', and politicians need to get voted in by promising and implementing popular policies- ie what voters say they want- that's democracy and generally preferred to the alternatives.

Trainbike46- keep pressing on. say what you think- I do- and don't give up or give in. A bit like the pub as I recall pre-covid No fighting now ...

 

[Trainbike46]

It took me a while (Years through covid) to 'acclimatise' to the range of opinions and the stridency of the opinion of some; and the 'electronic distance' adds to that. I'm a softee and took some criticism (crayonista etc) badly- I was 'advised' helpfully by a Moderator to recognise words of wisdom or experience as they might be considered. Bald Rick comes to mind. AOwen provides a, to my mind, necessary and valuable counter weight to many of the perhaps less well considered views. I support much of what he says. They can and do speak for themselves. Discussion/ debate/ consideration needs a range of views. History is littered wirh examples of unquestioned 'assumptions'. A Rail Forum may be expected to support rail use and development. Maybe, but we have to understand where opposition may come from, and hone our 'case'.

Decisions, esp on big projects, are often made by 'amateurs', and politicians need to get voted in by promising and implementing popular policies- ie what voters say they want- that's democracy and generally preferred to the alternatives.

Trainbike46- keep pressing on. say what you think- I do- and don't give up or give in. A bit like the pub as I recall pre-covid No fighting now ...

Thank you for your reply.

I do really think a lot of people with who I disagree on a range of issues add really interesting and valuable insights, an example of this is Bald Rick occasionally, but there are many other posters to who this would apply, and clearly a range of opinions is needed to keep the forum interesting. Digital distance does regularly seem to contribute to misunderstandings on this forum, unfortunately; I've been on both sides of that happening.

Don't worry I'll keep adding my voice where I believe I could add something to the discussion!

 

[BrianW]

Thank you for your reply.

I do really think a lot of people with who I disagree on a range of issues add really interesting and valuable insights, an example of this is Bald Rick occasionally, but there are many other posters to who this would apply, and clearly a range of opinions is needed to keep the forum interesting. Digital distance does regularly seem to contribute to misunderstandings on this forum, unfortunately; I've been on both sides of that happening.

Don't worry I'll keep adding my voice where I believe I could add something to the discussion!

 

[Bald Rick]

I’ve got a Ready-Brek warm glow reading this thread, thank you

There are some posters who seem to exist in this self-appointed notion of policing realism, but actually just nit-pick, add nothing but negativity and trawl the threads with the sole purpose of shooting down others' speculativeideas. I don't include Bald Rick among them, to be clear.

I must try harder


Back on topic. I could never see the case for east of Bedford, and was (frankly) surprised when it got as far as it did. In the current climate I think the chances of it happening have fallen considerably. Although I wouldn’t say it’s dead yet.

 

[A0]

Really?

@Bald Rick comes across as clearly knowledgable and appears to have access to a lot of information, but @A0wen? They just seem to enjoy yelling at people for caring about the environment. They also seem to enjoy telling people that they're wrong in a rather rude manner, usually without actually providing any information. Do they have a lot posts that I've been missing where they are knowledgeable?

Why thank you for your kind words, much appreciated.

I take a balanced view on things, looking at the pros and cons.

Where EWR is concerned, there is a clear case for linking MK to Oxford and the Thames Valley - they've long been linked geographically and there is much development to support this.

Linking Oxford - Cambridge seems to be less convincing. So there are 2 leading universities at those places, that doesn't automatically mean there is a demand to travel between them.

If the argument is "Well there are all the bio-science industries locating to Cambridge, what aboutvthe academics from other places who might need to get there" - let's look at the Top 10 Universities for Bio-Science in the UK:

1 - Oxford
2 - St Andrew's
3 - UCL
4 - Loughborough
5 - Edinburgh
6 - Sheffield
7 - Strathclyde
8 - Birmingham
9 - Lancaster
10 - Southampton

By my reckoning only UCL and Birmingham have a direct rail link to Cambridge. EWR would only add Oxford. That leaves 7 of the 10 without a direct link to Cambridge.

Then you look at the area east of MK - the Marston Vale line is lightly used. Between Bedford and Cambridge you have a couple of small market towns which EWR might serve depending on the final route - Sandy, Tempsford or St Neots. If you want to improve public transport between those places and Cambridge there are vastly cheaper ways of doing it than spending £ 1.5bn on a railway line e.g. Wyboston - Cambridge is about 20 miles, the 16 mile St Ives busway cost £150m in 2010, which is about £ 215m in 2022 prices. Add 25% to cover the extra distance and you could build another busway for less than 1/3rd of the cost of building a railway from Bedford to Cambridge, you'd have more flexibility about destinations in that buses could run onto Bedford or Sandy or St Neots or Biggleswade or wherever else.

But, as ever, there was a railway there once which has mythical status as having been unjustly closed by nefarious politicians and therefore full restoration is the only option.

 

[Magdalia]

Linking Oxford - Cambridge seems to be less convincing. So there are 2 leading universities at those places, that doesn't automatically mean there is a demand to travel between them.

EWR has never been only about linking Oxford and Cambridge. It was the growth agenda before most people were talking about it. The OxCam arc is about clusters of high tech businesses all the way along the route, linking businesses that don't exist yet, and providing homes for their employees to live along the way.

That vision got blurred with levelling up, and has now come back into focus.

But what's changed since EWR was first proposed is the overheating of the Cambridge economy, including the proposals to put two new major regional hospitals on the Biomedical Campus. EWR is needed as a commuter railway into Cambridge from Cambourne and St Neots. It is the only proposition on the table providing sufficient capacity to move lots more people in and out of Cambridge in the quantities that are now required. All the nonsense about buses doesn't cut it, buses don't move enough people and require too many staff. And, however many roads get built, there's no room for more traffic once it reaches the edge of Cambridge.

On top of that, what's changed in the last few weeks is that the UK's economic stability, and ability to borrow on international markets, has become dependent on having a coherent strategy for economic growth. A strategy for growth that does not include EWR is unlikely to look very convincing. Traders in international markets may have a limited understanding of the UK economy, but nearly all of them will know about Oxford and Cambridge.

 

[A0]

EWR has never been only about linking Oxford and Cambridge. It was the growth agenda before most people were talking about it. The OxCam arc is about clusters of high tech businesses all the way along the route, linking businesses that don't exist yet, and providing homes for their employees to live along the way.

That vision got blurred with levelling up, and has now come back into focus.

But what's changed since EWR was first proposed is the overheating of the Cambridge economy, including the proposals to put two new major regional hospitals on the Biomedical Campus. EWR is needed as a commuter railway into Cambridge from Cambourne and St Neots. It is the only proposition on the table providing sufficient capacity to move lots more people in and out of Cambridge in the quantities that are now required. All the nonsense about buses doesn't cut it, buses don't move enough people and require too many staff. And, however many roads get built, there's no room for more traffic once it reaches the edge of Cambridge.

On top of that, what's changed in the last few weeks is that the UK's economic stability, and ability to borrow on international markets, has become dependent on having a coherent strategy for economic growth. A strategy for growth that does not include EWR is unlikely to look very convincing. Traders in international markets may have a limited understanding of the UK economy, but nearly all of them will know about Oxford and Cambridge.

Bit in bold If that's the need then a busway would be deliverable at a fraction of the cost and would offer far more flexibility as the St Ives busway has already shown.

The existing busway had, pre Covid, about 11,000 a day using it - compare that to St Neots station (1.32m / p.a. in 2018/19 so even if you divide that down by 260 - 365 days less 104 weekend days - you're only seeing a use of about 5k.

Huntingdon station only had about 1.7m in 2018/19 - so still nowhere near the busway on an average day.

This spurious claim that "buses don't move enough people " is totally wrong.

As for the claim "uses don't move enough people and require too many staff." - an average double decker bus seats about 70 people, the Busway manages to send 6 of those an hour towards Cambridge, that's almost 500 people - a 3 car Class 170 only seats about 200 people. Even a 4 car class 350 in 3+2 seating only seats just under 300. And a railway line is unlikely to run more than 2tph - not least because of capacity constraints on other parts of the route.

Whilst buses may need more staff i.e. drivers, it's worth remembering the average bus driver's salary is about £ 25k, the average train driver's salary is double that. And a bus can be run with only one member of staff on board, whereas most (not all) trains run with at least 2. That's before you then add in the cost of station staff, signallers, PW and other costs. The bus industry is far more cost efficient than the rail industry.

 

[BrianW]

Bit in bold If that's the need then a busway would be deliverable at a fraction of the cost and would offer far more flexibility as the St Ives busway has already shown.

The existing busway had, pre Covid, about 11,000 a day using it - compare that to St Neots station (1.32m / p.a. in 2018/19 so even if you divide that down by 260 - 365 days less 104 weekend days - you're only seeing a use of about 5k.

Huntingdon station only had about 1.7m in 2018/19 - so still nowhere near the busway on an average day.

This spurious claim that "buses don't move enough people " is totally wrong.

As for the claim "uses don't move enough people and require too many staff." - an average double decker bus seats about 70 people, the Busway manages to send 6 of those an hour towards Cambridge, that's almost 500 people - a 3 car Class 170 only seats about 200 people. Even a 4 car class 350 in 3+2 seating only seats just under 300. And a railway line is unlikely to run more than 2tph - not least because of capacity constraints on other parts of the route.

Whilst buses may need more staff i.e. drivers, it's worth remembering the average bus driver's salary is about £ 25k, the average train driver's salary is double that. And a bus can be run with only one member of staff on board, whereas most (not all) trains run with at least 2. That's before you then add in the cost of station staff, signallers, PW and other costs. The bus industry is far more cost efficient than the rail industry.

A piece of 'balance' that the 'rail lobby' needs to be able to deal with if it is to sustain support. The bottom line is a bottom line even in the triple bottom line.

 

[Trainbike46]

Bit in bold If that's the need then a busway would be deliverable at a fraction of the cost and would offer far more flexibility as the St Ives busway has already shown.

The existing busway had, pre Covid, about 11,000 a day using it - compare that to St Neots station (1.32m / p.a. in 2018/19 so even if you divide that down by 260 - 365 days less 104 weekend days - you're only seeing a use of about 5k.

Huntingdon station only had about 1.7m in 2018/19 - so still nowhere near the busway on an average day.

Comparing the passenger numbers of a single station with the entire busway (which serves a range of places) isn't entirely fair; a better comparison would be the busway with a railway line.

you also seem to conveniently forget the issues with the busway, which have led to part of it being out of service for a long time

This spurious claim that "buses don't move enough people " is totally wrong.

As for the claim "uses don't move enough people and require too many staff." - an average double decker bus seats about 70 people, the Busway manages to send 6 of those an hour towards Cambridge, that's almost 500 people - a 3 car Class 170 only seats about 200 people. Even a 4 car class 350 in 3+2 seating only seats just under 300. And a railway line is unlikely to run more than 2tph - not least because of capacity constraints on other parts of the route.

Whilst buses may need more staff i.e. drivers, it's worth remembering the average bus driver's salary is about £ 25k, the average train driver's salary is double that. And a bus can be run with only one member of staff on board, whereas most (not all) trains run with at least 2. That's before you then add in the cost of station staff, signallers, PW and other costs. The bus industry is far more cost efficient than the rail industry.

The problem with requiring too many staff isn't so much in cost. It's that Cambridge and surroundings are already so short of bus drivers that many existing bus routes have either had their frequency reduced or have been suspended alltogether. - Until that issue is solved there simply is no scope for new busroutes, specifically not ones that would have to move a lot of people like you proposed busway, as there are no drivers to run these extra services

It is also important to note that the cambridgeshire busway is currently under investigation by the health and safety executive;

I like the busway, but it would be wrong to pretend it is without serious flaws

 

[A0]

Comparing the passenger numbers of a single station with the entire busway (which serves a range of places) isn't entirely fair; a better comparison would be the busway with a railway line.

I did actually mention Huntingdon as well. But if you added Sandy, St Neots and Huntingdon together their station usage is still lower than the Busway on a single year.

you also seem to conveniently forget the issues with the busway, which have led to part of it being out of service for a long time

Perhaps you could elaborate ? There was one closure recently *on a new section* which wasn't for very long. Rail has had similar infrastructure issues which have lead to closures. I'm willing to bet the ECML has had more days of closure or diversion due to infrastructure failures on an average year since the busway opened than the busway has.

The problem with requiring too many staff isn't so much in cost. It's that Cambridge and surroundings are already so short of bus drivers that many existing bus routes have either had their frequency reduced or have been suspended alltogether. - Until that issue is solved there simply is no scope for new busroutes, specifically not ones that would have to move a lot of people like you proposed busway, as there are no drivers to run these extra services

Not quite the same though - the routes which are being cut are often village routes. It was @Magdalia who stated EWR was needed to provide a commuter link between St Neots, Cambourne and Cambridge. If you're saying buses aren't viable then a new rail line definitely won't be.

It is also important to note that the cambridgeshire busway is currently under investigation by the health and safety executive;

Due to the death of a cyclist https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/busway-crash-hse-cyclist-dies-15168450 - there don't appear to be any other investigations under way. And the only reason it's being investigated by the HSE is (quote from the article) because the guided busway is not considered a road, and therefore falls under HSE authority. Had the cyclist been hit and killed on a main road, the HSE wouldn't have been involved and it would have been a police matter. So there's nothing sinister in this, the HSE haven't proactively called for an investigation, it's not due to a report by a whistleblower. It's just a legislative thing.

Interestingly this article https://road.cc/content/news/family-says-authorities-arent-really-bothered-cyclist-died-278905 describes the accident as follows:

"On September 13, 2018, Moir was riding home to Sawston from Cambridge on a section of the cycle track between Long Road and Cambridge's railway station when he attempted to pass a group of pedestrians.

As he steered left, his front wheel clipped the kerb between the path and the busway and he fell directly into a bus’s path. He died at the scene."

If that's the case, then it sounds like a tragic accident - nothing more, nothing less. Cyclists hit kerbs on a daily basis, sometimes, unfortunately, with fatal consequences.

 

[RT4038]

Whilst buses may need more staff i.e. drivers, it's worth remembering the average bus driver's salary is about £ 25k, the average train driver's salary is double that. And a bus can be run with only one member of staff on board, whereas most (not all) trains run with at least 2. That's before you then add in the cost of station staff, signallers, PW and other costs. The bus industry is far more cost efficient than the rail industry.

It is clear that bus drivers' salaries at £25k no longer attract a sufficient quantity of suitable applicants, so I suspect that £30k is more like the going rate (if not more in some areas). However, this still probably means (including productivity) 2 bus drivers for each train driver.

The bus industry is far more cost efficient than the rail industry.

This is a bit of a sweeping statement. I would suggest that this depends entirely on the application. Buses are not at all efficient at moving 800 people at once over longer distances. However, in the case of Bedford-St Neots-Cambridge the number of passengers is not likely to be anywhere near that and it is quite possible that buses would be more convenient and cost effective for the diffuse journey origin and destinations over relatively short distances.

I do not doubt that 3-4 carriage trains will be full during peak hours some years down the line after opening. Off peak services will probably not be anything like as busy. Bearing in mind that probably full 8-10 car trains are required in the peaks for the line to be profitable, it is quite likely that subsidies are going to be required for a very long time. Whether more loss making railways should be built as opposed to more cost effective solutions is up for debate.

 

[BrianW]

It is clear that bus drivers' salaries at £25k no longer attract a sufficient quantity of suitable applicants, so I suspect that £30k is more like the going rate (if not more in some areas). However, this still probably means (including productivity) 2 bus drivers for each train driver.



This is a bit of a sweeping statement. I would suggest that this depends entirely on the application. Buses are not at all efficient at moving 800 people at once over longer distances. However, in the case of Bedford-St Neots-Cambridge the number of passengers is not likely to be anywhere near that and it is quite possible that buses would be more convenient and cost effective for the diffuse journey origin and destinations over relatively short distances.

I do not doubt that 3-4 carriage trains will be full during peak hours some years down the line after opening. Off peak services will probably not be anything like as busy. Bearing in mind that probably full 8-10 car trains are required in the peaks for the line to be profitable, it is quite likely that subsidies are going to be required for a very long time. Whether more loss making railways should be built as opposed to more cost effective solutions is up for debate.

Will there be more or fewer(potential?) drivers next year? In two years time? 2030? a projection/ forecast/ guess.
The current government has been pushing greater automation- the tech is there- to insufficient effect.
Whatever jobs people are doing they are more attractive than driving- is that going to change?
Anyone developing Cambridge Starships?

 

[bspahh]

Bit in bold If that's the need then a busway would be deliverable at a fraction of the cost and would offer far more flexibility as the St Ives busway has already shown.

There are three broad groups of users for the Bedford-Cambridge line:

1. People travelling from Oxford to Cambridge. There will be some of these, but for occasional journeys, driving or getting a train via London is an option.

If the only reason for building the full East-West railway is so that professors can travel back and forth between Oxford and Cambridge, it would be cheaper, and more environmentally friendly, to arrange free limousines and on demand helicopters for all them.

2. Local commuters.
Buses and busways might work for these. You could pay substantial salaries for lots of bus drivers, for the cost of building a railway, but there would need to be a lot more of them. Stagecoach dropping a load of bus routes in Cambridgeshire is not helpful if you want people to rely on buses for commuting.

3. Long distance commuters.
Oxford and Cambridge have lots of science and technology jobs, which are often highly specialised. In a PhD, you learn more and more about less and less, until you know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing. This is a problem if you then want a career where you can switch jobs without having to move house, and uproot your family. Its even more of a problem if your partner also has a specialised career.

The reason why Oxford and Cambridge are hubs, is that they can attract staff from all around Europe, as it means that you have a better chance of being able to change jobs, without major upheaval.

At the moment, the Oxford and Cambridge areas are pretty much independent. If you had a couple where one person works in the Oxford area, and another in and around Cambridge, then you could either live in London and both commute by train, or somewhere like Milton Keynes and drive. London is expensive, particularly for places that are convenient to commute to both the North and West, before you add on the travelling costs. Driving for a long commute is hard, and is particularly unappealing for European staff if they are not used to right hand drive cars.

With a full East-West rail link, both could get the train. There then needs to be onward connections to the various workplaces, but that is another problem.

It will be hard to measure the effects of infrastructure like this, as making long distance commuting a possibility is like an insurance policy, which people would rather not have to actually use. However, I think its important if the UK is going to keep being an attractive location for new science and technology companies.

 

[RT4038]

2. Local commuters.
Buses and busways might work for these. You could pay substantial salaries for lots of bus drivers, for the cost of building a railway, but there would need to be a lot more of them. Stagecoach dropping a load of bus routes in Cambridgeshire is not helpful if you want people to rely on buses for commuting.

.

If bus commuters got a fraction of the subsidies that train passengers do, particularly those on local trains which Bedford-Cambridge will be, there would not be any dropping of a load of bus routes in Cambridgeshire, or anywhere else for that matter.

3. Long distance commuters.
Oxford and Cambridge have lots of science and technology jobs, which are often highly specialised. In a PhD, you learn more and more about less and less, until you know absolutely everything about absolutely nothing. This is a problem if you then want a career where you can switch jobs without having to move house, and uproot your family. Its even more of a problem if your partner also has a specialised career.

The reason why Oxford and Cambridge are hubs, is that they can attract staff from all around Europe, as it means that you have a better chance of being able to change jobs, without major upheaval.

At the moment, the Oxford and Cambridge areas are pretty much independent. If you had a couple where one person works in the Oxford area, and another in and around Cambridge, then you could either live in London and both commute by train, or somewhere like Milton Keynes and drive. London is expensive, particularly for places that are convenient to commute to both the North and West, before you add on the travelling costs. Driving for a long commute is hard, and is particularly unappealing for European staff if they are not used to right hand drive cars.

With a full East-West rail link, both could get the train. There then needs to be onward connections to the various workplaces, but that is another problem.

It will be hard to measure the effects of infrastructure like this, as making long distance commuting a possibility is like an insurance policy, which people would rather not have to actually use. However, I think its important if the UK is going to keep being an attractive location for new science and technology companies.

However, this rail link seems a lot of money being spent (on the capital cost and ongoing operating subsidies) on people who will be on high salaries anyway.

 

[JonathanH]

EWR is needed as a commuter railway into Cambridge from Cambourne and St Neots.

The weirdest thing about that is whether development of Cambourne and St Neots as commuter locations for Cambridge is more important than Royston, Stevenage, Newmarket, Bishops Stortford, Ely, March, Thetford and other places of commutable distance on the existing railway, maybe even Haverhill as somewhere served by bus.

In particular, some of these corridors have short trains and limited track capacity.

 

[bspahh]

However, this rail link seems a lot of money being spent (on the capital cost and ongoing operating subsidies) on people who will be on high salaries anyway.

At the moment, there is lots of talk and not much money being spent on this bit of railway.

There are a few scientists on high salaries. There a lot more on above average salaries, but not enough to live like a king in Cambridge. They are economic migrants. If you make it expensive for them to live here, then the companies will relocate somewhere else, and the UK economy will lose their income. Its a particular problem for people who can work remotely, if daily commuting is a hassle, then working remotely, might mean not being in the UK, and again not paying UK taxes.

The weirdest thing about that is whether development of Cambourne and St Neots as commuter locations for Cambridge is more important than Royston, Stevenage, Newmarket, Bishops Stortford, Ely, March, Thetford and other places of commutable distance on the existing railway, maybe even Haverhill as somewhere served by bus.

I moved to Cambridge about the turn of the century, and then on a scientist's salary, I was able to afford a nice place in a nasty bit of Cambridge, a nasty house in a nice bit of Cambridge, or a nice house in a nice bit of Ely. People on a similar grade nowadays now need 2 incomes and to commute from Downham Market for the equivalent place. The commuting time by train isn't that much more on a good day, but if there is any disruption, its much worse.

 

[A0]

I moved to Cambridge about the turn of the century, and then on a scientist's salary, I was able to afford a nice place in a nasty bit of Cambridge, a nasty house in a nice bit of Cambridge, or a nice house in a nice bit of Ely. People on a similar grade nowadays now need 2 incomes and to commute from Downham Market for the equivalent place. The commuting time by train isn't that much more on a good day, but if there is any disruption, its much worse.

Bit in bold - that's true of a lot of places though.

The question is whether St Neots and Cambourne will generate enough traffic to justify the Eastern section of EWR which will be something around 20 miles and likely cost of at least £ 40m / mile, so £ 0.8bn, before you've even run a single train on it.

If enabling effective commuting from those areas to Cambridge is the key requirement, then other options should be looked at - and the St Ives busway would seem to be a good example an equivalent scheme would probably cost half the railway and have more flexibility, more frequent services, cost less to operate and can serve more places en route.