• 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 (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

Status
Not open for further replies.

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
Long story short, even if the railway was reinstated from Sandy to Trumpington, the P&R and guided busway would have to be obliterated.

I believe the intention is also for EWR to serve the "Cambridge South" station, if it goes via Trumpington it wouldn't connect to the station that is currently proposed.

Coming in from the north close to the A428 allows the railway to serve Cambourne and the large housing estates that will be built up there, as well as allowing an extension to Stansted from Cambridge South as soon as there is more capacity - an Oxford/MK to Stansted service would likely be popular as it would avoid London and the Underground, even if it is not all that much quicker
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,397
Coming in from the north close to the A428 allows the railway to serve Cambourne and the large housing estates that will be built up there...

As far as I remember reading, there seems to be mixed reports as to whether the preferred route will indeed proceed via Cambourne, or Bassingbourn instead.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
As far as I remember reading, there seems to be mixed reports as to whether the preferred route will indeed proceed via Cambourne, or Bassingbourn instead.
Basingbourne is understandable for the new housing on the old barracks / air force station, but it would end up parallelling the Hitchin-Royston line which is pretty close. If Bassingbourne needs a station, surely better to have a loop off Hitchin-Royston routing stoppers that way, and opening up the Cambourne/A428 corridor to heavy rail.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
Quite. Given how close they are, a shuttle bus would probably be enough. You'll get much better modal shift from increased catchment area via Cambourne as so much of the catchment area is already served by the Royston line.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Coming in from the north close to the A428 allows the railway to serve Cambourne
However the southern approach to Cambridge is looking like it will serve Cambourne, so it's not a reason for a (already ruled out) northern approach.

The southern approach to Cambridge also allows easy access from the 'Central Section' (Bedford-Cambridge) to the 'Eastern Section' of E-W Rail - Cambridge to Ipswich and Norwich improvements.

Now Bedford people might prefer Stansted (but there's little evidence that they do), but East Anglia very much would prefer trains to places west of the M1 than nothing at all. Stansted would be a change from the west, but it would still be a lot easier than now! There's all sorts of other reasons why a northern approach into Cambridge won't work - the busway in the way, etc.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
Personally, the ideal wishlist for me would have been a northern approach, re-routing the busway via the parallel road, widening the railway to four tracks between Chesterton Junction and Shepreth Junction, and EWR running down to Stansted, then an extension on to Braintree and the GEML. If the frequency of Ipswich/Norwich to Cambridge can be increased high enough, the interchange penalty wouldn't be that great.

Plenty of problems with all those though: the protected water meadows making an additional bridge span and additional tracks 'difficult', the Stansted branch being single track, and how you tie it into the GEML at Witham with sufficient terminal capacity.

As a final thought....hell, why not restore the closed lines south of Witham and you could run EWR as a Reading to Shenfield via Bedford service then ;) (sorry mods - I'll shut up now)
 
Last edited:

D365

Veteran Member
Joined
29 Jun 2012
Messages
11,397
Personally, the ideal wishlist for me would have been a northern approach, re-routing the busway via the parallel road, widening the railway to four tracks between Chesterton Junction and Shepreth Junction, and EWR running down to Stansted, then an extension on to Braintree and the GEML. If the frequency of Ipswich/Norwich to Cambridge can be increased high enough, the interchange penalty wouldn't be that great.

For the few EWR trains that might extend to Stansted, it would be easier to reverse at either of the Cambridge stations (South or centre). But with additional Cambridge-Stansted services being introduced soon, probably better to just offer a connection.

If money was no object, a "Cambridge Crossrail" would be pretty interesting. But there's no way that tunnelling under Cambridge could be an option for anything less than 24tph each way.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
Personally, the ideal wishlist for me would have been a northern approach, re-routing the busway via the parallel road, widening the railway to four tracks between Chesterton Junction and Shepreth Junction, and EWR running down to Stansted, then an extension on to Braintree and the GEML. If the frequency of Ipswich/Norwich to Cambridge can be increased high enough, the interchange penalty wouldn't be that great.
That's all quite sensible, albeit running GEML south seems less so. A W-N link across the allotments in Witham would allow Norwich-Ipswich-Stansted directs, which I'd appreciate even if no one else would!

As a final thought....hell, why not restore the closed lines south of Witham and you could run EWR as a Reading to Shenfield via Bedford service then ;) (sorry mods - I'll shut up now)
Closed lines south of Witham? What were you thinking of? Maldon?
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
However the southern approach to Cambridge is looking like it will serve Cambourne, so it's not a reason for a (already ruled out) northern approach.

The southern approach to Cambridge also allows easy access from the 'Central Section' (Bedford-Cambridge) to the 'Eastern Section' of E-W Rail - Cambridge to Ipswich and Norwich improvements.

Now Bedford people might prefer Stansted (but there's little evidence that they do), but East Anglia very much would prefer trains to places west of the M1 than nothing at all. Stansted would be a change from the west, but it would still be a lot easier than now! There's all sorts of other reasons why a northern approach into Cambridge won't work - the busway in the way, etc.

That assumes a northern approach into Bedford. A southern approach into Cambridge seems more viable than a northern one but it should be pointed out that further infrastructure is still (likely) to be needed on the existing lines of route for extra services to reach any of Stansted Airport, Kings Lynn, Ipswich or Norwich.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
A southern approach into Cambridge seems more viable than a northern one but it should be pointed out that further infrastructure is still (likely) to be needed on the existing lines of route for extra services to reach any of Stansted Airport, Kings Lynn, Ipswich or Norwich.
I'm a bit lost as to why a southern approach needs more infrastructure to serve Ipswich/Norwich (in that the extra infrastructure for Cambridge South should already be in place).
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
I'm a bit lost as to why a southern approach needs more infrastructure to serve Ipswich/Norwich (in that the extra infrastructure for Cambridge South should already be in place).

No room for extra services beyond Cambridge. Cambridge to Chippenham Jn is single Line, Ely North Jn, single line sections to Kings Lynn, long signal sections to Norwich.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
No room for extra services beyond Cambridge. Cambridge to Chippenham Jn is single Line, Ely North Jn, single line sections to Kings Lynn, long signal sections to Norwich.
Ah, I see. I'd assumed (my bad) that the EWR trains would simply be extended to replace the Cambs-Ipswich services. But the redoubling of the Newmarket line seems like it should be happening to support trains to Soham via a reinstates W-N curve at Chippenham Junction, no?
 

Adrian1980uk

Member
Joined
24 May 2016
Messages
471
Personally I think rather than extending the ewr trains to norwich, better off resignalling and electrifying the breckland line and upgrading Ely North to increase the Norwich to Cambridge / Stansted frequency and speed. I feel this could be so much more successful than it is
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Personally I think rather than extending the ewr trains to norwich, better off resignalling and electrifying the breckland line and upgrading Ely North to increase the Norwich to Cambridge / Stansted frequency and speed. I feel this could be so much more successful than it is

The Breckland line was resignalled a few years ago. You could run more trains on it tomorrow if the demand was there and they could get through Ely N Junction.

But they couldn’t go to Stansted. At least not without building some form of new line there.
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
The Breckland line was resignalled a few years ago. You could run more trains on it tomorrow if the demand was there and they could get through Ely N Junction.

But they couldn’t go to Stansted. At least not without building some form of new line there.
What would be required to clear the Breckland line for 100/125 mph running, @Bald Rick ? Perhaps unfairly, it always seems like a dawdle.
 

si404

Established Member
Joined
28 Dec 2012
Messages
1,267
Personally I think rather than extending the ewr trains to norwich, better off resignalling and electrifying the breckland line and upgrading Ely North to increase the Norwich to Cambridge / Stansted frequency and speed.
There's no reason why E-W Rail trains to Norwich would be mutually exclusive with Breckland upgrades - in fact, I'd imagine they are the best chance for them. Not only will you get another Norwich - Cambridge hourly service (one of them, probably the EWR one, will be limited stop, reducing journey time), but upgrades like Ely North are proposed too. OK, no electrification, but that's due to wider issues rather than EWR itself. It's a useful catalyst for improvements.

https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-...062018-Item-7b-Eastern-Section-Prospectus.pdf
 

Tobbes

Established Member
Joined
12 Aug 2012
Messages
1,242
There's no reason why E-W Rail trains to Norwich would be mutually exclusive with Breckland upgrades - in fact, I'd imagine they are the best chance for them. Not only will you get another Norwich - Cambridge hourly service (one of them, probably the EWR one, will be limited stop, reducing journey time), but upgrades like Ely North are proposed too. OK, no electrification, but that's due to wider issues rather than EWR itself. It's a useful catalyst for improvements.

https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-...062018-Item-7b-Eastern-Section-Prospectus.pdf

At some point the Felixstowe branch and Haughley Junc-Peterborough will be electrified, and then the full in section of Newmarket-Cambs is easy. It would also make sense to do the Breckland line at the same time, even if the Anglia rural routes don't ever get electrified.
 

a good off

Member
Joined
2 Jul 2010
Messages
326
Location
Control Room
The Breckland line was resignalled a few years ago. You could run more trains on it tomorrow if the demand was there and they could get through Ely N Junction.

But they couldn’t go to Stansted. At least not without building some form of new line there.
The Breckland line resignalling was a complete farce and the line now has less capacity than before.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
None, but when late running occurs there are now longer signal sections which doesn’t help matters.
At the risk of this becoming split into a separate thread...
When the Breckland Line was resignalled in 2012, was it done with 3-Aspect signals, replacing home/distant 2-aspect semaphores?
I suspect cost and predicted traffic levels might have had a part to play with the longer signal sections.
 

Meerkat

Established Member
Joined
14 Jul 2018
Messages
7,424
There's no reason why E-W Rail trains to Norwich would be mutually exclusive with Breckland upgrades - in fact, I'd imagine they are the best chance for them. Not only will you get another Norwich - Cambridge hourly service (one of them, probably the EWR one, will be limited stop, reducing journey time), but upgrades like Ely North are proposed too. OK, no electrification, but that's due to wider issues rather than EWR itself. It's a useful catalyst for improvements.

https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-...062018-Item-7b-Eastern-Section-Prospectus.pdf

Is it well known that the intention is to leave the Soham line as is and instead send the container trains down a doubled Newmarket line , turn right at Coldham Lane and go up to Ely that way?
Bit of a long way round and Coldham North would be a constraint and probably locally unpopular
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,477
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
Is it well known that the intention is to leave the Soham line as is and instead send the container trains down a doubled Newmarket line , turn right at Coldham Lane and go up to Ely that way?
Bit of a long way round and Coldham North would be a constraint and probably locally unpopular
Of course, the main problem with that is that Newmarket Tunnel was built for a single track. It's only ever been double track to a point just shy of the tunnel...and I can't see the Jockey Club at Newmarket being overly popular with NR widening the tunnel or boring a new one underneath their land (even though it isn't the racecourse itself).
 

Maltazer

Member
Joined
7 Feb 2019
Messages
71
Is it well known that the intention is to leave the Soham line as is and instead send the container trains down a doubled Newmarket line , turn right at Coldham Lane and go up to Ely that way?
Bit of a long way round and Coldham North would be a constraint and probably locally unpopular

While looking for that in the prospectus, I spotted another requirement - grade separation of Ely North junction. That could be a whole thread on it's own!

Seems to be a bit of pie in the sky with this document. For starters I don't see how you could fit all the freight in with the passenger traffic between Cambridge and Ely - seems that sending it via Soham would still be preferable.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
Nobody seems to want to tackle Ely North...

But Cambridge is booming, and clearly the rail services are hovering which are needed to support that.

Improvements needed on all axes out of Cambridge seem to me to add up to a type of 'big bang' package needed. Say 1-2bn which would be needed for Cambridge South, doubling schemes, extra platforms at Central/North as needed, Waterbeach, Ely (!!!) - and possibly wires to Ipswich, and even Norwich. And future proofing EWR, which will add frequency.

Is there another Liverpool St hourly fast planned? And another Birmingham service too?

The whole region could benefit hugely by this package of works, centred on Cambridge but with advantages to all. Freight too. The Stansted tunnel is a tricky one.
 

a good off

Member
Joined
2 Jul 2010
Messages
326
Location
Control Room
At the risk of this becoming split into a separate thread...
When the Breckland Line was resignalled in 2012, was it done with 3-Aspect signals, replacing home/distant 2-aspect semaphores?
I suspect cost and predicted traffic levels might have had a part to play with the longer signal sections.

It was done with two aspect signals and lengthened the former AB sections by not replicating the IBH signals.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top