Sorry, I don't follow? The busway doesn't run through the science park?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
East West Rail: 4 route options announced for Bedford-Cambridge section
- Thread starter philjo
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 2,571
The west entrance crosses the busway on the level - you wouldn't be allowed to just get rid of it.
http://goo.gl/maps/OnydY
http://goo.gl/maps/OnydY
This is from the "East West Rail Central Section - Operating Case" Feb 2009 report by Steer Davies Gleeve, talking about the Manton route. It seems a service using this route to Peterborough would be considered even if the central route was used to Cambridge. No indication of where the service would be from, although an Aylesbury to Peterborough service was one of those mooted if the northern route went ahead. But if the central route is chosen and a service over the Manton route is still thought to be viable, would it not make more sense just to extend the Corby service up to Peterborough?
Presumably that's what level crossings were invented for.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 2,571
You want to put a new level crossing at a busy [at certain times of the day] junction like that?
route:oxford
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2008
- Messages
- 4,949
Has the unwritten rule that prevents re-opened rail lines from deviating from their former route been updated to include a section about deviating from the altitude of the former route too?
How about the new route (the entrance to the Science Park) going under or over? By the way, I wish the OP could detail his route west of Histon. I can't see where it would feasibly go via Cambourne, it all looks built up and there is the A14. I assume he is on his way to Sandy???
Not sure if you meant me as by OP, but here's an old vague idea of what I had in mind, with options north and south.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 2,571
Reasonably it'd need to fit under both the A14 and Milton Road, so you'd essentially have to sink quite a bit into a cutting to fit under the Regional College/Science Park entrance road.
All heavily complicated by the imminent presence of the busway extension to the much awaited Science Park station (link +map).
I think anything that would require the removal of the busway is unlikely, especially given the money already spent to build it. Cambridge Science Park (Chesterton) station designs very much incorporate it and definitely don't allow provision for replacing it entirely with a railway. Also, a level crossing at Milton Road would be disastrous. They can barely contain the traffic as it is.
I do like the concept of an extension to Haverhill. It's the largest settlement anywhere near Cambridge and has terrible public transport links (1 bus per hr -> 13/13A).
I think the Southern option would be the most likely to go forward, probably with an extension of the Hitchin flyover and maybe some capacity improvements on the Cambridge Line (Hitchin - Cambridge), maybe quad tracking Cambridge - Shepreth Branch Junction?. But it makes the Haverhill branch less likely.
I do like the concept of an extension to Haverhill. It's the largest settlement anywhere near Cambridge and has terrible public transport links (1 bus per hr -> 13/13A).
I think the Southern option would be the most likely to go forward, probably with an extension of the Hitchin flyover and maybe some capacity improvements on the Cambridge Line (Hitchin - Cambridge), maybe quad tracking Cambridge - Shepreth Branch Junction?. But it makes the Haverhill branch less likely.
There's already a seperate campaign pushing for the Haverhill line to re-open. The 13/X13 bus route is very well used but slow as it gets stuck in the A1307 traffic jam. The road is notorious for bad driving, with lots of accidents. Haverhill is these days primarily a Cambridge dormitory town.
Still wouldn't go amiss to connect the line through to Marks Tey on the GEML, probably by connecting to Sudbury (the old Stour Valley route) rather than via Halstead (the Colne Valley route)
But any plan that involves "dig up the busway" is a non-starter. The northern busway is very busy; the short sightedness of not building the southern busway to handle double deckers will be shown up when the housing around it is completed.
Still wouldn't go amiss to connect the line through to Marks Tey on the GEML, probably by connecting to Sudbury (the old Stour Valley route) rather than via Halstead (the Colne Valley route)
But any plan that involves "dig up the busway" is a non-starter. The northern busway is very busy; the short sightedness of not building the southern busway to handle double deckers will be shown up when the housing around it is completed.
Last edited:
I was actually thinking of *the roads* having to do the up and over or down and under, rather than the railway. I see your point about Milton Road.
Yes, this is pretty sensible. Given population increases, Haverhill and south-western Suffolk will continue to grow, and relieving the A1307 will be a major factor in this.
As much as I liked the independent spirit of the CV&HR, the Stour Valley route is clearly sensible - not only does it additional connectivity from Sudbury to Cambridge, as well as opening up the (long-term) possibility of Sudbury - Bury St. Edmunds. It would also be more useful if Mark's Tey were rebuilt to include a West-South curve onto GEML, allowing through trains to London.
Amen!
Tobbes
CockneySparrow
Member
Should the Bedford link re open and go south from Cambridge the more likely will be a half hourly service to Stansted Airport, one from Bedford the second from Bedford
Agreed. Heading down the ex-MR route to Hitchin seems the most likely route rather than a new route via Sandy. I guess the question is whether it is sensible to go to Hitchin and reverse (allows ECML interchange, good; quite slow, less good), or whether there is scope to go onto the flyover (is it bidirectional?) and then north without stopping in Hitchin. Suspect that we'll be stopping at Hitchin, then.
Tobbes
Rich McLean
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,684
Will there be capacity there though?
ntg
Member
One of the earlier possibilities suggested the lines connecting near Stevenage and then rebuilding the line through Hertford to connect the North and the East stations with a new North facing chord over the fields there, but Hertfordshire Country County protested that it would involve demolition of some buildings on the recently acquired railway land that the line from Welwyn used to run on.
Eagle
Established Member
There is no way in hell that you'll be able to reverse at Hitchin on the very busy ECML (at least not without building a dedicated line for EWR trains).
Connecting directly to the flyover is possible but highly undesirable as it's quite a long stretch of single track. In particular it'd be a nightmare to path a westbound train in between all the eastbound trains (5 or 6 tph) that will be using it by then.
Rich McLean
Established Member
- Joined
- 6 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,684
Capacity Issues at Hitchin,
Buttsy
Established Member
My suggestion would be to run down the MML to south of Luton Airport Parkway, head east , crossing over the EMCL between Woolmer Green & Knebworth then curving north to join the Hertford Loop south of Stevenage. With a flying junction on the MML, you can avoid conflicting movements.
Eagle - IIRC there was a proposal to have a dedicated bay on the western side of Hitchin station (I'm not sure how it would get squeezed in, but there you are.)
That seems reasonable. Is it possible to broaden the embankment element of the flyover to take double track, and then have a double track bridge heading direct to the Bedford line?
Eagle
Established Member
No paths there (post-Thameslink project completion) I'm afraid.
Buttsy
Established Member
Not even on the mains rather than the reliefs?
And Biggleswade, for that matter (which at least has platforms on the fast lines). Would be wonderful for the area to have direct links to Cambridge and Milton Keynes, particularly given how much the town is growing (these towns are the major employment centres, and public transport to both is incredibly poor), but I suspect there are areas with greater need (and Central Beds won't do anything to promote it).
At Hitchin for E-W eastbound adding a chord from southbound ECML onto the flyover line towards Letchworth is easy.
For the westbound services there look like 3 options:
1. At Hitchin east junction cross the down line on the flat then build a flyover connecting to ECML northbound - initially parallel to the current down flyover line (i.e. on the north side of it) then curving the other way to face north. This has the main disadvantage of having to cross the path of all trains towards Letchworth/Cambridge.
2. from Hitchin east Junction run alongside the new down flyover line but build a dive-under to go under it. either also dive-under ECML or run parallel with it northwards and then have a flyover to cross the ECML to reach the down slow. Probably the best option.
3. have a flyover to cross the down flyover line then the ECML to connect to down slow - the gradient would probably be to severe to allow for this
For the westbound services there look like 3 options:
1. At Hitchin east junction cross the down line on the flat then build a flyover connecting to ECML northbound - initially parallel to the current down flyover line (i.e. on the north side of it) then curving the other way to face north. This has the main disadvantage of having to cross the path of all trains towards Letchworth/Cambridge.
2. from Hitchin east Junction run alongside the new down flyover line but build a dive-under to go under it. either also dive-under ECML or run parallel with it northwards and then have a flyover to cross the ECML to reach the down slow. Probably the best option.
3. have a flyover to cross the down flyover line then the ECML to connect to down slow - the gradient would probably be to severe to allow for this
Last edited:
Yes, but this does mean using ECML paths north of Hitchin (is there room?) and no interchange at Hitchin (if this matters - not convinced that it does). The point about new journey possibilities from Sandy or Biggleswade seems useful, but it depends on the additional travel time versus the ex-MR route and the impact on the ECML.
This sounds sensible, though expensive.
It would be using the ECML slow lines and currently there are normally 2 FCC services per hour on that line plus any freight etc. The EW services would only be on there as far as Sandy (about 10 minutes)
An increase in line speed may help as I think the slows are limited to 75mph.
An interchange at Hitchin (if going via Sandy) is not feasible unless the route goes instead via Stevenage & Luton as it would require reversing. Also the up platform at hitchin has room behind it for an additional platform but then a flyover to connect to the down slow towards Biggleswade would be needed which would be awkward as I can't see there being room to get it over the incoming Cambridge branch.
On the down side there is no room for a platform as the car park/access road is behind the main station building - unless it is put by the Cambridge Road bridge which would be away from the main station and the new flyover would have to be doubled /made bi-di which is wasn't designed for.
An increase in line speed may help as I think the slows are limited to 75mph.
An interchange at Hitchin (if going via Sandy) is not feasible unless the route goes instead via Stevenage & Luton as it would require reversing. Also the up platform at hitchin has room behind it for an additional platform but then a flyover to connect to the down slow towards Biggleswade would be needed which would be awkward as I can't see there being room to get it over the incoming Cambridge branch.
On the down side there is no room for a platform as the car park/access road is behind the main station building - unless it is put by the Cambridge Road bridge which would be away from the main station and the new flyover would have to be doubled /made bi-di which is wasn't designed for.
Last edited:
- Status