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

[cle]

Tech jobs are broader than just lab scientists. There is also a huge medical community there too. And yes there are a lot of high salaries in Cambridge, but then medium and lower ones supporting those.

It's about as simplistic as talking about connecting the universities. It's supporting growth industries and sectors - few and far between these days - and supporting non-London places which show growth. Again, not swimming in them. But no coincidence they are attractive, walkable, cycle-able places with good universities and rich history.

Ironically Cambridge has a good commuter network, it maybe isn't seen as such. But the semi-fast and slow trains to London - also return to Cambridge - and that is two frequent lines down to Hitchin and to Harlow which are in the viable commuting zone into Cambridge. It's the Anglia lines which aren't frequent (or long, or electric) - other than up to Kings Lynn. Development should be encouraged along those corridors first, vs satellite villages which aren't on rail (or busway).

 

[Trainbike46]

Ironically Cambridge has a good commuter network, it maybe isn't seen as such. But the semi-fast and slow trains to London - also return to Cambridge - and that is two frequent lines down to Hitchin and to Harlow which are in the viable commuting zone into Cambridge. It's the Anglia lines which aren't frequent (or long, or electric) - other than up to Kings Lynn. Development should be encouraged along those corridors first, vs satellite villages which aren't on rail (or busway).

Most people I know in cambridge who opted to commute picked places like Ely up to King's Lynn, the towns on the WAML in Essex, or the places between Hitchin and Cambridge on the railway to live in and commute from

 

[cle]

Most people I know in cambridge who opted to commute picked places like Ely up to King's Lynn, the towns on the WAML in Essex, or the places between Hitchin and Cambridge on the railway to live in and commute from

Makes sense.

Might be quite funny to see line maps and so on from a Cambridge-centric POV (even though its higher frequency commuter network is just the extremities of the London-centric network!) - and have those in the area. Might make people see the Cambridge network potential differently. The likes of Audley End and Whittlesford have 3tph and Royston/Baldock have 4tph. Pretty decent. Ely of course is very well served too.

Whereas 2-3 car diesels to Newmarket and Ipswich and along to Norwich and Peterborough just aren't as compelling. I wish they could be, but the London lines are the better bets.

 

[Magdalia]

an average double decker bus seats about 70 people, the Busway manages to send 6 of those an hour towards Cambridge

Fewer than half of busway services are double decker. In particular, the southern end, the bit that leads to the Biomedical Campus, is single deckers only because of the height of Hills Road bridge. One of Stagecoach's new double deckers was decapitated at that bridge when only a few weeks old.

There was one closure recently *on a new section* which wasn't for very long.

Due to the death of a cyclist

There have been two fatalities, a pedestrian was also killed almost exactly a year ago. The northbound track between Trumpington and the main railway station, not a new section, was closed in January 2022 and is still closed now.

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.

By 2030 there will be five hospitals on the Biomedical Campus, employing thousands of nurses, porters, cleaners, cooks, clinic receptionists etc. They are not on high salaries.

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.

People doing hospital jobs mostly cannot work from home. Neither can laboratory scientists using specialist equipment and/or dangerous substances.

 

[Trainbike46]

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 closure of the southern section (between trumpington, the hospitals and the railway station) (which has opened and closed a few times, including for months at a time, as well as having been 1 direction only for at least a long period) over safety issues is what I was primarily referring to, however the section near Cambridge north has also had long closures of at least 1 month at a time. As far as I'm aware that doesn't happen on the ECML, or any railway really

Not that any of those points mean busways can't be the right solution, I did however feel that you were being to positive about a busway option and some balance was needed

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.

I'm saying there are not enough bus drivers to transport the, predictably large, number of people who would need to use the service.


EWR would improve travel connections for both Bedford and Cambridge, while connecting new places (primarily cambourne) to the railway network, and providing more commuting options for the many workers in the 5 hospitals cambridge will have soon.

In addition, some of the patients for these hospitals will also have another option to travel there

 

[A0]

The closure of the southern section (between trumpington, the hospitals and the railway station) (which has opened and closed a few times, including for months at a time, as well as having been 1 direction only for at least a long period) over safety issues is what I was primarily referring to, however the section near Cambridge north has also had long closures of at least 1 month at a time. As far as I'm aware that doesn't happen on the ECML, or any railway really

Not that any of those points mean busways can't be the right solution, I did however feel that you were being to positive about a busway option and some balance was needed

I'm saying there are not enough bus drivers to transport the, predictably large, number of people who would need to use the service.


EWR would improve travel connections for both Bedford and Cambridge, while connecting new places (primarily cambourne) to the railway network, and providing more commuting options for the many workers in the 5 hospitals cambridge will have soon.

In addition, some of the patients for these hospitals will also have another option to travel there

Bit in bold - there are also a shortage of train drivers - see Avanti. And it takes longer and costs more in training for a train driver over a bus driver. That's before the ongoing costs of running a train are much higher.

Rail subsidies are around £5bn a year, buses receive less than half that and provide more services and carry more passengers. Adding another rail which won't cover its costs doesn't help that, not least because the capital costs of building it will be high.

 

[Magdalia]

Rail subsidies are around £5bn a year, buses receive less than half that and provide more services and carry more passengers. Adding another rail which won't cover its costs doesn't help that, not least because the capital costs of building it will be high.

But rail can and will help to unlock constraints on high productivity economic development, helping to contribute to higher economic growth. Buses will never do that.

 

[A0]

But rail can and will help to unlock constraints on high productivity economic development, helping to contribute to higher economic growth. Buses will never do that.

*Any* decent transport system will do that. The differences tend to be about the volumes that need to travel and the distances - so whilst what you say may be true for long distances or cities with high populations where large numbers need to travel, Cambridge isn't a large city. And if, as you previously stated the key is commuting from St Neots or Cambourne, they're not large places either - comparable to Huntingdon or St Ives - and those are linked to Cambridge..... by a busway.

The reality is the demands for travel are changing with fewer people commuting but more travelling for leisure.

 

[Magdalia]

*Any* decent transport system will do that. The differences tend to be about the volumes that need to travel and the distances - so whilst what you say may be true for long distances or cities with high populations where large numbers need to travel, Cambridge isn't a large city. And if, as you previously stated the key is commuting from St Neots or Cambourne, they're not large places either - comparable to Huntingdon or St Ives - and those are linked to Cambridge..... by a busway.

The reality is the demands for travel are changing with fewer people commuting but more travelling for leisure.

No, in Cambridge, although there is a bit of modal shift to the busway, it is not transformational economically.

This is not about how big Cambridge, Cambourne and St Neots are now, it is how big they can be in 20 years time. The populations of Cambridge, Peterborough and Bedford have already grown by 15% in the last 10 years. If they grow by 3% per year for the next 20 years that will be 80% growth over the 20 year period.

And Cambridge is already much more significant economically than its size in terms of area or population. Nobody would say that the City of London did not need trains because it covered a small area and only a few people live there.

As I've explained many times before, generalised changes in travel patterns are irrelevant here, the situation in Cambridge is unique and needs a unique solution.

 

[A0]

As I've explained many times before, generalised changes in travel patterns are irrelevant here, the situation in Cambridge is unique and needs a unique solution.

So not a suburban railway as seen in Lomdon, Manchester, West Midlands, Bristol - because that's all EWR is / will be.

 

[70014IronDuke]

*Any* decent transport system will do that. The differences tend to be about the volumes that need to travel and the distances - so whilst what you say may be true for long distances or cities with high populations where large numbers need to travel, Cambridge isn't a large city. And if, as you previously stated the key is commuting from St Neots or Cambourne, they're not large places either - comparable to Huntingdon or St Ives - and those are linked to Cambridge..... by a busway.

The reality is the demands for travel are changing with fewer people commuting but more travelling for leisure.

That's true, but travel needs are not always directly connected to population size. As someone posted here on another thread - Edinburgh sees far more demand than Glasgow, at least for long distance travel. OK, you will say E-W rail is not designed for long distance travel - but the point is, because of its universities, IT-medical hub status, conference and general tourism attractions, it will attract far more transport demand than, say, Blackburn, Halifax or Doncaster on a per capita population basis.

Also, people are playing down the idea of much long-distance, Oxford - Cambridge through passenger traffic. OK, I would not predict such demand will be huge if and when the entire E-W route is built, but it will exist. I know someone (now deceased) who used to use the line for exactly for that back in the 60s - when there were just 1-2-3 trains per day that did the whole trip. And she came from Reading - but she would rather do that than traipse through London. People like direct trains, even if they may not always be so fast.

 

[zwk500]

That's true, but travel needs are not always directly connected to population size. As someone posted here on another thread - Edinburgh sees far more demand than Glasgow, at least for long distance travel. OK, you will say E-W rail is not designed for long distance travel - but the point is, because of its universities, IT-medical hub status, conference and general tourism attractions, it will attract far more transport demand than, say, Blackburn, Halifax or Doncaster on a per capita population basis.

This is a good point.

Also, people are playing down the idea of much long-distance, Oxford - Cambridge through passenger traffic. OK, I would not predict such demand will be huge if and when the entire E-W route is built, but it will exist. I know someone (now deceased) who used to use the line for exactly for that back in the 60s - when there were just 1-2-3 trains per day that did the whole trip. And she came from Reading - but she would rather do that than traipse through London. People like direct trains, even if they may not always be so fast.

With the deepest respect, this example is hardly a justification to build an entire rail line. People who want a direct train and will purposefully avoid London are a small enough group unless there is a particular reason (such as bulky luggage for an airport), and regrettably people who are deceased are unable to contribute to the ridership. However much people might desire a more direct train from Reading to Cambridge, or Ely to Swindon, options do already exist for them. Nobody denies somebody will use the line over it's full length. The discussion is about whether enough people will want to use the section between Bedford and Cambridge for any journey as to make it worthwhile spending a couple of hundred million pounds or more on a new line. Traffic from Oxford (or beyond) to Cambridge (or beyond) is unlikely to be statistically significant in the final accounting.

 

[cle]

It’s been modelled in the last few years to have been worth developing. I don’t see why we are questioning that.

The question is, now, is it worth it based on the more recent economic issues - post-pandemic travel patterns, budget holes, inflation, recession etc - and then overlaying these short/medium term considerations with the life span of a railway.

But clearly it was once deemed worth it (in this iteration of the EWR project).

And another element is - what could be done to make it more useful and more bang for the buck? Which points back to capacity projects at Cambridge and Ely. regarding capacity.

 

[A0]

It’s been modelled in the last few years to have been worth developing. I don’t see why we are questioning that.

Well, not quite.

Such processes have several stages to go through. If this one had been as 'cut and dry' as you make it out to be, then we'd have shovels on the ground now. Whereas the reality is it has passed some of the early stages - no guarantee it would have passed all the remaining ones even pre Covid.

 

[A0]

This is a good point.

With the deepest respect, this example is hardly a justification to build an entire rail line. People who want a direct train and will purposefully avoid London are a small enough group unless there is a particular reason (such as bulky luggage for an airport), and regrettably people who are deceased are unable to contribute to the ridership. However much people might desire a more direct train from Reading to Cambridge, or Ely to Swindon, options do already exist for them. Nobody denies somebody will use the line over it's full length. The discussion is about whether enough people will want to use the section between Bedford and Cambridge for any journey as to make it worthwhile spending a couple of hundred million pounds or more on a new line. Traffic from Oxford (or beyond) to Cambridge (or beyond) is unlikely to be statistically significant in the final accounting.

Bit in bold - indeed and the recent opening of Crossrail actually improves that (Cambridge - Reading) by eliminating the need for 2 changes in London. Instead anyone wishing to make that journey can now do so with a single change at either Farringdon or Liverpool Street.

 

[mr_jrt]

One thing that people seem to neglect to consider is that whilst yes, passengers could go via London, the radial routes and zone 1 connections are heavily congested, so if you can relieve them by convincing passengers to use the orbital option then you might be able to handle growth on those radial routes and in zone 1 that you otherwise mightn't without very, very expensive and disruptive interventions (i.e. building new tracks all the way into central London). Yes EWR is eyewateringly expensive, but it's pocket change compared to adding new radial capacity all the way to London.

 

[zwk500]

One thing that people seem to neglect to consider is that whilst yes, passengers could go via London, the radial routes and zone 1 connections are heavily congested, so if you can relieve them by convincing passengers to use the orbital option then you might be able to handle growth on those radial routes and in zone 1 that you otherwise mightn't without very, very expensive and disruptive interventions (i.e. building new tracks all the way into central London). Yes EWR is eyewateringly expensive, but it's pocket change compared to adding new radial capacity all the way to London.

Which journeys are you thinking of where people could reasonably be convinced to switch from the radial routes to EWR?

 

[Magdalia]

East West Rail is not about modal shift of existing journeys. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the economic transformation that can be achieved by clusters of high productivity businesses bursting into life all the way along the route, linked to the universities at Cambridge and Oxford.

In the short term that's new employment in Cambridge itself, and homes for the workers in Cambourne and St Neots.

In the 20-30 year timescale it is about economic growth: look at how the City of London and Docklands have changed in the last 30 years since financial deregulation. The transformation of the OxCam arc will be as dramatic as that if EWR is built, starting at Cambridge and working its way outwards. Think of it as the Jubilee Line extension, the Docklands Light Railway and more. If EWR is not built that transformation will be strangled to death by lack of people and lack of connectivity.

 

[fishwomp]

Which journeys are you thinking of where people could reasonably be convinced to switch from the radial routes to EWR?

I was saying similar things last week - Oxford getting access to Milton Keynes for some WCML and MML destinations; a well-connected connection to ECML, would all be useful.. for Cambridge, WCML gets closer.

Cambridge-Brum is fairly slow today too (2h40) - this is already an example of an orbital route, I think it might be that all journeys south of Leicester (exclusive) and north of Luton (Inc) on MML and all WCML journeys north of Watford Jct are improved except probably Glasgow and Carstairs that would more quickly be reached via ECML and existing Peterborough services.

The other benefits are the journeys today that currently only make sense by car.. it'd be bonkers to use a train from Cambridge to Luton (1h drive, 1h45 train today), Oxford-Luton (1h30 drive, 1h50 train) look good examples.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

East West Rail is not about modal shift of existing journeys. That's a drop in the bucket compared to the economic transformation that can be achieved by clusters of high productivity businesses bursting into life all the way along the route, linked to the universities at Cambridge and Oxford.

In the short term that's new employment in Cambridge itself, and homes for the workers in Cambourne and St Neots.

In the 20-30 year timescale it is about economic growth: look at how the City of London and Docklands have changed in the last 30 years since financial deregulation. The transformation of the OxCam arc will be as dramatic as that if EWR is built, starting at Cambridge and working its way outwards. Think of it as the Jubilee Line extension, the Docklands Light Railway and more. If EWR is not built that transformation will be strangled to death by lack of people and lack of connectivity.

Indeed would have better payback than HS2 ever will over increasing economic activity per pound invested but its not a vanity project like HS2 so sadly will unlikely be built unless the fortunes of this country change anytime soon.

 

[Arkeeos]

In the 20-30 year timescale it is about economic growth: look at how the City of London and Docklands have changed in the last 30 years since financial deregulation. The transformation of the OxCam arc will be as dramatic as that if EWR is built, starting at Cambridge and working its way outwards. Think of it as the Jubilee Line extension, the Docklands Light Railway and more. If EWR is not built that transformation will be strangled to death by lack of people and lack of connectivity.

Agreed, Are we really doubting that connecting 2 of the best and most sought after universities in the world in 2 of the UKs most productive cities which are also fast growing, would ever be a bad investment?

I feel like you can't be serious and doubt the obvious business case here, It gets to a point where by sheer agglomeration effect and guaranteed growth, it is impossible to make a bad investment increasing transport links between those 2 centres.

 

[BrianW]

EWR also has to compete for attention, support and funds against those Red-wallers deprived of those things for YEARS- some of whom want 'development'- high-paid jobs (or jobs at all) and truly affordable houses, and against its own NIMBYs, newts and bats.

IIRC there are, or were, fine universities 'up north' too.

By all means bid for 'both-and'. Figures demonstarte the investment neglect of 'the north', and the South-West, Wales and Scotland ...

People here might benefit from gaining a bit of worldly-wisdom in how they present their 'entitled' and 'no-brainer' cases. If something's an 'obvious winner' by all means put in your hard-earned savings.

 

[Arkeeos]

Basically everywhere is underfunded including London because the way infrastructure is funded in this country is fundamentally flawed and capital expenditure fell off a cliff post 2008. Everywhere needs more funding and for funding to be distributed better. So its pointless to say that "investment should be spent here because its more underfunded" because we all know the alternative is that no investment goes to anywhere.

 

[geordieblue]

People here might benefit from gaining a bit of worldly-wisdom in how they present their 'entitled' and 'no-brainer' cases. If something's an 'obvious winner' by all means put in your hard-earned savings.

How could people personally invest their 'hard-earned savings' in EWR / Crossrail 2 / insert transport project of choice?

 

[A0]

Agreed, Are we really doubting that connecting 2 of the best and most sought after universities in the world in 2 of the UKs most productive cities which are also fast growing, would ever be a bad investment?

Quick answer - Yes.

Because the whole 'the 2 universities need to be linked' is being hugely overstated. There really isn't the demand to travel between the two which is being peddled.

For example St Andrews and Warwick regularly feature in the Top 10 universities, yet there isn't a direct link between them. St Andrew's nearest station is Leuchars which gets 3 trains / day from London, more to Edinburgh. But there isn't a direct link to Oxford, Manchester, Bristol - all of which have top ranking Universities.

 

[zwk500]

How could people personally invest their 'hard-earned savings' in EWR / Crossrail 2 / insert transport project of choice?

By investing in a pensions scheme that trades in UK govt debt (Gilts). (I know it was a rhetorical question)

 

[Bald Rick]

Indeed would have better payback than HS2 ever will over increasing economic activity per pound invested

Except it doesn’t….

 

[BrianW]

How could people personally invest their 'hard-earned savings' in EWR / Crossrail 2 / insert transport project of choice?

https://eastwestrail-production.s3....a/cfd832ca10/EWR-Co-Annual-Report-Digital.pdf

East West Railway Company Limited (the
Company) is a private company limited
by shares (company registration number
11072935), domiciled in the United Kingdom
and registered in England and Wales under
the Companies Act 2006. The Secretary of
State for Transport is the registered holder
of the single ordinary share, fully paid. The
ultimate controlling party is considered to
be the Secretary of State for Transport.
The Company’s principal activities are
to develop proposals, design, build and
operate a railway network between Oxford
and Cambridge

So maybe you're right- no 'acid test' here of 'return on investment'.
Is there a Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) figure somewhere?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Except it doesn’t….

Where do the business cases get published to compare? Still feels like EWR would be beneficial to Cambridge given the city has one, if not, the fastest growing regional GDP in the UK and pretty dreadful road traffic congestion. Furthermore HS2 will abstract traffic from WCML given the change in passenger usage yet EWR would generate new traffic so HS2 BCR comes at the expense of making WCML less able to cover its operating costs.

Ultimately its immaterial as EWR is going East of Bedford anytime soon given looming funding constraints.

 

[Bald Rick]

Where do the business cases get published to compare? Still feels like EWR would be beneficial to Cambridge given the city has one, if not, the fastest growing regional GDP in the UK and pretty dreadful road traffic congestion. Furthermore HS2 will abstract traffic from WCML given the change in passenger usage yet EWR would generate new traffic so HS2 BCR comes at the expense of making WCML less able to cover its operating costs.

Ultimately its immaterial as EWR is going East of Bedford anytime soon given looming funding constraints.

They are available publicly.

the EWR business case is not good, and never has been.

the HS2 business case is less good than it was, but still much better than EWR. And HS2 does generate significant new to rail traffic.