East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

MarkRedon · 4 Feb 2016

Lurpi said:
Surely you mean "one via Sandy and one via Hitchin"? They would both start at Bedford Midland.

Thank you for this correction! I have edited the original post... :oops:

But no, I am not certain that they would both start from Midland. Perhaps some trains might do so, but to route all trains from or through Midland may not make sense. See the various suggestions made by others on this tread for possible alternatives.

RailUK Forums

edwin_m · 4 Feb 2016

NotATrainspott said:
Would there be space for another pair of tracks to run along the eastern side of Sandy station? Instead of having a Tamworth-style cross-shaped station, the EWR line could curve around the north of Sandy and pass over the ECML before curving round to run parallel. After running past the station with a new pair of platforms, it can then curve around and head towards Shepreth, so that it would share the existing line into Cambridge at the end. This would make it similar to Nuneaton, where most traffic stays on the line it's on but it is still possible for trains to cross between them. The grade-separation of EWR and the ECML doesn't need to be perfect, as you can have trains cross the EWR tracks on the flat so long as they don't do that on the ECML. If the tracks are properly parallel through Sandy, then going between the southbound ECML and the eastbound EWR track in either direction would just involve crossing over the westbound EWR track. The switch between the northbound ECML and the westbound EWR would just require some limited extra earthworks and tracks, with the northbound ECML to EWR just needing a curve following the inside of the angle between the two lines at the EWR overbridge and the other way just needing a similar curve from the other side then curving round to rejoin the ECML.

If the line runs via Sandy and has its own route from there towards Cambridge then I can't imagine there will be much need for trains to transfer between the two routes. A flat ladder junction for diversionary purposes would be good enough. Another option would be for it to join the ECML southwards towards Hitchin and then take the existing line towards Royston, which would avoid a new route eastwards from Sandy but need grade separation both there and in the Hitchin area.

An option using the ECML towards Hitchin could go round the west of Sandy, join the ECML further south and have an interchange at Biggleswade instead.

midlandred · 4 Feb 2016

Chris125 said:
IIRC it's one of, if not both of the sections either side of Winslow - if you look at the route on Google Earth you can see the line is otherwise almost entirely straight, but there's a couple of obvious deviations presumably due to ground conditions.

My photos between Bletchley and Bicester over the last two years

NotATrainspott · 4 Feb 2016

edwin_m said:
If the line runs via Sandy and has its own route from there towards Cambridge then I can't imagine there will be much need for trains to transfer between the two routes. A flat ladder junction for diversionary purposes would be good enough. Another option would be for it to join the ECML southwards towards Hitchin and then take the existing line towards Royston, which would avoid a new route eastwards from Sandy but need grade separation both there and in the Hitchin area.

An option using the ECML towards Hitchin could go round the west of Sandy, join the ECML further south and have an interchange at Biggleswade instead.

As it turns out upon further research, the original Varsity line did something very similar, although its original route through Sandy is now unavailable and the route to Cambridge is unviable.

Without any other works it would be possible to provide a ladder junction between the two lines, but it would also be possible to provide grade-separation over the ECML only with two extra chords on simple earthwork embankments. If this grade-separation exists, then that will help minimise the case against having services which do go between the two lines.

Blamethrower · 4 Feb 2016

70014IronDuke said:
More chance of a compound working into St Pancras on a scheduled service from Manchester Central.

If you look at a map, the Midland and GN main lines converge to a point on the latitude at Bedford-Sandy at about 8 miles distance, before they immediately begin to diverge again - like the waist of a 14-year-old girl.

There is a good reason for that, namely the hills that appear immediately to the north of Bedford (and they are there, though not so immediately on the GN side).

Then you've got the section from St Neots into Cambridge - that ain't exactly plains as I remember it.

Much as it would be better for passenger numbers and connectivity, unless they choose St Neots to be a second Milton Keynes, with integrated public transport from the outset, including E-W Rail (yeah, right - more compounds into St Pancras), it would cost the earth.

No, either they revive (most of) the original route to Sandy, or they go south along the Bedford-Hitchin route - which makes a mockery of calling it East-West Rail, but still, it's somehow doable. Sorry, but going north and then east from Bedford just isn't going to happen.

You're never heard of embankments, cuttings, bridges and tunnels then? Only mild earthworks would be required north of Bedford. However they could collaborate with BBC to build a complete ring road around the town, adding a new station and facilitating a rebuild of bedford midland too.

St Neots to Cambridge "not exactly plains" - sorry but do you know the area at all? St Neots to Cambridge is VERY flat. Not entirely, but it certainly is very flat indeed.

Reviving the old Sandy line would not connect with Bedford Midland and would need to be fully re-engineered as this was never a 2 track line.

You may as well build a new line and collaborate with road builders to get the optimum solution rather than make a half-baked solution which serves no-one. For example I think it's ridiculous to even suggest taking the line down to Hitchin.

I know I'm an idealist, but the options presented so far make absolutely no sense.

richieb1971 · 6 Feb 2016

EWR are only looking at Sandy and Hitchin alignments. So why the talk of going north of Bedford?

I do agree that going north of Bedford solves a lot of problems with connecting Bedford Midland to the route. The hills north of Oakley going east are very wavey indeed, its almost up and down all the way. So a major cutting operation would be required to make any railway go this route.

In this day and age things are more doable in the practical sense. But getting funding for it is another matter entirely.

70014IronDuke · 6 Feb 2016

richieb1971 said:
EWR are only looking at Sandy and Hitchin alignments. So why the talk of going north of Bedford?

I do agree that going north of Bedford solves a lot of problems with connecting Bedford Midland to the route. The hills north of Oakley going east are very wavey indeed, its almost up and down all the way. So a major cutting operation would be required to make any railway go this route.

The hills start even earlier than Oakley - they begin at what, until the 1960s, was the NW edge of Bedford, before the A6 enters Clapham, roughly level with MP 51 on the railway. But the rest of what you write is correct. While there is no Shap in the way, it is very much undulating terrain from the Oakley area to St Neots.

richieb1971 said:
In this day and age things are more doable in the practical sense. But getting funding for it is another matter entirely.

Definitely.

70014IronDuke · 6 Feb 2016

Blamethrower said:
You're never heard of embankments, cuttings, bridges and tunnels then?

Hmmm. You might be on to something there. Keep at it, and who knows, a Nobel Prize for Innovation in Civil Engineering could come your way.

Blamethrower said:
Only mild earthworks would be required north of Bedford.

To quote your own words: Sorry, but do you know the area at all?
I lived in the area in the 60s and cycled up and down many of the roads in the area that, in your words, need "only mild earthworks".

See also Richieb1971's post for confirmation.

Blamethrower said:
St Neots to Cambridge "not exactly plains" - sorry but do you know the area at all? St Neots to Cambridge is VERY flat. Not entirely, but it certainly is very flat indeed.

I bow to your better knowledge. I have not been on the road east of St Neots since the mid-60s, but I seem to remember - somewhere near the US War Cemetery - it was quite hilly. Perhaps that is the exception.

Blamethrower said:
Reviving the old Sandy line would not connect with Bedford Midland and would need to be fully re-engineered as this was never a 2 track line.

Of course it 'could' connect with Bedford Midland, with a reversal, no question. Time penalty there, however.
And yes, the former route to Sandy would need a thorough rebuild (it was double track to Goldington, actually, about 1 - 1.25 miles east of St Johns, plus loops a the two stations en route to Sandy).

I do not know how much of the old trackbed is available, but it would be massively cheaper than cutting a new line from north of Bedford to St Neots, that is for sure.

Blamethrower said:
You may as well build a new line and collaborate with road builders to get the optimum solution rather than make a half-baked solution which serves no-one.

It would be a way of accessing the GN main line (and hence Peterboro') and Cambridge (and hence East Anglia) , which is surely E-W is supposed to serve, wouldn't it?

I agree with you that, in an ideal world, going north of Bedford to St Neots ect would be a better route - but there is the little problem of money. I also agree that heading south-east 17 miles to Hitchin (or thereabouts) makes a mockery of the E-W concept. But there is a trackbed there, and ultimately, that is the way it may have to go on cost grounds.
If, that is, there is ever an extension east of Bedford.

The fact is, getting E-W rail east of Bedford is not easy. And even if the entire former route from Bedford to Cambridge were intact, it was not an ideal permanent way.

As a low-cast stop gap (at least in investment, not operational terms) I can see a south-east cord being built at Manton, and trains being routed via Corby.

But we know what happens to low-cost stop gaps - just look at Marylebone station. :roll:

HowardGWR · 6 Feb 2016

Regarding 'undulating' terrain north of Bedford, I know from road building costs that a major cost is the removal of spoil. That's if it has to be removed. If the spoil from cuttings can be used locally for embankments, then no taxes are levelled and of course the transport is much cheaper.

If you think back to the Bluebell cutting through waste, this was the major cost of the project.

So if only 'undulating', then it could perhaps be not too expensive to take a northerly route.

snowball · 6 Feb 2016

Nowadays any excess material in road contracts is often used to create false cuttings, partly to reduce noise and visual intrusion and partly to avoid having to dispose of it off site.

edwin_m · 6 Feb 2016

If money was no object then I think the line would leave the Bletchley-Bedford line and follow the M1 southwards then transfer onto the MML slow lines via Luton and a new alignment eastwards to somewhere around Stevenage, a more indirect route but taking in over 300,000 of population which doesn't have any east-west rail link at present. Some trains from the west would continue to Bedford Midland on the existing route.

However they seem to have agreed that this would be too expensive despite the greater patronage, which suggests that a route north of Bedford which hits some of the hilly terrain but doesn't hit the population would be similarly uneconomic.

Another issue to be aware of is flooding. The Environment Agency maps show most of the trackbed eastwards from Bedford to be on flood plain, and although it hints that the embankment is above flood level any attempt to re-use it might require expensive extra work.

daodao · 6 Feb 2016

As stated by "70014IronDuke", "getting E-W rail east of Bedford is not easy. And even if the entire former route from Bedford to Cambridge was intact, it was not an ideal permanent way."

I would also question the potential traffic (passenger or goods) to justify such an expensive investment. The route would have no commuter function, unlike the re-opened Scottish Borders line. Connectivity at Bletchley, Bedford and Sandy with express trains would be poor and end-to-end traffic very limited. I lived in Cambridge for 3 years and never once had the need to go to Oxford. I don't expect this line to be re-opened east of Bedford for many years, if ever.

A proposal for a Bedford-Peterborough service via Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby and Stamford, by means of a Manton curve or a short cut from Seaton to Luffenham on the former LNW Stamford branch line trackbed, is more likely to be viable.

NotATrainspott · 6 Feb 2016

daodao said:
As stated by "70014IronDuke", "getting E-W rail east of Bedford is not easy. And even if the entire former route from Bedford to Cambridge was intact, it was not an ideal permanent way."

I would also question the potential traffic (passenger or goods) to justify such an expensive investment. The route would have no commuter function, unlike the re-opened Scottish Borders line. Connectivity at Bletchley, Bedford and Sandy with express trains would be poor and end-to-end traffic very limited. I lived in Cambridge for 3 years and never once had the need to go to Oxford. I don't expect this line to be re-opened east of Bedford for many years, if ever.

A proposal for a Bedford-Peterborough service via Wellingborough, Kettering, Corby and Stamford, by means of a Manton curve or a short cut from Seaton to Luffenham on the former LNW Stamford branch line trackbed, is more likely to be viable.

Oxford and Cambridge are going to see a massive increase in jobs as more and more technology-oriented companies are set up around them. For the sake of keeping the two feeling like towns and not sprawling metropolises, it's going to be necessary to have all the workers live somewhere else, and there would be no better way of doing it other than to have them living somewhere and then taking the train to work each day. The already-planned western section will do that just fine for Oxford but there's going to need to be a similar solution in the east. Building the eastern section would allow existing towns to have better-paid workers commuting to Cambridge as well as London and would also make it feasible to create and expand other small towns and villages along the route. Look at what's happened on the Airdrie-Bathgate route, where there has been quite a bit of housing development happening centred around the new stations. On top of that, for these knowledge-based businesses to succeed in Cambridge they'll need good access to the rest of the country, and at the moment links to Cambridge are particularly poor. EWR would make it quick and easy to get to Cambridge from the Thames Valley, Oxford (high-tech businesses do need to talk to other ones, remember), the Chiltern corridor, the WCML, the MML and the ECML, as well as making it feasible to further boost links going eastwards into East Anglia.

daodao · 6 Feb 2016

NotATrainspott said:
Building the eastern section would allow existing towns to have better-paid workers commuting to Cambridge as well as London and would also make it feasible to create and expand other small towns and villages along the route.
EWR would make it quick and easy to get to Cambridge from the Thames Valley, Oxford (high-tech businesses do need to talk to other ones, remember), the Chiltern corridor, the WCML, the MML and the ECML, as well as making it feasible to further boost links going eastwards into East Anglia.

Cambridge station was deliberately sited some distance from the town centre, and it is also some distance from the major medical campus at Addenbrooke's Hospital. It is therefore badly sited for commuting. That is probably one reason why the St Ives line was converted into a busway rather than reopened as a railway. There are also no significant towns/villages between Sandy and Cambridge to generate much local traffic.

The quickest way from Cambridge to the Thames Valley will always be via London. For journeys to the Midlands and North, Peterborough, Leicester, Nuneaton (to a limited extent) and Birmingham New Street are more useful destinations and better changing points to fast trains than Sandy, Bedford (the old route didn't go via the Midland station) and Bletchley, if one prefers not to go via London.

aylesbury · 6 Feb 2016

Been a few letters in the Bucks Herald against the new line but have countered the arguments .One letter said a waste of money and new roads should be built so he could blast into MK probably in his 4by4! when its running that there are feeder buses to Winslow from surrounding villages plus a great big car park.

mr_jrt · 6 Feb 2016

You seem to be forgetting that there's quite a lot of other traffic that wants those paths between Hitchin and London. If traffic not destined for London can avoid it, it should. The EWR route is being rebuilt as an electrified 100mph line, that should suggest the intended uses of it. To get the best return on the investment the mainlines need to interchange with EWR, and in my mind that means Sandy and Hitchin are non-starters. Bedford Midland and St Neots are the only stations that will achieve what is required.

snowball · 6 Feb 2016

daodao said:
Cambridge station was deliberately sited some distance from the town centre

Like Girton College (though in the opposite direction).

MikePJ · 6 Feb 2016

A little historical diversion I hope will interest people...

Back in 1846, the Eastern Counties Railway planned a railway line from Cambridge to Bedford via Shepreth, Biggleswade and Cardington, partly as a ploy to keep their rivals out of the region. They ran out of cash before they could start, but when the GN wanted to extend from Royston to Cambridge, an arrangement was come to where the ECR built their proposed line as far as Shepreth, and the GN joined up to it from Royston. I went and got the drawings from the County Archives in Cambridge and photographed them. The route was planned by Robert Stephenson & Co, and features gentle gradients, a short tunnel, and more than a few level crossings - including the notorious one at Foxton!

This was at the same time as the ECML was being planned - it appears on their drawings as "parliamentary line of London-to-York railway" and they show both a flyover and a series of flat junctions with the ECML.

I was curious to see how much of Stephenson's route would usable today. It's pretty easy to trace on modern imagery, and the key present-day obstacles are:

- Bassingbourn Barracks
- the town of Biggleswade, which has expanded considerably
- the Bedford bypass

Interestingly, the ECR's planned route into Bedford was built by the Midland Railway as part of their Bedford-Hitchin line (their original route to London) and so mostly still exists.

EDIT: here's a Google Maps link showing (roughly) the line of the route.

daodao · 6 Feb 2016

mr_jrt said:
To get the best return on the investment the mainlines need to interchange with EWR, and in my mind that means Sandy and Hitchin are non-starters. Bedford Midland and St Neots are the only stations that will achieve what is required.

Bedford Midland and St Neots are outer suburban stations served mainly by Thameslink. Bedford Midland only has 1 northbound train per hour (a semi-fast to Nottingham) and northbound services from St Neots only go as far as Peterborough, which is simpler to reach from Cambridge by direct train or changing at Ely.

MikePJ · 6 Feb 2016

NotATrainspott said:
. EWR would make it quick and easy to get to Cambridge from the Thames Valley, Oxford (high-tech businesses do need to talk to other ones, remember), the Chiltern corridor, the WCML, the MML and the ECML, as well as making it feasible to further boost links going eastwards into East Anglia.

And to follow up, the EWR study from 2014 points out that (perhaps surprisingly) Cambridge-Northampton is the top-ranked journey of 30-60 minutes, ranked way above Cambridge-Oxford.

(see the report here table 5 on page 8)

A0wen · 6 Feb 2016

daodao said:
Bedford Midland and St Neots are outer suburban stations served mainly by Thameslink. Bedford Midland only has 1 northbound train per hour (a semi-fast to Nottingham) and northbound services from St Neots only go as far as Peterborough, which is simpler to reach from Cambridge by direct train or changing at Ely.

Wrong on Bedford. It has a half hourly northbound service. One to Nottingham one to Corby. It's had a half hourly northbound for a good number of years now.

daodao · 6 Feb 2016

A0wen said:
Wrong on Bedford. It has a half hourly northbound service. One to Nottingham one to Corby. It's had a half hourly northbound for a good number of years now.

Thanks for pointing out my error. However, I was looking at the timetable for potentially useful connections to the Midlands & North, and the Corby train generally only provides local services to 3 towns in Northamptonshire.

mr_jrt · 6 Feb 2016

Those are the stops it has now. You have to consider the stops that would be viable were there a high-quality cross-country line in place, and how that would affect the stopping patterns. There's little call to stop southbound MML expresses at Bedford when your potential market is solely all-stations Bedford to Luton and/or all-stations Bedford to Bletchley. Throw in the GWML and ECML though, and then the case becomes a bit more compelling to stop more fast services in both directions...

i.e. Luton to Doncaster without having to drive (or take a bus) across to Stevenage then taking the train north becomes Luton-Bedford-St Neots-Doncaster by rail without having to go via Leicester or London!

daodao · 6 Feb 2016

mr_jrt said:
i.e. Luton to Doncaster without having to drive (or take a bus) across to Stevenage then taking the train north becomes Luton-Bedford-St Neots-Doncaster by rail without having to go via Leicester or London!

Luton-Bedford-St Neots-Peterborough-Doncaster involves as many changes as the existing service Luton-Bedford-Leicester-Sheffield-Doncaster and is no more direct. I don't see the benefit.

richieb1971 · 7 Feb 2016

Lets say i'm selfish and this railway building is just for me. I would be looking at Bedford connectivity. In the past it was well served, today it is not.

To me, the aim here is to go from West to East, East to West. I am not totally convinced that Oxford to CAMBRIDGE is the best solution at all. But since this is the primary goal for whatever reason.

I would go east to north or south of Arlesey and create a junction on the ECML. Going East onto the Royston line at that point. There isn't much at Arlesey apart from fields and there is no reason to create an East West station there. Since Arlesey is quite a bit north than Hitchin it makes a much straighter line for directness. You could probably use some of the Hitchin alignment getting to Arlesey saving a bit of money.

NotATrainspott · 7 Feb 2016

Also remember that there would be only a few years before HS2 completely changes the service patterns on the WCML, MML and ECML thereby making it feasible to have long-distance calls at the interchange station. Sandy might only be small today but if it's the easiest way to have a reasonably direct EWR line, then there's no reason why it couldn't be developed into a more major interchange. Interchanges don't require a local population, so it's not a problem if Sandy isn't the biggest place on the line.

richieb1971 · 7 Feb 2016

Having an interchange at Sandy is great but the station needs to move if its going to have a Tamworth "upper lower" level system.

mr_jrt · 7 Feb 2016

daodao said:
Luton-Bedford-St Neots-Peterborough-Doncaster involves as many changes as the existing service Luton-Bedford-Leicester-Sheffield-Doncaster and is no more direct. I don't see the benefit.

Hmm. I think we'll have to agree to disagree. I don't have the mileages to hand, and chose Doncaster purely as a major stop on the ECML, but it's a fair bit further between Leicester and Doncaster via Sheffield than between Peterborough and Doncaster via Grantham, and the line's a lot slower too.

It'd be quite a long way round to Peterborough to pick up the ECML there with the fabled Manton chord, and even worse if Grantham was the goal.

(Incidentally, you also currently have to change at Sheffield to Transpennine, but I'll let that one slide as we're talking hypotheticals here

)

NotATrainspott · 7 Feb 2016

richieb1971 said:
Having an interchange at Sandy is great but the station needs to move if its going to have a Tamworth "upper lower" level system.

Yes, but I'm not advocating a Tamworth-style solution. I'm advocating a more Nuneaton-like solution where all platforms are parallel but the EWR route still does remain operationally separate from the ECML. The justification for that would be that it would then be feasible to run services between the two lines in future.

HowardGWR · 7 Feb 2016

NotATrainspott said:
Yes, but I'm not advocating a Tamworth-style solution. I'm advocating a more Nuneaton-like solution where all platforms are parallel but the EWR route still does remain operationally separate from the ECML. The justification for that would be that it would then be feasible to run services between the two lines in future.

This seems quite effective to me as you thus skirt the northern Sandy estates that have been built over the old route. Bearing in mind what others have written about the Cambridge station being not very handy for the science centres, do you have an approach route to Cambridge in mind?

East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Attachments

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member