Cambridge South new station construction progress.

[Maltazer]

2. Why didn't they design the station to have two island platforms? That would have been much more passenger-friendly than what they are actually building, since it would mean all trains in the same direction would depart from the same island, and I would have thought would have been no more expensive either: Fewer platforms to build lifts and other stuff for, and perhaps no need to reroute the existing tracks round a platform.

I asked that during the consultation. The answer was:

"A layout featuring two island platforms in the North location would not be a viable option as it would necessitate reconstruction of the Guided Busway bridge. This would be an expensive operation that would be resisted by Cambridgeshire County Council, who own this asset"

 

[swt_passenger]

Two thoughts watching that video.

[…]

2. Why didn't they design the station to have two island platforms? That would have been much more passenger-friendly than what they are actually building, since it would mean all trains in the same direction would depart from the same island, and I would have thought would have been no more expensive either: Fewer platforms to build lifts and other stuff for, and perhaps no need to reroute the existing tracks round a platform.

It’s discussed way back in the thread. The whole track formation would need to be wider for a longer length, impacting on existing bridges. For passenger access from both sides it would need an extra fourth set of lifts and stairs. Future four tracking south of the station for EWR means the layout will no longer be D/D/U/U but D/U/D/U, ie paired by use.

 

[Magdalia]

I imagine most ppl who cycle there would want to go south by train so from the E side; once you have got on the bike you might as well stay on it to get to the city centre or indeed the central station rather than getting a northbound train.

However with 500 spaces on both E and W sides they seem to be hedging their bets rather. I suppose there will be a proportion who want to go to the Science Park or points North, but as housing is generally more expensive on the S side that doesn't make much sense either. Am I missing something?

Yes. People in, for example, Trumpington, going south, will save about 20-30 minutes on each journey by not having to go into the main station.

There will be people in Trumpington who are currently cycling along the busway to the main station, parking their cycle in the multi-storey cycle park, then doing a long walk to platforms 7/8 to get the train south.

From next year they will cycle to the new station, park their cycle, and get on the train, without having to go to the main station at all. As a result a lot more people will do it.

Why didn't they design the station to have two island platforms?

Another factor is that two island platforms would have required a bigger land take from Hobsons Park.

 

[J-2739]

Two thoughts watching that video.

1. Is the building designed by the same architects who designed Abbey Wood station? The shape of the building and the use of wooden panels look remarkably similar.

Yes, it's the same architect practice; they do look remarkably similar, don't they?

Also working on Beaulieu Park not so far away.

 

[Bald Rick]

I was hoping Cambridge South would have been built to have a bit more of a modular, cheaper and simpler feel like other successful new stations like Horden, Headbolt Lane, Warrington West and Low Moor.

It’s what the funder wanted.

 

[sharpener]

Yes. People in, for example, Trumpington, going south, will save about 20-30 minutes on each journey by not having to go into the main station.

I get that, it was the fact that there is just as much cycle parking on the W side for ppl going N. But I suppose everyone will be returning to the opposite side of the station they left from anyway so in the round it makes no odds. And when the pairing changes it will all be different again.

 

[Trainbike46]

This is mostly correct. The main purpose of the new station is to reduce congestion on the roads around the Biomedical Campus, not add to it.

The catchment area for cycling to the new station is quite large, especially in Trumpington, which is why it has a large cycle park.


The efforts of Network Rail and their contractors to minimise temporary damage and permanent loss in Hobsons Park have been exemplary.

Agreed, as far as I can tell they're doing an amazing job!

I was hoping Cambridge South would have been built to have a bit more of a modular, cheaper and simpler feel like other successful new stations like Horden, Headbolt Lane, Warrington West and Low Moor.

Cambridge South is designed for significantly larger passenger flows than any of those, and therefore has more facilities.

I get that, it was the fact that there is just as much cycle parking on the W side for ppl going N. But I suppose everyone will be returning to the opposite side of the station they left from anyway so in the round it makes no odds. And when the pairing changes it will all be different again.

Why would the side people arrive at the station from determine whether they are travelling North or South?

 

[camflyer]

I was hoping Cambridge South would have been built to have a bit more of a modular, cheaper and simpler feel like other successful new stations like Horden, Headbolt Lane, Warrington West and Low Moor.

Remember when former mayor Palmer said that the new station would be quick and cheap to build as it "just needed couple of platforms laying"

It certainly looks like they've planned and built it with future growth in mind which is a good thing. Jobs on the Biomedical Campus are due to double over the next 10 years and a lot of housing is being built.

 

[sharpener]

Why would the side people arrive at the station from determine whether they are travelling North or South?

Reverse logic. Whether you are travelling North or South might determine which side you want to leave your bike either to be quicker to catch your train or conversely so it is handier for when you return.

I was merely wondering why they would be providing the same amount both sides, given that as @Magdalia points out the larger catchment will be predominantly on the Trumpington side.

 

[Magdalia]

I get that, it was the fact that there is just as much cycle parking on the W side for ppl going N. But I suppose everyone will be returning to the opposite side of the station they left from anyway so in the round it makes no odds. And when the pairing changes it will all be different again.

The new station has an entrance/exit on each side. Both lead to the same bridge which accesses the platforms. Whether cyclists have train journeys going north or south will have no impact at all on where they choose to park their cycle. People living on the Trumpington side will use the cycle park their side, people living on the Biomedical Campus side will use the cycle park their side.

I was merely wondering why they would be providing the same amount both sides, given that as @Magdalia points out the larger catchment will be predominantly on the Trumpington side.

The existing catchment for outward travel is more on the Trumpington side, but that's likely to change in the future as there is more potential for new housing development on the Biomedical Campus side. That has already started with the Eddeva Park development which is currently being constructed.

 

[sharpener]

Eddeva Park

Thanks, I pass the site regularly on my way to volunteer at Wandlebury Country Park but I did not know what it was called.

I sometimes wonder about the sewerage and water requirements of all these developments (near the airport as well). The council minutes here talk about "... which the applicant advised was tied to the outline permission provision of 110 litres". Which even if per person per day is much less than the UK average (which google says is 142). However AIUI the developers decide and the utilities must provide, hence the plan to move the sewage works to a new site downriver.

 

[Magdalia]

Thanks, I pass the site regularly on my way to volunteer at Wandlebury Country Park but I did not know what it was called.

I sometimes wonder about the sewerage and water requirements of all these developments (near the airport as well). The council minutes here talk about "... which the applicant advised was tied to the outline permission provision of 110 litres". Which even if per person per day is much less than the UK average (which google says is 142). However AIUI the developers decide and the utilities must provide, hence the plan to move the sewage works to a new site downriver.

This is Cambridge South construction so we had better not discuss those aspects here.

I have banged on about water and sewage on other threads and I expect that there will be new opportunities to do that again quite soon!

 

[stevieinselby]

I was hoping Cambridge South would have been built to have a bit more of a modular, cheaper and simpler feel like other successful new stations like Horden, Headbolt Lane, Warrington West and Low Moor.

Why? Simple, cheap stations are OK for minor stations serving suburbs and small towns, but they are not appropriate for major stations like Cambridge South, Beaulieu Park or Brent Cross West, which will see larger numbers of passengers. We often bemoan the fact that modern stations are generally pretty dreary, dismal and unappealing places to be – I would much rather see a bit of investment up front in the public realm, especially when it comes to these more important stations. Also, modular doesn't always scale well – you can have a cookie-cutter 2-platform 100m station that you can drop into a great many locations with little work needed, but 4-platform 250m stations generally need to be a bit more bespoke.

 

[Gathursty]

If some of the station was built with private investment, then I am okay with the roof as an addition to the design of the station. We live in cash-strapped times so was surprised to see such a big project when watching Geoff's video.

 

[camflyer]

If some of the station was built with private investment, then I am okay with the roof as an addition to the design of the station. We live in cash-strapped times so was surprised to see such a big project when watching Geoff's video.

I believe AstraZeneca (whose HQ is next to the station) has provided some funding as well as donating some land as well as contributions from local government.

 

[Class 170101]

I believe AstraZeneca (whose HQ is next to the station) has provided some funding as well as donating some land as well as contributions from local government.

Whether Local Government or Central Government its still come from one place - taxpayers.

 

[bspahh]

Whether Local Government or Central Government its still come from one place - taxpayers.

Cambridge South station will be the first thing that many new foreign visitors to the site see, if they come from London or Stansted.

The Cambridge Biomedical Campus says its "contributing £4.2 billion to the UK economy".

 

[Magdalia]

Whether Local Government or Central Government its still come from one place - taxpayers.

Cambridge South station will help to generate large amounts of tax income in the future: the taxes on the profits of the companies on the Biomedical Campus, including AstraZeneca, and the taxes on the incomes of all of the tens of thousands of people working on the Biomedical Campus. That's a lot of tax income that wouldn't be generated without the station to enable more working people to get to and from the Biomedical Campus.

In terms of public funding the station will pay for itself very quickly.

I believe AstraZeneca (whose HQ is next to the station) has provided some funding as well as donating some land as well as contributions from local government.

The station entrance/exit on the Biomedical Campus side of the line was only made possible with use of AstraZeneca land. The original proposals only had a station entrance/exit in the park, with a much bigger land take from the park to provide road access.

 

[sh24]

Cambridge South will serve one of the UK's most economically important areas. Horden, Headbolt Lane, Warrington West and Low Moor do not.

 

[vic-rijrode]

Cambridge South will serve one of the UK's most economically important areas. Horden, Headbolt Lane, Warrington West and Low Moor do not.

...and therein lies one of the major problems from which this country suffers.....

 

[Trainbike46]

Cambridge South will serve one of the UK's most economically important areas. Horden, Headbolt Lane, Warrington West and Low Moor do not.

The main difference between them is that Cambridge South is expected to have MUCH higher passenger numbers - and is therefore designed to handle those higher numbers. Personally I'm happy the station is designed to be nice, as well as capable.

The stations it is being compared to are badly chosen. Do any of them serve a group of major regional and specialised hospitals? Have massive employment centres right next door? They don't, some of them seem more like Cambridge North, which is a much more basic station.

 

[D365]

...and therein lies one of the major problems from which this country suffers.....

At the risk of going off on a tangent. Your comment here seems to imply - to me at least - that you are taking issue with some new stations (e.g. Cambridge South) having a greater strategic importance than others?

To paint this in a wider picture - with the exception Oxford, Bletchley and Bedford - I certainly don’t expect that any of the other EWR stations will be of the same importance as Cambridge and Cambridge South.

 

[camflyer]

The main difference between them is that Cambridge South is expected to have MUCH higher passenger numbers - and is therefore designed to handle those higher numbers. Personally I'm happy the station is designed to be nice, as well as capable.

The stations it is being compared to are badly chosen. Do any of them serve a group of major regional and specialised hospitals? Have massive employment centres right next door? They don't, some of them seem more like Cambridge North, which is a much more basic station.

Good to see some proper future proofing going into infrastructure planning rather than doing it on the cheap now then having to spend more money later.

There is also a lot of development planned around Cambridge North so passenger numbers should increase over the next few years. The main problem is that the main employment area near the station is the Cambridge Science Park but the connections between the two aren't great

 

[vic-rijrode]

At the risk of going off on a tangent. Your comment here seems to imply - to me at least - that you are taking issue with some new stations (e.g. Cambridge South) having a greater strategic importance than others?

To paint this in a wider picture - with the exception Oxford, Bletchley and Bedford - I certainly don’t expect that any of the other EWR stations will be of the same importance as Cambridge and Cambridge South.

Not at all, I am delighted to see another new station under construction. My issue is simply with the fact that the new stations that you mention of "lesser importance" are all in various parts of the north of England. It would be good to see a new station of "stategic importance" the size of Cambridge South being justified, built and opened somewhere north of Birmingham. Cambridge South is being built with 4 lines & platforms (jolly good) - Sunderland, serving a city of over 200,000, still has only 2 physical platforms - not so good.

 

[Topological]

Not at all, I am delighted to see another new station under construction. My issue is simply with the fact that the new stations that you mention of "lesser importance" are all in various parts of the north of England. It would be good to see a new station of "stategic importance" the size of Cambridge South being justified, built and opened somewhere north of Birmingham. Cambridge South is being built with 4 lines & platforms (jolly good) - Sunderland, serving a city of over 200,000, still has only 2 physical platforms - not so good.

Going back a little bit, but Liverpool South Parkway is an example.

Because of the denser development of the North of England during the industrial revolution, stations are nearer together than would otherwise be the case. An equivalent site to Cambridge South probably already has a station in Northern England.

The only other examples that come to my mind for other parts of the country are:

• Cardiff East (If it happens)
• Upgrade of Huddersfield Station (depending upon your perspective on that)

Plenty of two-platform types planned, but for many obvious reasons none would match Cambridge South.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Not at all, I am delighted to see another new station under construction. My issue is simply with the fact that the new stations that you mention of "lesser importance" are all in various parts of the north of England. It would be good to see a new station of "stategic importance" the size of Cambridge South being justified, built and opened somewhere north of Birmingham. Cambridge South is being built with 4 lines & platforms (jolly good) - Sunderland, serving a city of over 200,000, still has only 2 physical platforms - not so good.

To be fair, Sunderland does have rather more stations than Cambridge, including all the Tyne and Wear Metro stations, so it's not like that one single station is the only one to serve all 200K people. I actually do agree that in an ideal World, Sunderland really ought to have 4 platforms and a much better national rail service which would justify those platforms - but the trouble is, that's only likely to be achievable if you can 4-track most of the way to Newcastle to separate the faster NR trains from the slower Metro ones - and in that urban area that's going to be very difficult. By contrast, there's plenty of land either side of the railway around Cambridge South to allow the 4-tracking for East-West rail, which I would assume is the reason why the station is considered to require 4 platforms.

 

[Class 170101]

By contrast, there's plenty of land either side of the railway around Cambridge South to allow the 4-tracking for East-West rail, which I would assume is the reason why the station is considered to require 4 platforms.

Also the fact the existing service couldn't operate off two platforms due to insufficient headway. Supposedly its also in preparation for East West Rail should that happen.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Also the fact the existing service couldn't operate off two platforms due to insufficient headway. Supposedly its also in preparation for East West Rail should that happen.

Have to say, I find that surprising considering it's not that long ago that Cambridge (main) station had just ONE bidirectional through platform plus if I recall rightly a terminating bay, and presumably the headways coped with that at the time. Has there been an increase in frequencies or something in recent years?

 

[Class 170101]

Have to say, I find that surprising considering it's not that long ago that Cambridge (main) station had just ONE bidirectional through platform plus if I recall rightly a terminating bay, and presumably the headways coped with that at the time. Has there been an increase in frequencies or something in recent years?

The services through Cambridge have changed massively since Platforms 7 and 8 were built.

Hourly Extensions to Ely from Kings Cross
GA services to Liv St to Cambridge North (previously terminated in south facing bays)
GA services between Cambridge and Stansted Airport from Norwich - previously used the north facing bays
12 car trains operating. Only Platform 1 historically could take 12 car trains now 1, 4, 7 and 8 do

 

[Magdalia]

Sunderland, serving a city of over 200,000, still has only 2 physical platforms

According to the 2023/24 data Sunderland had about 600k entrances/exits in 2023/24.

Cambridge North had 1.3 million and Cambridge over 10 million. Cambridge South is expected to have at least 2 million in its first full year.

By contrast, there's plenty of land either side of the railway around Cambridge South to allow the 4-tracking for East-West rail, which I would assume is the reason why the station is considered to require 4 platforms.

Cambridge South requires 4 platforms to deliver the service in the December 2025 timetable. 2 tracks don't work because of the short distance between the main station and Shepreth Branch Junction.

The original Cambridge South proposals had 4 tracks all the way between the main station and Shepreth Branch Junction but much of that was descoped to separate the project from East West Rail.

Actually there isn't plenty of land for 4 tracks, especially on the Biomedical Campus side of the line. 4 tracks will come for East West Rail but it won't be easy, especially replacing Long Road bridge.

Has there been an increase in frequencies or something in recent years?

Yes. Lots.

The services through Cambridge have changed massively since Platforms 7 and 8 were built.

Hourly Extensions to Ely from Kings Cross
GA services to Liv St to Cambridge North (previously terminated in south facing bays)
GA services between Cambridge and Stansted Airport from Norwich - previously used the north facing bays
12 car trains operating. Only Platform 1 historically could take 12 car trains now 1, 4, 7 and 8 do

12 car trains in platform 1 only dates from 2009.
Platforms 7 and 8 have taken 12 cars from new in 2012.
Platform 4 was only lengthened recently for class 720s.

And you haven't mentioned 2 tph 12 car Thameslink trains from/to Brighton needing to reverse in the station.