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

[A0]

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

You sure about that?

Manea and Whittlesea (on the Peterboro - Ipswich route) had their platforms extended to allow for 4 car trains in 2018 - a 4 car 158 is ~ 100m. Greater Anglia are using Flirts which are either 65m or 80m, so good luck doubling those up with 100m platforms.

 

[Bald Rick]

By what economic mechanism is that?

Through enabling a significant increase in the efficiency and therefore productivity of freight transport, which is proven to encourage economic growth.

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.

You’re arguing with the wrong person here. The key constraint was the Felixstowe branch, until NR spent £60m on lengthening the double track section 3 years ago and unlocked significant capacity. Unfortunately it can’t all be used, because of the constraints … in the Ely area.

For this project, the economic benefit of improved freight capacity is far, far more than the economic benefit of additional passenger trains.

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

You’re mostly right. But you do have to bear in mind that in most cases, the right of way was there before the railway, and secondly, legislation requires ‘the railway’, and not the highway authority, to be in charge of the risk.

For the roads, having more vehicles travel over the same infrastructure doesn't trigger a new risk assessment.

for general traffic growth, yes. However if there is a new development nearby whcih could drive significant traffic growth, then that can trigger a risk assessment. Planning Authorities are obliged to consider the output of such an assessment (and potential implications) during the planning process for such developments. There are numerous examples where this has led to level crossing improvement being funded by developers and/or local authorities as a result.

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

It can and does do this.

Now of course if both the old and new vehicle numbers would require upgrades, then the railway should pay for the upgrades.

Which is what usually happens.
Why?
Because increasing road traffic usually happens very incrementally - a % or two per year. Although there has actually been little growth in road traffic on the ‘minor roads’ network, ie where almost all the highway crossings are. In the year before Covid it was only 15% above 30 years previously. This (almost) translates into the same percentage increase in highway crossing risk.

Whereas increasing rail traffic happens in big lumps - eg going from hourly to half hourly doubles the rail traffic and (broadly) doubles the risk. Similarly the risk assessment is affected by the number of people on the trains, therefore the increase in passenger numbers (until Covid) was also triggering increased risk levels.

 

[MarkyT]

You’re arguing with the wrong person here. The key constraint was the Felixstowe branch, until NR spent £60m on lengthening the double track section 3 years ago and unlocked significant capacity.

Also, Ipswich Bacon Factory chord helped a few years earlier

Unfortunately it can’t all be used, because of the constraints … in the Ely area.

Indeed

for general traffic growth, yes. However if there is a new development nearby whcih could drive significant traffic growth, then that can trigger a risk assessment. Planning Authorities are obliged to consider the output of such an assessment (and potential implications) during the planning process for such developments. There are numerous examples where this has led to level crossing improvement being funded by developers and/or local authorities as a result.

I think sometimes incremental road traffic growth can occur 'under the radar'. An AHBC to MCB conversion project I was involved with some years ago was triggered by such growth resulting in a train /minibus collision and derailment (thankfully with no fatalities or injuries). Blocking back of traffic from a nearby junction had become a problem, something not envisaged when the original design had been implemented in the 1970s. That the crossing in question had become a bit of a rat run to avoid other full barrier crossings in the area often closed for extended periods was probably also a factor.

 

[Bald Rick]

I think sometimes incremental road traffic growth can occur 'under the radar'.

no doubt, hence why highway LX risk assessments are redone every 18 months. Albeit such examples are the exception.

 

[Magdalia]

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.

Histon to St Ives along the busway is 10 miles 8 chains from WTTs. From Histon into the centre of the City is a bit over 2 miles. I know, I've done it many times. St Ives is about 12.5 miles from central Cambridge via the busway.

At St Neots the railway station is irrelevant as a measuring point as it is on the eastern Cambridge edge of the town. It is more than a mile from the centre of St Neots. It is further to walk from St Neots station to the town centre than it is to walk from Cambridge station to the city centre. I know, I've done both.

Furthermore, a St Neots busway would not be direct because it would need to go into Cambourne. The centre of St Neots and the centre of Cambridge would be at least 19 miles apart by any busway, which is 50% more than 12.5 miles.

 

[tspaul26]

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

You mean this:

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

With respect, this is the problem: your statement is incorrect. EWR’s Eastern Section starts at Cambridge and then heads north and east i.e. it will almost certainly go through Ely.

 

[Magdalia]

You’re arguing with the wrong person here.

No, I'm arguing with the right person!

Through enabling a significant increase in the efficiency and therefore productivity of freight transport, which is proven to encourage economic growth.

For this project, the economic benefit of improved freight capacity is far, far more than the economic benefit of additional passenger trains.

In macroeconomic terms railway freight capacity at Felixstowe is not significant, its marginal. Compared to road, it is a niche player.

I've followed the growth of Felixstowe for half a century. I can remember when the first container lorries from Felixstowe were coming through Cambridge, and I can remember the Cambridge Northern Bypass being built. What's now the A14 is the economic artery for Felixstowe, and the two most transformative infrastructure investments were not the new bypasses, they were the completely new bits of road, the Orwell Bridge and the A1-M1 link.

For the railway movement of containers from Felixstowe to have a significant impact on macroeconomic growth, it would have to do things on that scale. Projects like longer loops on the Felixstowe branch, the Bacon Factory curve, Ely and Werrington, while desirable, do not have a significant macroeconomic impact. They aren't going to change the OBR's forecast for economic growth.

New lines are the railway's equivalent of the Orwell Bridge and the A1-M1 link. Which brings us neatly back to what this discussion is supposed to be about.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Furthermore, a St Neots busway would not be direct because it would need to go into Cambourne

Cambourne is an ideal area for any new public transport initiative.

 

[daodao]

In macroeconomic terms railway freight capacity at Felixstowe is not significant, its marginal. Compared to road, it is a niche player.

Please check your facts before posting. The evidence supports @Bald Rick 's view. The Port of Felixstowe states that:

A million TEU of container traffic are moved annually via rail at Felixstowe. This saves over 100 million HGV miles each year, reducing road congestion and improving environmental performance.

Rail volumes account for around 29% of the port’s total UK domestic throughput, rising to 50% of traffic to the North and West Midlands.

https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/port/rail-services/

The rail route from Felixstowe to Peterborough and beyond is a strategic rail route. Improving the railway layout at Ely is of far greater benefit from an economic perspective than building a new minor secondary rail route from Bedford to Cambridge, at great expense as the previous trackbed can't be used, and which would have minimal freight use.

 

[Bald Rick]

In macroeconomic terms railway freight capacity at Felixstowe is not significant, its marginal.

If that were the case, then a new passenger line from Cambridge to Bedford is similarly marginal in macro economic terms.

 

[306024]

Manea and Whittlesea (on the Peterboro - Ipswich route) had their platforms extended to allow for 4 car trains in 2018 - a 4 car 158 is ~ 100m. Greater Anglia are using Flirts which are either 65m or 80m, so good luck doubling those up with 100m platforms.

Someone must have come along and un-lengthened them since then 4 car class 755s use selective door operation. The only significant change is the new car park at Manea.

 

[A0]

Someone must have come along and un-lengthened them since then 4 car class 755s use selective door operation. The only significant change is the new car park at Manea.

Fair enough - I'd found this

Railway Station Masterplans - Fenland District Council

We've set out a vision of how we want our local stations to improve

fenland.gov.uk

We've set out a vision of how we want our local stations to improve

Rail is a vital mode of transport for local people, visitors and businesses. Train services provide a faster and convenient alternative to the car, and its usage continues to grow.

Our stations within Fenland (Manea, March and Whittlesea) link directly with the important cities of Cambridge, Peterborough and Ely. They also offer easy access to London mainline services to London Liverpool Street and London Kings Cross.

Which has proposals from 2018 which I'd assumed had progressed. In which case longer trains are an issue.

 

[A0]

With respect, this is the problem: your statement is incorrect. EWR’s Eastern Section starts at Cambridge and then heads north and east i.e. it will almost certainly go through Ely.

That's not what their website says

East West Rail | Project overview

East West Rail is a major infrastructure project which will connect communities between Oxford and Cambridge. Delivery is now underway.

eastwestrail.co.uk

Ely isn't mentioned once.

 

[A0]

No, I'm arguing with the right person!



In macroeconomic terms railway freight capacity at Felixstowe is not significant, its marginal. Compared to road, it is a niche player.

I've followed the growth of Felixstowe for half a century. I can remember when the first container lorries from Felixstowe were coming through Cambridge, and I can remember the Cambridge Northern Bypass being built. What's now the A14 is the economic artery for Felixstowe, and the two most transformative infrastructure investments were not the new bypasses, they were the completely new bits of road, the Orwell Bridge and the A1-M1 link.

For the railway movement of containers from Felixstowe to have a significant impact on macroeconomic growth, it would have to do things on that scale. Projects like longer loops on the Felixstowe branch, the Bacon Factory curve, Ely and Werrington, while desirable, do not have a significant macroeconomic impact. They aren't going to change the OBR's forecast for economic growth.

New lines are the railway's equivalent of the Orwell Bridge and the A1-M1 link. Which brings us neatly back to what this discussion is supposed to be about.

St Neots town centre is irrelevant, far more relevant is where all the housing is and will be built and that's around the station (as is hapoening at present).

Housing can't be built to the west of St Neots because you've got the river Ouse and the A1 in the way.

So St Neots station is a *very* accurate marker.

 

[Magdalia]

Please check your facts before posting. The evidence supports @Bald Rick 's view. The Port of Felixstowe states that:

https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/port/rail-services/

The rail route from Felixstowe to Peterborough and beyond is a strategic rail route. Improving the railway layout at Ely is of far greater benefit from an economic perspective than building a new minor secondary rail route from Bedford to Cambridge, at great expense as the previous trackbed can't be used, and which would have minimal freight use.

Thanks for that link. I agree it is good to have a source for facts and wasn't aware of this one. I'd done a calculation based on TEUs per ship and TEUs per train. I think I must have overestimated the number/size of ships, where I didn't have a good source. But it still means that rail is less than half of road.

If that were the case, then a new passenger line from Cambridge to Bedford is similarly marginal in macro economic terms.

building a new minor secondary rail route from Bedford to Cambridge

No. EWR is not a minor secondary rail route, and is different from Ely, because it unlocks economic growth potential that is currently being strangled because the transport infrastructure isn't there. For the life science industries in the OxCam arc EWR is on the scale of the Orwell Bridge of the A1-M1 link in terms of the transformative economic change that it can deliver. The life science industries can grow like the financial services industries did after financial deregulation in the 1980s, but only if the infrastructure is there. EWR is the sort of investment that does change the OBR's growth forecast.

And, compared to Ely, EWR has the huge advantage that nearly all of the benefits go to the UK economy. A lot of the benefits of improving port access leak out to importing countries, particularly China. That's a particular problem for the UK because of its huge trade deficit. There's huge potential for boosting exports within the existing infrastructure, because lots of TEUs must be going out from Felixstowe empty, having arrived full of imported goods.

at great expense

Ely is at great expense too, but only delivers marginal gains that don't make a significant difference at the macro level.

 

[Bald Rick]

No. EWR is not a minor secondary rail route, and is different from Ely, because it unlocks economic growth potential that is currently being strangled because the transport infrastructure isn't there.

There‘s no point taking this further, as you seem to be unwilling to accept the reality about the Ely Area project.

 

[Magdalia]

There‘s no point taking this further, as you seem to be unwilling to accept the reality about the Ely Area project.

I accept the operational rationale for the Ely project, but I'm concerned with the economic reality and you seem to be unwilling to accept that.

In the end though, the reality that will matter will be the political reality. I was hoping that we were going to learn that on 31 October, but now we have to wait until 17 November.

 

[tspaul26]

Improving the railway layout at Ely is of far greater benefit from an economic perspective

I understand that a Strategic Outline Business Case and an Outline Business were both prepared and have been submitted to DfT, but am unable to locate copies online.

Do you know where they might be found in order that we may see what the economic position actually is?

 

[Basil Jet]

Please check your facts before posting. The evidence supports @Bald Rick 's view. The Port of Felixstowe states that:

https://www.portoffelixstowe.co.uk/port/rail-services/

The rail route from Felixstowe to Peterborough and beyond is a strategic rail route. Improving the railway layout at Ely is of far greater benefit from an economic perspective than building a new minor secondary rail route from Bedford to Cambridge, at great expense as the previous trackbed can't be used, and which would have minimal freight use.

Would EWR not become the major freight route from Felixstowe to the West Country and South Wales?

 

[cle]

I don't see why this is an either/or discussion. Both projects are completely different, and may well be funded in different ways. They happen to both impact and complement the same region - but other than that, I don't see it. EWR trains sound more likely to take on the current Ipswich-Cambridge and go that way, or terminate - than go up to Ely/Norwich. So it might be adjacent but that's it.

If Ipswich-Peterborough went hourly (a likely outcome of Ely works) - with Soham doubling/platforming, then the stations down that shared line, such as Bury, Stowmarket and Ipswich itself - would have benefits of direct services on EWR and better to Ely/Peterborough. That seems it, right now - for Ely passenger.

After that, the next most likely improvement sounded like either another Stansted/Cambridge-Norwich frequency (which could in theory be 1tph EWR extended) - or aspirations to a Cambridge-Peterborough-ECML (Leeds probably) - but this latter one seemed dependent on HS2 East and a future scenario, currently gone.

 

[A0]

I don't see why this is an either/or discussion. Both projects are completely different, and may well be funded in different ways. They happen to both impact and complement the same region - but other than that, I don't see it. EWR trains sound more likely to take on the current Ipswich-Cambridge and go that way, or terminate - than go up to Ely/Norwich. So it might be adjacent but that's it.

Yes to terminating, no to running onto Ipswich. That would just compromise EWR's reliability (assuming the eastern section gets built).

If Ipswich-Peterborough went hourly (a likely outcome of Ely works) - with Soham doubling/platforming, then the stations down that shared line, such as Bury, Stowmarket and Ipswich itself - would have benefits of direct services on EWR and better to Ely/Peterborough. That seems it, right now - for Ely passenger.

They won't because I bet EWR if built doesn't run beyond Cambridge.

After that, the next most likely improvement sounded like either another Stansted/Cambridge-Norwich frequency (which could in theory be 1tph EWR extended) - or aspirations to a Cambridge-Peterborough-ECML (Leeds probably) - but this latter one seemed dependent on HS2 East and a future scenario, currently gone.

I thought there was no capacity on the Stansted branch for any more trains owing to the single track section?

I'm not sure a Cambridge - Peterboro - ECML service is going to work - there are probably better uses of post HS2 capacity on the ECML.

 

[tspaul26]

That's not what their website says

East West Rail | Project overview

East West Rail is a major infrastructure project which will connect communities between Oxford and Cambridge. Delivery is now underway.

eastwestrail.co.uk

Ely isn't mentioned once.

The EWR Central Section (not Eastern Section) is the part between Bedford and Cambridge - see the diagramme on page 4:
Preferred Route Option Executive Summary

Specific mention of Ely (in connexion with potential future Eastern Section services to Norwich) - see Appendix F para. 2.5.6 on page 63:
Technical Report Appendices

 

[Brubulus]

Some quick wins at Ely would be to tighten up signalling, along with a timetable recast with two 15 -20 minute gaps each hour where 2 freights can come through in each direction. A 4th platform would also mean more space for passenger trains to potentially couple and divide to make the best use of paths. The level crossing risk could be massively reduced by making the level crossings for the fen and ely-peterbrough lines access only.

 

[A0]

The EWR Central Section (not Eastern Section) is the part between Bedford and Cambridge - see the diagramme on page 4:
Preferred Route Option Executive Summary

Specific mention of Ely (in connexion with potential future Eastern Section services to Norwich) - see Appendix F para. 2.5.6 on page 63:
Technical Report Appendices

2.5.6 says:

"If similar functionality to an access to Cambridge from the south was to be achieved, a chord to the north would be needed where the alignment of NA1 joins NA2, to allow trains from Norwich and Ely to access the EWR line without having to go to Cambridge and reverse. This would be likely to require grade separation so that services could head south and then west across the WAML without interfering with the services on the WAML down line (to Ely). Again, this chord is in a flood zone and it may also encroach on a SSSI Impact Risk Zone. This would only be required when services would be heading further east in the future, not for the current Project Objectives, and so is not considered in assessments."

The key part I've put in bold - basically it's not in scope.

 

[cle]

I'm not sure a Cambridge - Peterboro - ECML service is going to work - there are probably better uses of post HS2 capacity on the ECML.

I don't disagree with you. But that's what was published. And maybe something else is better south of Peterborough, like another TL service or outer surburban, leaving a path north thereof.

Same for the Ipswich thing. It was published. I imagine Norwich would be preferable, but Ely.
If it was the risible, aforementioned 4tph from Bedford direction, then we'd see 3tph terminate at Cambridge and presumably 1tph take over the Ipswich path. Maybe 1 could go to North too, it could easily have another platform and good if Cambridge is getting too full. Reliability, sure - always a fall-back chestnut.

 

[TheBigD]

Some quick wins at Ely would be to tighten up signalling, along with a timetable recast with two 15 -20 minute gaps each hour where 2 freights can come through in each direction. A 4th platform would also mean more space for passenger trains to potentially couple and divide to make the best use of paths. The level crossing risk could be massively reduced by making the level crossings for the fen and ely-peterbrough lines access only.

Limited removal of the double blocking at Ely North Junction was looked at but rejected on cost grounds a few years ago.

Where are you putting this extra platform at Ely?

 

[tspaul26]

The key part I've put in bold - basically it's not in scope.

Not in EWR Co’s scope.

It sits with Network Rail, and at a less developed stage at that.

 

[Magdalia]

St Neots town centre is irrelevant, far more relevant is where all the housing is and will be built and that's around the station (as is hapoening at present).

Housing can't be built to the west of St Neots because you've got the river Ouse and the A1 in the way.

So St Neots station is a *very* accurate marker.

St Neots has lots of houses in Longsands, Eynesbury, Eaton Ford and Eaton Socon. The last two of those are between the river and the A1.

Housing is being built west of the A1 too, see Dennybrook Garden Village near the Black Cat roundabout.

The station is only relevant for Love's Farm and Wintringham.

 

[A0]

St Neots has lots of houses in Longsands, Eynesbury, Eaton Ford and Eaton Socon. The last two of those are between the river and the A1.

Housing is being built west of the A1 too, see Dennybrook Garden Village near the Black Cat roundabout.

The station is only relevant for Love's Farm and Wintringham.

Bit in bold - You might want to look a bit closer - that's not necessarily going ahead:

Dennybrook New Town – Staploe Parish Council

staploe-pc.gov.uk

"Dennybrook is not included in Bedford Borough’s draft local plan 2040. No sites in Staploe parish have been included in the plan."

So no guarantee that one's going ahead. Once again it's a Local Authority trying to dump housing on its boundaries to cause problems for others - used to happen in Northants until we moved to the Unitary auths.

 

[Brubulus]

Limited removal of the double blocking at Ely North Junction was looked at but rejected on cost grounds a few years ago.

Where are you putting this extra platform at Ely?

Across from the current island platform, would still allow a single through platform and the current underpass could be extended to the new platform.