Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
I could see a case for a "directed" non-clockface service using one unit. The one that operated during COVID was surprisingly useful. But that would have to include peak services including those for Kimberley College, and on Saturdays and Sundays (well, if the line's open...) you'd want to time trains for people going for leisure trips out.
Going Parliamentary cannot be justified. If that's the plan, go for the 5 station option and be honest.
That seems to be what EWR is proposing. This is the "proposed train service pattern":
Was the 4tph between Bedford and Cambridge always in the plans?
And is there the capacity on the WCML slows to acommodate 2tph from Oxford.
I've only managed to read through one of the documents thus far (should be working!), but I'm somewhat confused about their analysis of the Cambridge approaches. They state that the northern and southern approaches are both viable, that the northern is cheaper and quicker, but that services would have to terminate at Cambridge, so access to the biomedical campus would require a change, and thus be unfavourable, which is one of the big reasons why they prefer the southern approach.
They elsewhere state that services from the southern approach could be extended north to Ely et al. Why would through services from the south be possible, but through services from the north not be? Is this a poorly opaquely worded statement due to the lack of either terminal capacity at the new Cambridge South or capacity on the WAML down to somewhere else with terminal capacity?
Given some of the crazy options evaluated (Cable cars! Hyperloops!), I do feel they should have at least evaluated relocating the northern Guided Busway to return the alignment to Bar Hill back to rail use. Couldn't spot it if it was there, though.
Here in the Fens we wait ages for a transport consultation document then two come at once. The Greater Cambridge Partnership (GCP) has also published a report today on the Congestion Charge consultation.
The two reports are very different. The GCP report is little more than a statistical analysis of what was said, the East West Rail (EWR) report is much more than that, but I still feel that we are not much further forward.
The very positive aspect is the clear binding in of EWR into the Chancellor's growth agenda up front on page 7 of the report.
The corridor, which runs from Oxford through Milton Keynes and Bedford to Cambridge, is also an economic artery that makes the UK a global leader in life sciences, technology and innovation, with the potential to create jobs, drive growth and attract investment for the entire country. The region has huge potential but is currently constrained by poor transport connectivity – restricting people’s opportunities and holding back progress. EWR – also termed the Project - would be key in addressing this constraint, unlocking the area’s potential and enabling sustainable growth.
This leads to the clear preference for the southern approach to Cambridge.
Our preference, however, remains a southern approach because it better achieves the benefits predicted through the Theory of Change by serving the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, which is an unparalleled centre for life sciences of global importance. As a result, the southern approach is more likely to unlock the constraints on the Cambridge economy, create jobs, attract investment and deliver growth in the national interest.
Constraints to economic growth are very significant in Cambridge, which suffers from high property prices, a lack of appropriate commercial space and skills shortages at all levels within the labour market. As explained in more detail within the Economic and Technical Report, forecasts predict that 80,000 new jobs can be created in Cambridge by 2050 but that this growth is constrained by the existing transport network, especially to the west of the city, which is preventing people from accessing these opportunities. Addressing the Cambridge constraints could also unlock two further opportunities. The Cambridge Biomedical Campus already has 17,000 jobs within easy reach of the future Cambridge South station. Therefore, immediate productivity benefits could be enabled by EWR, as the new connection would help facilitate access for this workforce, boosting productivity in turn for both existing and future jobs. It could also enable densification of development on the existing site, further strengthening the potential for agglomeration.
I particularly welcome the recognition that EWR can have an immediate productivity benefit for the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.
However, other aspects of the report are somewhat inconsistent with this. The most unexpected part of the report is the Tempsford Variant, which isn't as good for the immediate productivity benefit as a station near St Neots, though on a longer view the Tempsford proposal does have merit. There is also an inconsistency regarding commuting to Cambridge from west of Bedford, the report say this:
a southern approach would enable all four EWR services to call at Cambridge South. This would bring the Cambridge Biomedical Campus within a realistic commutable distance of not only Cambourne, Tempsford and Bedford, but also EWR stations on the MVL, with estimated journey times from Stewartby and Ridgmont to Cambridge South of 45 and 51 minutes respectively.
even though the indicative service shows no through trains.
However, I feel that the report has missed some opportunities. The totems for opposition to EWR, the Bedford Poets Estate and the Great Wall of Cambridgeshire, have not been addressed. And the report could have been stronger on local benefits, notably reducing congestion and transport links to/from the hospitals on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.
Interestingly EWR did not even get a mention on Radio 4's World at One. But this evening I will be needing to watch Look East instead of listening to the News Quiz!
They elsewhere state that services from the southern approach could be extended north to Ely et al. Why would through services from the south be possible, but through services from the north not be? Is this a poorly opaquely worded statement due to the lack of either terminal capacity at the new Cambridge South or capacity on the WAML down to somewhere else with terminal capacity?
Because of a lack of suitable places to terminate the trains south of Cambridge. Cambridge South itself won't be able to reverse trains without a severe impact on the throughput, so you'd need to run them through to either Royston (no bay platform) (or Maybe Letchworth, quite far away) or Stanstead Airport (single lines and platform occupancy). Whereas trains approaching from the South can run to Cambridge North, Ely or King's Lynn which although tight do have more scope for intervention as well as generally more capacity available.
On initial inspection, it looks like Marston Vale has in particular been descoped, with only 3tph on the route (2 fast, 1 stopper), with less improvement to line speed. Lower train frequency and lower line speed then enables the retention of level crossings on the route.
Line speed on the Marston Vale is 60mph. It's ridiculous that line speed will not be raised (if this report is to be believed) to match the 100mph capability elsewhere. Surely this will also affect the original projected journey times on EWR?
Line speed on the Marston Vale is 60mph. It's ridiculous that line speed will not be raised (if this report is to be believed) to match the 100mph capability elsewhere. Surely this will also affect the original projected journey times on EWR?
If the local service is being kept, then speeding up the fast services would make capacity conflicts worse. But yes, it will affected the projects times somewhat.
Because of a lack of suitable places to terminate the trains south of Cambridge. Cambridge South itself won't be able to reverse trains without a severe impact on the throughput, so you'd need to run them through to either Royston (no bay platform) (or Maybe Letchworth, quite far away) or Stanstead Airport (single lines and platform occupancy). Whereas trains approaching from the South can run to Cambridge North, Ely or King's Lynn which although tight do have more scope for intervention as well as generally more capacity available.
Hmm. The Stansted branch is long overdue a capacity upgrade (and an extension to Braintree ), but I can appreciate why they wouldn't want to lump anything like that that into this project.
Presumably Cambridge South could be reconfigured easily enough for terminal use, though? Build a central turnback south of the station in alignment with the central island platform and the planned arrangement of running lines works fine as platform occupancy is only marginally worse than what is currently planned. Make the turnback passenger-grade and you won't even have to take the time to tip passengers out?
Most people who live in the local area consider it essential, as do the local councils however it appears it's fallen victim to the cost-cutting that plagues the railway in the current environment.
That said, the line beyond Quainton is planned to be relaid to 90mph capability so there is still some hope that it might happen eventually.
I read somewhere on this site that there was an issue with capacity on the line between Bletchley and MK, which made it unlikely. Maybe there will be some free capacity once HS2 starts.
I read the proposal as 2tph to Rigmont and Stewartby, so the comment is correct.
What I don't see is a fast Ox-Cambs service calling at Cambs South, Bedford, Bletchley and Oxford - 12 stops seems to be the "fastest" service. Can the line take another 2 tph calling Cambs South, Bedford, Bletchley and Oxford?
I do feel they should have at least evaluated relocating the northern Guided Busway to return the alignment to Bar Hill back to rail use. Couldn't spot it if it was there, though.
Why would through services from the south be possible, but through services from the north not be? Is this a poorly opaquely worded statement due to the lack of either terminal capacity at the new Cambridge South or capacity on the WAML down to somewhere else with terminal capacity?
Because of a lack of suitable places to terminate the trains south of Cambridge. Cambridge South itself won't be able to reverse trains without a severe impact on the throughput, so you'd need to run them through to either Royston (no bay platform) (or Maybe Letchworth, quite far away) or Stanstead Airport (single lines and platform occupancy). Whereas trains approaching from the South can run to Cambridge North, Ely or King's Lynn which although tight do have more scope for intervention as well as generally more capacity available.
You would also have to expand capacity on the West Anglia Mainline south of Cambridge to run services through, negating much of the cost and constructability advantage.
The most unexpected part of the report is the Tempsford Variant, which isn't as good for the immediate productivity benefit as a station near St Neots, though on a longer view the Tempsford proposal does have merit.
This is very much a ‘long term sustainability and quality of development’ decision.
That being said, the St Neots South station location wasn’t all that much better in terms of immediate benefits because it’s still a fair way from the town centre and on the ’wrong’ side of the river.
The MVL service pattern isn’t confirmed. There’s a high likelihood that all 3FP on the MVL will run through to Cambridge and, potentially, it might be a consistent stopping pattern for all three i.e. all three call at largest settlements with the remaining stations going parliamentary or getting a bus instead.
This is going to be looked at again as part of the next phase of detailed design, but ultimately if the railway is going to be built then there will be some inevitable impacts.
And the report could have been stronger on local benefits, notably reducing congestion and transport links to/from the hospitals on the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.
You won’t believe some of the internal arguments about this, but things ended up where they did. There was a large contingent in the company which wanted to say even less!
Line speed on the Marston Vale is 60mph. It's ridiculous that line speed will not be raised (if this report is to be believed) to match the 100mph capability elsewhere. Surely this will also affect the original projected journey times on EWR?
The service pattern needs to be confirmed first. The timetable modelling indicated that trains wouldn’t really get up to this line speed due to the intermediate station calls which then calls into question whether a 100mph uplift is actually value for money.
And if a lower maximum line speed reduces the scope of works, costs and severance (level crossing closures and so on) then that has to be factored in as well.
Presumably Cambridge South could be reconfigured easily enough for terminal use, though? Build a central turnback south of the station in alignment with the central island platform and the planned arrangement of running lines works fine as platform occupancy is only marginally worse than what is currently planned. Make the turnback passenger-grade and you won't even have to take the time to tip passengers out?
It’s not that simple because you would have to expand capacity between Cambridge and Cambridge South to run anything more than a token service each hour. That increases the costs significantly, but is already being done on the selected southern approach.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
In theory, yes, but that wouldn’t align with the strategic and economic case for the scheme which is about joining up the shorter intermediate flows as well i.e. EWR only makes sense if you call at Cambourne, MVL settlements and so on to join them to the bigger population and employment centres.
The MVL service pattern isn’t confirmed. There’s a high likelihood that all 3FP on the MVL will run through to Cambridge and, potentially, it might be a consistent stopping pattern for all three i.e. all three call at largest settlements with the remaining stations going parliamentary or getting a bus instead.
Is there a logic for keeping so many little stations open to receive a handful of trains a day (that would need to run at peak office and school hours to have any use) that isn't political games?
If the remaining stations aren't getting a regular hourly service, surely it will be more effective overall to take the hit and close such stations.
In theory, yes, but that wouldn’t align with the strategic and economic case for the scheme which is about joining up the shorter intermediate flows as well i.e. EWR only makes sense if you call at Cambourne, MVL settlements and so on to join them to the bigger population and employment centres.
So the purpose of the railway is not for professors to travel between Oxford and Cambridge, but rather to facilitate workers and visitors in the cambridge bioscience park and cambridge hospitals.
Mentioned here:
11.1.4.6 Aylesbury Criticism was raised that Aylesbury had been excluded from the consultation. We are continuing to explore options on how to connect Aylesbury, in discussion with our colleagues in the Department for Transport and Network Rail. We are working with Government to understand whether there is a viable business case to continue work on an Aylesbury connection.
So the purpose of the railway is not for professors to travel between Oxford and Cambridge, but rather to facilitate workers and visitors in the cambridge bioscience park and cambridge hospitals.
Academics are one part of the triple helix mentioned in the report here:
Fostering a triple helix model of private, public and academic presence, investment and collaboration necessary to drive forward growth, this clustering can attract more businesses and investment. This would drive more value through agglomeration, deliver combined benefits such as shared labour pools and supply chains and increase opportunities for innovation and collaboration.
I appreciate you taking the time to reply, thank you. My thinking there was that the whole point of a bus is that it can be diverted onto adjacent roads, be they existing or new build, and new busway roads are a lot easier to route than railways. The former Milton Road level crossing would have been a bit of a challenge, though. Can't go down due to the water table, and going up would be quite visually intrusive, to say the least.
It’s not that simple because you would have to expand capacity between Cambridge and Cambridge South to run anything more than a token service each hour. That increases the costs significantly, but is already being done on the selected southern approach.
My thinking was more along the lines of if the line needs 4 tracking between Cambridge South and Cambridge regardless, then you can't use that requirement as a differentiator between the options. For all intents and purposes at the end of the day the line will have 4 tracks, so the only thing stopping services from the north from terminating at Cambridge South is the lack of a turnback, which in the grand scheme of things isn't much, especially if I've read things correctly and the northern approach works out cheaper.
I wonder if adding the turnback facilities to the basket (and the southern four tracking to the northern approach) would bring both options up to approximate cost parity. All those controversial earthworks for the southern option and the junctions can't come cheap.
So the purpose of the railway is not for professors to travel between Oxford and Cambridge, but rather to facilitate workers and visitors in the cambridge bioscience park and cambridge hospitals.
It’s for both, but the latter is particularly important: you can have the best university and hospital in the world, but if your cleaners and cooks and security staff and nurses and researchers can’t afford to get to work (or can’t get to work at all) and can’t access more affordable housing then the model doesn’t work.
This is where EWR adds most value: by unlocking those constraints on growth.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I wonder if adding the turnback facilities to the basket (and the southern four tracking to the northern approach) would bring both options up to approximate cost parity.
From the figures I’ve reviewed, northern approach would cost significantly more because you have to do all of the northern approach upgrades as well as most of (and the most complex and expensive bits, too) of the southern approach.
Is there a logic for keeping so many little stations open to receive a handful of trains a day (that would need to run at peak office and school hours to have any use) that isn't political games?
If the remaining stations aren't getting a regular hourly service, surely it will be more effective overall to take the hit and close such stations.
The (unspoken) logic is that the “many little stations” receive one train a week, in one direction, at about 11pm on a Tuesday night.
Or it gets Norton Bridged: ‘temporary’ replacement bus service whilst the upgrade works take place, train services never actually reinstated at the smaller stations and they then get closed 30 years down the line, but it’s someone else’s problem to deal with.
In theory, yes, but that wouldn’t align with the strategic and economic case for the scheme which is about joining up the shorter intermediate flows as well i.e. EWR only makes sense if you call at Cambourne, MVL settlements and so on to join them to the bigger population and employment centres.
But this point goes to the wider benefits - if the capacity exists, it would seem to be maximising vfm to run an express service linking the two economic powerhouses of the arc, together with WCML and MML connectivity with additional benefits over the all-station-stopper case.
Or it gets Norton Bridged: ‘temporary’ replacement bus service whilst the upgrade works take place, train services never actually reinstated at the smaller stations and they then get closed 30 years down the line, but it’s someone else’s problem to deal with.
But this point goes to the wider benefits - if the capacity exists, it would seem to be maximising vfm to run an express service linking the two economic powerhouses of the arc, together with WCML and MML connectivity with additional benefits over the all-station-stopper case.
While I'd have loved electrification of the whole thing it does add substantially to the cost, and as long as nothing is done to actively hinder electrification it's a necessary evil to build the line without it and then come back later to electrify it separately.
From the figures I’ve reviewed, northern approach would cost significantly more because you have to do all of the northern approach upgrades as well as most of (and the most complex and expensive bits, too) of the southern approach.
Apoligies, I edited my post after the fact to add in the bit about the busway. I didn't expect you to be replying so quickly!
Regarding the costs, I quote from the Economic & Technical Report (the only one I've read thus far)
8.3.42 The northern approach is estimated to be in the order of £290-380m cheaper than the southern approach. However, given the early stage of design development, there is the potential for this range to narrow and it should be treated as indicative only.
But this point goes to the wider benefits - if the capacity exists, it would seem to be maximising vfm to run an express service linking the two economic powerhouses of the arc, together with WCML and MML connectivity with additional benefits over the all-station-stopper case.
In this case, it’s actually the opposite: the wider economic benefit doesn’t primarily come from joining Oxford to Cambridge at all.
Rather, it’s about joining:
Cambridge (especially Cambridge South) to Cambourne, Tempsford, Bedford and the Marston Vale
Oxford to Bicester, Winslow and Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes/Bletchley to Winslow, Bicester, the Marston Vale and Bedford
Intermediate settlements to the mainlines
And, crucially, getting the journey times for these shorter flows quick enough that the three main economic hinterlands overlap (like a Venn diagramme).
In this sense, any benefit of faster end-to-end journeys is a collateral benefit of the scheme, not a driver.
Ideally, yes, but lack of a E-N junction at Bletchley doesn't help either. I'd just as soon run the express service (which I think any actual operator would find very attractive) having good MKC connections at Bletchley. If you're dropping 12 station stops, then you're presumably saving 20+ mins from the end-to-end timings.
Just flicking through the highlights now but it's good to see that they've stuck to a southern approach - although I imagine the natives in the area are going to be livid - a northern approach never made much sense (even though I work near Cambridge North).
In this case, it’s actually the opposite: the wider economic benefit doesn’t primarily come from joining Oxford to Cambridge at all.
Rather, it’s about joining:
Cambridge (especially Cambridge South) to Cambourne, Tempsford, Bedford and the Marston Vale
Oxford to Bicester, Winslow and Milton Keynes
Milton Keynes/Bletchley to Winslow, Bicester, the Marston Vale and Bedford
Intermediate settlements to the mainlines
And, crucially, getting the journey times for these shorter flows quick enough that the three main economic hinterlands overlap (like a Venn diagramme).
In this sense, any benefit of faster end-to-end journeys is a collateral benefit of the scheme, not a driver.
I do understand the rationale, @tspaul26 , which is why I was talking about additional benefits of an express service - it should be an incremental benefit as it will be faster than driving Cambs-Oxford, which the all-station stopper may not be. (Indeed, would the all-stations stopper actually be faster than fast trains to/from London? I presume so, but with 60mph and lots of MV stops, is this actually true?)
I do understand the rationale, @tspaul26 , which is why I was talking about additional benefits of an express service - it should be an incremental benefit as it will be faster than driving Cambs-Oxford, which the all-station stopper may not be. (Indeed, would the all-stations stopper actually be faster than fast trains to/from London? I presume so, but with 60mph and lots of MV stops, is this actually true?)
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
), but I can appreciate why they wouldn't want to lump anything like that that into this project.
