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

[A0]

So, you work in MK, and have never met people living in MK who work in OXF and CBG? That _is_ the point. The lack of a good transport option is one major reason why no (or few) couples would choose to live in MK to do this - it's a hard and unreliable hour by car to either destination from MK..

Then I realized you're actually describing my situation.. Live in Oxford, partner works in Oxford, my office is in Cambridge. Pre-covid I would do the journey once or twice a month - and half the trips driving, half by train - they were long days. I've cut back and go there far less now, but in any event, will have retired before the line reopens.

The Varsity Line shut a year before man stepped foot on the moon, and humans will be back there (2024) and perhaps have reached Mars (late 2030s, early 2040s) before the trains from Oxford to Cambridge return given current plans.

The reality is Cambridge is slightly further than London from MK.

Should we be *encouraging* more long distance commuting, which is bad for the environment, bad for people's health and in the case of the Eastern section of EWR going to cost getting on for £1.5bn which is unlikely to repay that outlay in the next century and that's before you factor in the running costs.

 

[fishwomp]

The reality is Cambridge is slightly further than London from MK.

Right, but London is a dense big blob, and how much would it cost to live in a place that was decent for commute to both OXF and CBG simultaneously and also had decent amount of living space and greenery? A flat at KGX or PAD? No thanks.

Should we be *encouraging* more long distance commuting, which is bad for the environment, bad for people's health and in the case of the Eastern section of EWR going to cost getting on for £1.5bn which is unlikely to repay that outlay in the next century and that's before you factor in the running costs.

I wish it were just £1.5bn.. I thought all options were north of £3bn these days for Bedford-Cambridge: https://eastwestrail-production.s3....nnouncement-Preferred-Route-Option-Report.pdf

It is fine to have long-distance commuting.

Living in a city is bad for people's health due to air, sound and light pollution.. doing commuting in a more green manner than sitting in traffic, doing commuting in a less stressful and time consuming manner, are how to have both a collaborative workspace and a healthy life. If you don't have commuting over distance, you just have denser population centres - which have many many drawbacks.

 

[bspahh]

Overinflating the Cambridge area isn't the answer. We've already seen 2000 high skill jobs relocated from the North West to the Cambridge area. I'll be the first to admit that part of Cheshire / South Manchester is reasonably prosperous, but losing high quality jobs has a knock on effect, at precisely the time when economic growth is needed across the country, not by creating another hotspot in the south east.

AstraZeneca isn't a government department. They are a company that made a commercial decision to move. Alderley Park was a popular site for its UK employees, but it was not going to become the company headquarters. The choices were Cambridge or Sweden. The Alderley Park campus has since filled up with new companies, although perhaps paying less.

 

[A0]

Right, but London is a dense big blob, and how much would it cost to live in a place that was decent for commute to both OXF and CBG simultaneously and also had decent amount of living space and greenery? A flat at KGX or PAD? No thanks.

I wish it were just £1.5bn.. I thought all options were north of £3bn these days for Bedford-Cambridge: https://eastwestrail-production.s3....nnouncement-Preferred-Route-Option-Report.pdf

It is fine to have long-distance commuting.

Living in a city is bad for people's health due to air, sound and light pollution.. doing commuting in a more green manner than sitting in traffic, doing commuting in a less stressful and time consuming manner, are how to have both a collaborative workspace and a healthy life. If you don't have commuting over distance, you just have denser population centres - which have many many drawbacks.

All EWR will do is inflate property prices in MK, Bedford and the arc it covers - even with the humungous amount of house building it will precipitate - that alone is a reason against it.

The £1.5bn was on the basis of 30 miles at £50m a mile - a 'wet finger in air' but based on a "likely" cost per mile - I believe it's what the western section is costing. If as you say it's nearer £3bn, then that makes it even more ridiculous.

 

[A0]

AstraZeneca isn't a government department. They are a company that made a commercial decision to move. Alderley Park was a popular site for its UK employees, but it was not going to become the company headquarters. The choices were Cambridge or Sweden. The Alderley Park campus has since filled up with new companies, although perhaps paying less.

That is true, but it's been beset with delays and over-runs https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma...lay-ridden-hq-project-citing-complexity-build

And I know from experience how disruptive an HQ move can be - it costs a huge amount, results in the loss of skills and experience as not everyone will relocate. My suspicion is the benefits of this move were nothing like those imagined and may ultimately cost AZ more than it will gain.

 

[Magdalia]

yet 4tph between Bedford and Cambridge, where there isn't?

Not yet, but there will be. Existing passenger flows are irrelevant. EWR is about economic growth not modal shift. The new businesses, now hospitals and new houses will provide the traffic.

economic growth is needed across the country, not by creating another hotspot in the south east.

Beggars can't be choosers. The UK needs economic growth and can't afford to frighten it away by trying to send it where it doesn't want to go. Oxford and Cambridge Universities aren't moving so that's where the growth will be however much you deny it. Get real - the life science industries don't want to be in the north, they want to be in or close to Oxford and Cambridge Universities.

Sorting out Ely would be a *far* better use of money - it would enable more freight from Felixstowe and enable more passenger trains from all directions - that's where the focus should be.

Ely is a lot of money for marginal benefits. It does not have a significant dividend for economic growth. Apart from Kings Lynn any extra passenger capacity is easily provided by running longer trains. Ely on its own does not increase freight capacity because of bottlenecks elsewhere and more freight out of Felixstowe is actually bad for the UK economy because much more of it is imports than exports.

 

[A0]

Ely is a lot of money for marginal benefits. It does not have a significant dividend for economic growth. Apart from Kings Lynn any extra passenger capacity is easily provided by running longer trains. Ely on its own does not increase freight capacity because of bottlenecks elsewhere and more freight out of Felixstowe is actually bad for the UK economy because much more of it is imports than exports.

Ely was less than 1/3rd the price of EWR eastern section and much of that was sorting out things like level crossings, as well you know. In fact Kings Lynn wasn't dependant on it as was pointed out to you in this thread.

Ely Upgrade under threat

this is the worst bit, number of trains per day measures the average risk, but what's required is to measure the peak risk, which in most cases will be at the times of day when there is most traffic, both on the rails and on the roads. But this is also fundamentally an incorrect way of looking...

www.railforums.co.uk

And on imports, it's only "bad" if those imports are things we could productively produce in this country - which for many of the things, like clothing, furniture and household items we can't, because it would cost too much to do so.

 

[BrianW]

Not yet, but there will be. Existing passenger flows are irrelevant. EWR is about economic growth not modal shift. The new businesses, now hospitals and new houses will provide the traffic.

Beggars can't be choosers. The UK needs economic growth and can't afford to frighten it away by trying to send it where it doesn't want to go. Oxford and Cambridge Universities aren't moving so that's where the growth will be however much you deny it. Get real - the life science industries don't want to be in the north, they want to be in or close to Oxford and Cambridge Universities.

Ely is a lot of money for marginal benefits. It does not have a significant dividend for economic growth. Apart from Kings Lynn any extra passenger capacity is easily provided by running longer trains. Ely on its own does not increase freight capacity because of bottlenecks elsewhere and more freight out of Felixstowe is actually bad for the UK economy because much more of it is imports than exports.

A lot of good points in here. Relating to the (life) science industries and universities and 'the north'- as noted by others, there was (is?) such a focus in 'the north'- Jodrell Bank,
Cheshire East still reckons to be at the forefront of science developments: https://www.cheshireeast.gov.uk/business/major_regeneration_projects/cheshire-science-corridor.aspx;
Crewe, Alderley Edge, Wilmslow, Chester, Manchester and more are already well-connected by rail and offer nice places to live for scientists and the 'entourage' (arguably as good as Cambridge, Bedford, St Neots and Cambourne. And also in Cheshire: https://www.sci-techdaresbury.com/. The Daresbury Laboratory (between Warringon and Runcorn) and its associated facilities could have been developed further when instead Harwell and the Diamond Light Source/ Culham near Oxford were preferred. 'At our sister site in Harwell, STFC can provide access to world leading laser, neutron, x-ray and space facilities at the Central Laser Facility, ISIS, Diamond Light Source and RAL Space respectively'.

Manchester boasts a fine science heritage and current provision.

'Growth' prospects might have looked different had George Osborne, when Chancellor of the Exchequer and MP for Tatton in Cheshire been more Cheshire-focused and developed a Northern Powerhouse beyond some fine words.

 

[ashkeba]

Bit in bold - that I *don't* believe. Wisbech - St Ives is 32 miles and takes about 45 minutes to drive. Are you seriously suggesting people from Wisbech are doing that to get the bus into Cambridge? I don't believe you. Possibly some are driving to the Milton Park & Ride - that's pretty much the same distance from Wisbech but puts you on the edge of Cambridge.

About the same distance only when the A1101 is open. Further in winter. Smaller roads both ways. Easier drive to St Ives.

 

[A0]

About the same distance only when the A1101 is open. Further in winter. Smaller roads both ways. Easier drive to St Ives.

But a much longer overall journey - the bus from Milton to central Cambridge is about 15 mins, from St Ives takes 30 mins - if we're talking about people using public transport for work then they don't want to increase their commute unnecessarily.

 

[Magdalia]

Ely was less than 1/3rd the price of EWR eastern section and much of that was sorting out things like level crossings, as well you know.

Exactly. Ely is very expensive because sorting out the level crossings is very expensive. It is a lot of money to deliver not much for the railway. Ely won't happen until there's a much cheaper way of doing it.

 

[A0]

Exactly. Ely is very expensive because sorting out the level crossings is very expensive. It is a lot of money to deliver not much for the railway. Ely won't happen until there's a much cheaper way of doing it.

Well there isn't a "cheaper" way of doing it. The Risk Assessments are such that leaving Level Crossings alone isn't acceptable, particularly where it means more traffic over them.

However, it does allow additional capacity through Ely for which there is demand - both freight from Felixstowe and also passenger from Norwich / Ipswich towards Peterborough.

I get it - you don't like Ely because it's not a shiny new line, but the reality is its utility is far higher than EWR's Eastern Section.

 

[cle]

Well there isn't a "cheaper" way of doing it. The Risk Assessments are such that leaving Level Crossings alone isn't acceptable, particularly where it means more traffic over them.

However, it does allow additional capacity through Ely for which there is demand - both freight from Felixstowe and also passenger from Norwich / Ipswich towards Peterborough.

I get it - you don't like Ely because it's not a shiny new line, but the reality is its utility is far higher than EWR's Eastern Section.

I don't think they are in an "either/or" category - unless we put them there arbitrarily. But they are very connected, and certainly Ely works have broader and existing network benefits. Whereas EWR without works at Ely might not be as impactful.

Certainly, getting Ipswich-Peterborough to hourly should be a goal, I agree.

 

[A0]

I don't think they are in an "either/or" category - unless we put them there arbitrarily. But they are very connected, and certainly Ely works have broader and existing network benefits. Whereas EWR without works at Ely might not be as impactful.

Certainly, getting Ipswich-Peterborough to hourly should be a goal, I agree.

Bit in bold - no they aren't.

EWR ends at Cambridge - that's it, it goes nowhere near Ely.

Ely needs sorting because you have trains arriving / leaving from the south (Cambridge), south east (Bury, Ipswich and Felixstowe), north east (Norwich), north (Kings Lynn) and north-west (Peterborough). And a chunk of those are long, slowish moving freights which eat capacity and need to get through Ely as efficiently as possible - and there's a small matter of 3 level crossings on a single road within half a mile each on separate lines. The risk is with extra traffic through those you'd cause gridlock - that's before you deal with the risk factor of running more trains over the level crossings.

 

[ashkeba]

But a much longer overall journey - the bus from Milton to central Cambridge is about 15 mins, from St Ives takes 30 mins - if we're talking about people using public transport for work then they don't want to increase their commute unnecessarily.

It would not increase the commute. When the }A1101 is open, it's 5 minutes slower with a clear road and I bet the A10 queue would more than take up the other 10 minutes difference in bus journey time. Then in winter, the drive is slower. I bet more Wisbechers use the busway.

 

[Magdalia]

Well there isn't a "cheaper" way of doing it. The Risk Assessments are such that leaving Level Crossings alone isn't acceptable, particularly where it means more traffic over them.

I am against the current proposals for Ely because most of the money would be spent on building expensive new road bridges for small amounts of road traffic, and without much benefit for the railway.

However, it does allow additional capacity through Ely for which there is demand - both freight from Felixstowe and also passenger from Norwich / Ipswich towards Peterborough.

Any additional passenger demand on those routes can all be met more cheaply by longer trains.

The freight benefits are small because of other bottlenecks. The Felixstowe branch is already at or near capacity.

I get it - you don't like Ely because it's not a shiny new line, but the reality is its utility is far higher than EWR's Eastern Section.

Actually it is quite clear that you don't get the difference between modal shift and economic growth. Ely mainly delivers the former, whereas EWR mainly delivers the latter. I like EWR, not because it is shiny and new, but because it delivers economic growth; I want the government to have more tax revenue to pay for my pension and my healthcare.

 

[70014IronDuke]

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.

Is it? Obviously I agree that the example I gave was unusual, even at the time.

But how many passengers each way could we expect if the line is opened and 'reasonable' * timings were made between Oxford and Cambridge?

(*yes, we can argue about that too! What would that be - guess - 2 hours 15 mins? I don't know the proposals, but if that were the timings, even though slow for the 80 odd miles, the avoidance of London would count a lot if going to/from Oxford - or Bicester.)

I would have thought that 30-40 per day each way would be easily achievable? But let's say 60 return journeys. Of course, it would be absurd to build Bedford - Cambridge based on such small numbers alone, but, if the line is being built based on local commuting journeys, these 60 passengers would count for what, four times the value of a commuter from Camborne or St Neots to Cambridge, or St Neots - Bedford. And M Keynes-Bletchley to Cambridge about three times.

 

[Trainbike46]

I am against the current proposals for Ely because most of the money would be spent on building expensive new road bridges for small amounts of road traffic, and without much benefit for the railway.

Frankly, I feel like those costs should be met by the road authority.

Any additional passenger demand on those routes can all be met more cheaply by longer trains.

an hourly service from Ipswich to Peterborough shouldn't be too much to ask

The freight benefits are small because of other bottlenecks. The Felixstowe branch is already at or near capacity.

The only way to start to reduce the freight bottlenecks is to take them on, either one by one or all at once.

For example, upgrades to the Felixstowe branch get dismissed because "you can't run more trains without upgrades at Ely", and upgrades at Ely get dismissed because of the need of upgrades at Felixstowe, that doesn't get us anywhere.

Actually it is quite clear that you don't get the difference between modal shift and economic growth. Ely mainly delivers the former, whereas EWR mainly delivers the latter. I like EWR, not because it is shiny and new, but because it delivers economic growth; I want the government to have more tax revenue to pay for my pension and my healthcare.

Fully agree here, but A0wen has a bit of a history of completely missing the point other posters are trying to get across

 

[zwk500]

Is it? Obviously I agree that the example I gave was unusual, even at the time.

But how many passengers each way could we expect if the line is opened and 'reasonable' * timings were made between Oxford and Cambridge?

(*yes, we can argue about that too! What would that be - guess - 2 hours 15 mins? I don't know the proposals, but if that were the timings, even though slow for the 80 odd miles, the avoidance of London would count a lot if going to/from Oxford - or Bicester.)

I would have thought that 30-40 per day each way would be easily achievable? But let's say 60 return journeys. Of course, it would be absurd to build Bedford - Cambridge based on such small numbers alone, but, if the line is being built based on local commuting journeys, these 60 passengers would count for what, four times the value of a commuter from Camborne or St Neots to Cambridge, or St Neots - Bedford. And M Keynes-Bletchley to Cambridge about three times.

35 return trips, 5 days a week, is 9.1k annually. The Borders railway predicted annual ridership of c.600k in 2012, 3 years before opening. Your 35 return trips are 1.5% of the Border's Railway's proposed numbers, and costs for EWR are a lot higher so it will need a much higher ridership than the Borders to pass the business case.

1.5% is not likely to be statistically significant in the final reckoning.

 

[cle]

Biggest pet peeve - and now living in the US even more viscerally (almost every LIRR scheme is really for drivers) - is the rail network spending billions on level crossing replacements (let alone parking garages, access roads etc) which benefit drivers more than anyone, and come from rail improvement budgets. Nauseating. Ely felt like it had a lot of this, and not much rail capacity/change.

 

[A0]

Frankly, I feel like those costs should be met by the road authority.

Where roads are being upgraded to allow for more traffic they do - the point is here it's the railway that needs upgrading and therefore needs to pick up the cost.

an hourly service from Ipswich to Peterborough shouldn't be too much to ask

On this, I agree.

The only way to start to reduce the freight bottlenecks is to take them on, either one by one or all at once.

For example, upgrades to the Felixstowe branch get dismissed because "you can't run more trains without upgrades at Ely", and upgrades at Ely get dismissed because of the need of upgrades at Felixstowe, that doesn't get us anywhere.

Some of this was done - for example the curve at Ipswich. Some of the line - from roughly Trimley to Derby Road can be re-doubled (it appears it was formerly double track) - from Derby Road to Westerfield I think it's always been single track and the issue there is a viaduct which is only single track. So whilst some doubling will help capacity, there is a finite amount that can be done.

Fully agree here, but A0wen has a bit of a history of completely missing the point other posters are trying to get across

No - I fully get the point. And I disagree with the premise. The point being argued with EWR Eastern section is there will be loads of jobs around the Cambridge area and people need to get to those and people don't want them driving. That's fine - most of those people will end up living less than 20 miles from Cambridge, because 30 mins is the commuting 'sweet spot' - at which point a much cheaper option would be another busway from St Neots via Cambourne to Cambridge - it would be about 1/3rd the cost, offer far more capacity, more flexibility and be cheaper to operate. But certain posters don't like that idea because it doesn't involve laying down two bits of steel 4' 8.5" apart and running less frequent, less flexible transport along it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Ely is a lot of money for marginal benefits. It does not have a significant dividend for economic growth. Apart from Kings Lynn any extra passenger capacity is easily provided by running longer trains. Ely on its own does not increase freight capacity because of bottlenecks elsewhere

it does, actually, contribute to economic growth, and quite considerably.

Ely* is the main bottleneck from Felixstowe to the north - so sorting it releases freight capacity immediately.

I am against the current proposals for Ely because most of the money would be spent on building expensive new road bridges for small amounts of road traffic, and without much benefit for the railway.

But it does benefit the railway, as above. Considerably.

Frankly, I feel like those costs should be met by the road authority.

Out of interest, why? It is the rail system making the change that drives the increase in risk profile, and it is a well established principle of our planning system that the ‘agent of change’ is the one who pays. It’s the same reason why Cambridgeshire CC paid for the new bypasses here and at King’s Dyke, despite many of the benefits accruing the railway.

 

[tspaul26]

EWR's Eastern Section.

EWR’s Eastern Section starts at Cambridge, not Bedford.

But how many passengers each way could we expect if the line is opened and 'reasonable' * timings were made between Oxford and Cambridge?

(*yes, we can argue about that too! What would that be - guess - 2 hours 15 mins?

About 90mins.

That's fine - most of those people will end up living less than 20 miles from Cambridge, because 30 mins is the commuting 'sweet spot' - at which point a much cheaper option would be another busway from St Neots via Cambourne to Cambridge - it would be about 1/3rd the cost, offer far more capacity, more flexibility and be cheaper to operate.

You appear to assume that this is not being looked into to see if it is actually feasible.

 

[Magdalia]

it does, actually, contribute to economic growth, and quite considerably.

By what economic mechanism is that? What and where are the new businesses that can't start because of Ely? What and where are the existing businesses that can't grow because of Ely?

And what benefit do they get from Ely remodelling that they can't get by running longer trains on the Norwich and Peterborough routes?

Ely* is the main bottleneck from Felixstowe to the north - so sorting it releases freight capacity immediately.

No the main bottleneck for Felixstowe is the branch to Ipswich which is the only rail route out of the port and single track. Capacity is determined by how many trains can get out of the port. If I remember rightly the neck of a bottle is usually at one end of the bottle not in the middle.

And running more freight trains out of Felixstowe has very limited benefit for the UK economy, it mainly benefits the economy of China.

 

[A0]

EWR’s Eastern Section starts at Cambridge, not Bedford.

I'm aware of that - my next post made exactly that point

EWR ends at Cambridge - that's it, it goes nowhere near Ely.

You appear to assume that this is not being looked into to see if it is actually feasible.

No such assumption on my part - if anything I would fully expect it to be being scrutinised as an option as it is a potential solution IF the key driver is to provide public transport for commuting etc to areas around Cambridge and the St Ives busway has demonstrated what is possible.

Others though, seem to think it's not even an option, simply because it doesn't involve laying bits of steel 4' 8.5" inches apart down.

 

[A0]

By what economic mechanism is that? What and where are the new businesses that can't start because of Ely? What and where are the existing businesses that can't grow because of Ely?

Presumably it is limiting the scope of the Port of Felixstowe to handle more goods or traffic - which can be both imports and exports. That means companies looking to import / export are incurring additional costs by having to ship via other routes and potentially longer freight distances as a result.

And what benefit do they get from Ely remodelling that they can't get by running longer trains on the Norwich and Peterborough routes?

Well, that's academic for freight as you probably can't make them any longer. The issue with longer trains is manifold - you need the extra trains, you may need to make changes to the platforms, signals and other infrastructure depending on the length. It doesn't smooth demand, instead it leads to demand peaks. And if a train is cancelled for any reason there's a much longer gap until the next one. Lots of benefits you don't / can't see.

No the main bottleneck for Felixstowe is the branch to Ipswich which is the only rail route out of the port and single track. Capacity is determined by how many trains can get out of the port. If I remember rightly the neck of a bottle is usually at one end of the bottle not in the middle.

Not quite - a bottleneck can occur at any point on a journey wherever capacity is constrained: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/bottleneck - not just at one end of a journey, it's wherever capacity is constrained.

In itself the single track element of the Felixstowe branch may be a constraint, but I doubt it's a bottleneck. If you have a similar type of train, running at similar speeds heading in the same direction you can get alot through a short space of track - see London Underground. The complexity arises when you start getting different types of train arriving and heading in different directions crossing each other - which is what you have at Ely. As I put it above "you have trains arriving / leaving from the south (Cambridge), south east (Bury, Ipswich and Felixstowe), north east (Norwich), north (Kings Lynn) and north-west (Peterborough). And a chunk of those are long, slowish moving freights which eat capacity and need to get through Ely as efficiently as possible - and there's a small matter of 3 level crossings on a single road within half a mile each on separate lines. The risk is with extra traffic through those you'd cause gridlock - that's before you deal with the risk factor of running more trains over the level crossings."

Looking on Real Train Times, I suspect there *are* more paths along the Felixstowe branch which *could* be used if necessary - the problem is when they reach the GEML they have to go somewhere and ultimately they will end up at a genuine bottleneck - at a guess somewhere in the London area or at Ely.

 

[Trainbike46]

Out of interest, why? It is the rail system making the change that drives the increase in risk profile, and it is a well established principle of our planning system that the ‘agent of change’ is the one who pays. It’s the same reason why Cambridgeshire CC paid for the new bypasses here and at King’s Dyke, despite many of the benefits accruing the railway.

There is a chance this is based on a misunderstanding of the situation, if so please correct me.

But the way I understand it, a new risk assessment needs to be done when there is some kind of significant change, such as upgrades to the railway infrastructure, road upgrades etc. That's all fair enough. But a new risk assesment also appears to be necesary when the railway wants to run more trains over the existing infrastructure, hence the stories in other places of "we can't run more trains without dealing with the level crossing first". For the roads, having more vehicles travel over the same infrastructure doesn't trigger a new risk assessment. And there lies the unfairness. The way I see it, the railway should be allowed to perform the risk assessment both assuming vehicle numbers present at the previous risk assessment, or if none existed, when the level crossing first opened, and with the present vehicle numbers. If the present vehicle numbers require upgrades, but the old ones don't, I feel the road authority should pay for the level crossing replacement/upgrades, or alternatively limit vehicle numbers to the old levels. Now of course if both the old and new vehicle numbers would require upgrades, then the railway should pay for the upgrades. Clearly, as you pointed out the way this currently works is the agent of change approach you described above.

Ely is clearly a special case, because it's not just level crossing improvements, but those are the most expensive part, to the extend that it is looking that a really necessary railway improvement might not happen because of the costs of changes that would primarily benefit the roads not the railway, and that to me feels wrong

 

[A0]

There is a chance this is based on a misunderstanding of the situation, if so please correct me.

But the way I understand it, a new risk assessment needs to be done when there is some kind of significant change, such as upgrades to the railway infrastructure, road upgrades etc. That's all fair enough. But a new risk assesment also appears to be necesary when the railway wants to run more trains over the existing infrastructure, hence the stories in other places of "we can't run more trains without dealing with the level crossing first". For the roads, having more vehicles travel over the same infrastructure doesn't trigger a new risk assessment. And there lies the unfairness. The way I see it, the railway should be allowed to perform the risk assessment both assuming vehicle numbers present at the previous risk assessment, or if none existed, when the level crossing first opened, and with the present vehicle numbers. If the present vehicle numbers require upgrades, but the old ones don't, I feel the road authority should pay for the level crossing replacement/upgrades, or alternatively limit vehicle numbers to the old levels. Now of course if both the old and new vehicle numbers would require upgrades, then the railway should pay for the upgrades. Clearly, as you pointed out the way this currently works is the agent of change approach you described above.

Ely is clearly a special case, because it's not just level crossing improvements, but those are the most expensive part, to the extend that it is looking that a really necessary railway improvement might not happen because of the costs of changes that would primarily benefit the roads not the railway, and that to me feels wrong

In the case of Ely the issue is you have 3 level crossings in close proximity serving different lines - even if traffic volumes remain unchanged the risk is with the crossings being down for longer it will have an impact on journey times, potentially congestion and, let it not be forgotten, that will potentially impact the emergency services - is it acceptable that a fire engine or ambulance en route to an emergency could be delayed for several minutes, which could be the difference between life and death ? That's the risk with multiple level crossings in close proximity on one road.

Where increasing road traffic is the issue, as often as not the road will be upgraded or bypassed and the new road will use an over / underpass to avoid the railway - often not funded by the railway.

 

[Magdalia]

Others though, seem to think it's not even an option, simply because it doesn't involve laying bits of steel 4' 8.5" inches apart down.

Busways are an option, for example for Haverhill, and for Cambourne if considered on its own. Both have been proposed, and both have met significant local opposition. But a busway all the way to St Neots is not, the distance is too great. St Neots is about 50% longer distance from Cambridge compared with St Ives.

Presumably it is limiting the scope of the Port of Felixstowe to handle more goods or traffic - which can be both imports and exports. That means companies looking to import / export are incurring additional costs by having to ship via other routes and potentially longer freight distances as a result.

Felixstowe handles ships conveying tens of thousands of containers, a few trains through Ely are a drop in the bucket.

Well, that's academic for freight as you probably can't make them any longer. The issue with longer trains is manifold - you need the extra trains, you may need to make changes to the platforms, signals and other infrastructure depending on the length. It doesn't smooth demand, instead it leads to demand peaks. And if a train is cancelled for any reason there's a much longer gap until the next one. Lots of benefits you don't / can't see.

I'm talking of short 2, 3 and 4 car passenger trains here. None of the above applies to those.

In itself the single track element of the Felixstowe branch may be a constraint, but I doubt it's a bottleneck.

The number of containers that can be moved by rail in and out of Felixstowe is limited by the number of trains that can be run to/from Ipswich, on a single track railway and between an hourly passenger service. You can call it a constraint, you can call it a bottleneck, but nothing that you change at Ely will make any difference to that limit.

 

[A0]

Busways are an option, for example for Haverhill, and for Cambourne if considered on its own. Both have been proposed, and both have met significant local opposition. But a busway all the way to St Neots is not, the distance is too great. St Neots is about 50% longer distance from Cambridge compared with St Ives.

Bit in bold - Untrue. Google Maps, central Cambridge (Emmanual College) - St Ives 15 miles, same point to St Neots station 17 miles.

From Cambridge North station, St Ives is 14 miles, St Neots is 19 miles.

And on the south side near Papworth Hospital the distance will be in St Neot's favour.