East-West Rail (EWR): Alternative options and speculation

[24Grange]

I just come across these people https://cambridgeapproaches.org/our-objectives/ .

We exist to ensure that, first and foremost, the EWR Co. fully evaluates a northern approach to Cambridge, first advocated by the CamBed RailRoad (CBRR) community-based think tank.

The northern route would connect to the Cambridge-Ely line near Milton to become the northern approach into Cambridge. Passenger trains would be able to stop or pass through Cambridge North, Cambridge Central and potentially terminate at Cambridge South.

Less impact on Cambridgeshire residents​

• At least 7 times fewer residents living within 200m of the line
• At least 6 fewer villages within 500m of the line
• 5.5km less of residential central Cambridge within 500m of the line

Less impact on the environment ​

• 13 fewer protected wildlife and ancient monument sites affected
• Supported by the Wildlife Trust

Indications that it is cheaper than ‘Option E’​

• Less than half the number of A- and B- road crossings between Cambourne and Cambridge
• May well be less new track required depending on details of southern route

Better at meeting the needs of growing populations​

• Allows EWR to cater to Cambourne with a station in the North and a new station for Northstowe
• Also connects Waterbeach and Soham to MK and Oxford.
• Track is 9.2 km shorter to Norwich via northern approach and 2.3 km shorter to Ipswich

...

They have a petition and want the "northern route" to be fully evaluated. Do they have a point or is it just NIMBYism ?

 

[TheDavibob]

A lot of their arguments are presupposed on the Cambourne station being north of Cambourne. I have a variety of issues with this (ranging from access to topography) and frankly that bit is pure NIMBYism. A large chunk of their arguments follow from this, despite the Route E plan being south of Cambourne and the A428.

I would appreciate it if they stripped out the disenginuous rubbish (measuring distances to Coldham's Common rather than Cambridge station, for instance, including three villages already affected by the railway line as being newly affected, pretending equivalence between crossing the A14/A1307 and crossing the A10), and stopped with the lies (overnight freight), and then it would be a lot less frustrating to engage with.

• Also connects Waterbeach and Soham to MK and Oxford.
• Track is 9.2 km shorter to Norwich via northern approach and 2.3 km shorter to Ipswich

This is just rubbish, isn't it? No train is going to Norwich bypassing Cambridge. No train is somehow stopping dead and reversing south of Coldham's Lane junction. Waterbeach stands to (potentially) gain a direct link from the southern approach only.

 

[swt_passenger]

This organisation was mentioned in the main EWR thread in a post back in December. This thread will most likely just duplicate loads of previous discussion:

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

Thanks Bald Rick for your list which is obviously, and usefully, a lot longer than mine. But are all those projects listed actually going to happen? As you say, Heathrow Western access is now looking doubtful, Ely seems to be bubble on & on without anything actually happening on the ground...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

DofT are cancelling the Oxford to Cambridge expressway and quotes that East West Rail remains the central to providing critical infrastructure within the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/oxford-to-cambridge-expressway-project-cancelled-as-transport-secretary-looks-to-alternative-plans-for-improving-transport-in-the-region​

​

 

[gallafent]

DofT are cancelling the Oxford to Cambridge expressway and quotes that East West Rail remains the central to providing critical infrastructure within the Oxford-Cambridge Arc.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/oxford-to-cambridge-expressway-project-cancelled-as-transport-secretary-looks-to-alternative-plans-for-improving-transport-in-the-region​

​

I wonder if there'll be some focussed “pinch-point” or other capacity improvement work on the A34 / A40 / A41 / A418 / A421 / A422, in due course, to “make up for it”. In a sense the “Cambridge half” from Milton Keynes eastwards, is basically done anyway, with the A421 and A428 upgrades in recent years (together with https://highwaysengland.co.uk/our-work/a428-black-cat-to-caxton-gibbet/ of course — though I wonder whether this bit will actually go ahead now …), so it's mainly Buckinghamshire which will continue to endure longer-distance traffic having to use single carriageways (right down to substantial distances on unclassified roads, depending on which towns one is trying to get between!) as the fastest way across the county between east and west.

Surely at this point electrification of EWR Oxford-Bletchley, from the outset, should be considered as a matter of urgency. If not, then by 2025 (say), when a far greater proportion of road traffic will be electric, and Bicester-Bletchley is open, it would be laughable to be running diesel trains along the rail alternative to those single carriageways as the “green” alternative to road travel, even if as a result of the absence of any fast roads a few of the door-to-door journey times (for those very close to the railway stations, at least) are actually genuinely faster by train so it is more convenient.

 

[cle]

You would hope so. That if the railway is the strategy, that additional funding might be allocated (re-allocated is misleading) - to cover some of the scope trimming. Wires are foremost, signalling and even a running line between Bletchley and MKC to ensure services can get to the latter, full Bedford works giving this two platforms to comfortably use. Possibly that north curve at Bletchley even.

And Oxford to Didcot, FFS. Not crucial for the core, and terminating in Oxford is better right now platform-wise, but eventually Reading and/or West has to be an ambition.

 

[ac6000cw]

I wonder if there'll be some focussed “pinch-point” or other capacity improvement work on the A34 / A40 / A41 / A418 / A421 / A422, in due course, to “make up for it”.

That's what the DfT press release says, basically:

Building on the insight already developed by Highways England, the Department for Transport (DfT) will now investigate the need for more targeted road interventions in the area, recognising the vital role that transport investment has to support sustainable growth in the region, as noted by the National Infrastructure Commission. The DfT will work closely with Highways England and England’s Economic Heartland as the sub-national transport body to develop a study on proposals, which will also support the spatial framework. 

We will continue to work on more targeted, localised road improvements to boost transport in the region, alongside the transformational East West Rail,

 

[ABB125]

That's what the DfT press release says, basically:

So in other words, "we'll do it as cheaply as possible by making it rubbish, but it'll still be just as expensive overall"!

 

[Tobbes]

Strangely, they don't mention how they would put a heavy rail line across Milton Road to get to Cambridge North using the busway alignment.

Plus, if you convert the busway to rail then a number of places (such as the Regional College/Science Park) would lose their current busway stop.

It's all classic Nimbyism - "it's far too complex to do the project here so they should do it somewhere else where I'm sure it will be easy even though I have no idea how"

I'd drop the railway into a cut-and-cover tunnel under the busway, and put the busway back on top (until it is converted into light rail).

 

[Ianno87]

I'd drop the railway into a cut-and-cover tunnel under the busway, and put the busway back on top (until it is converted into light rail).

OK, so for how long does the busway operation get disrupted to do this? Answer to the nearest number of years.

 

[Bletchleyite]

OK, so for how long does the busway operation get disrupted to do this? Answer to the nearest number of years.

The answer is to divert the busway, not the railway, either under or over the railway. As roadbuilding is much quicker than building railways, and buses can leave the guided bit and drive on a normal road for a bit with little penalty, this would be much easier to achieve, and could be built before the existing route was dug up.

Doesn't mean that alternative is a good idea, but it's always easier to change minor-ish roads than railways.

 

[Tobbes]

OK, so for how long does the busway operation get disrupted to do this? Answer to the nearest number of years.

Two or three. But for once in several generation investment, so what? Omlettes/eggs.

 

[mr_jrt]

That was always my argument. Reroute the buses onto parallel roads to free up the former rail alignment. It's a bus for Pete's sake. That's kind of the point. The Milton Road level crossing put the kibosh on restoring the rail line at grade, and I'm confident you would get the mother of all fights were you to go classical and build an embankment or viaduct to lift it over the road (not to mention you couldn't then share with the busway), but dropping it into a cutting is also a time-honoured classic and a smart way to share. I'm really not sure about the water table though...

In truth, I suspect the only benefits of the former branch alignment would be the opportunity for a direct Science Park station (rather than a short trek from Cambridge North, but you're then awfully close to Cambridge North making for rubbish, or more likely, OOS, interchange), or a marginally quicker travel time to Cambridge Central. Otherwise, heading in from further north might make more sense, as you would be able to do things better at Cambridge North (i.e. 4 long straight platforms, linked to the Science Park by the poor-man's metro), you would have room to put in a north-facing chord at the junction, and all for a few more minutes journey time.

 

[Tobbes]

That was always my argument. Reroute the buses onto parallel roads to free up the former rail alignment. It's a bus for Pete's sake. That's kind of the point. The Milton Road level crossing put the kibosh on restoring the rail line at grade, and I'm confident you would get the mother of all fights were you to go classical and build an embankment or viaduct to lift it over the road (not to mention you couldn't then share with the busway), but dropping it into a cutting is also a time-honoured classic and a smart way to share. I'm really not sure about the water table though...

In truth, I suspect the only benefits of the former branch alignment would be the opportunity for a direct Science Park station (rather than a short trek from Cambridge North, but you're then awfully close to Cambridge North making for rubbish, or more likely, OOS, interchange), or a marginally quicker travel time to Cambridge Central. Otherwise, heading in from further north might make more sense, as you would be able to do things better at Cambridge North (i.e. 4 long straight platforms, linked to the Science Park by the poor-man's metro), you would have room to put in a north-facing chord at the junction, and all for a few more minutes journey time.

Precisely this. A Science Park station could be provided and it would be shorter - all to the good. If there was subsequent appetite to extend light or heavy rail to St Ives and on to the ECML then this also provides the method for doing it.

 

[Ianno87]

Two or three. But for once in several generation investment, so what? Omlettes/eggs.

Unfortunately, people still need to get to education and employment in the meantime.

That was always my argument. Reroute the buses onto parallel roads to free up the former rail alignment. It's a bus for Pete's sake.

The point of the busway is its journey time and reliability, which simply cannot be matched by using roads shared with other traffic.

 

[Tobbes]

Unfortunately, people still need to get to education and employment in the meantime.



The point of the busway is its journey time and reliability, which simply cannot be matched by using roads shared with other traffic.

Well, let's understand what the impact would actually be. And as mr_jrt has pointed out, we're talking about buses; sorry, it is not beyond the wit of women and men to make a prioritisation scheme work if they wanted to whilst these works are carried out.

 

[A0wen]

Well, let's understand what the impact would actually be. And as mr_jrt has pointed out, we're talking about buses; sorry, it is not beyond the wit of women and men to make a prioritisation scheme work if they wanted to whilst these works are carried out.

The busway has been a success, yet you (and a few others) are seriously talking about destroying that just to put EWR through there - that's madness.

In its first year there were 2.5m journeys on the busway, that's about 50,000 / week. With a service level varying between 4 and 15 buses an hour.

Compare that with Newmarket where the rail offer to Cambridge is a hourly DMU - which until recently was a 153 that could easily handle the number of passengers.

The busway won't be changed now. Nor will it be converted to tram / light rail, because that too would kill the flexibility to offer multiple destinations.

So let's focus on where EWR *will* go realistically and what that means.

 

[Tobbes]

The busway has been a success, yet you (and a few others) are seriously talking about destroying that just to put EWR through there - that's madness.

In its first year there were 2.5m journeys on the busway, that's about 50,000 / week. With a service level varying between 4 and 15 buses an hour.

Compare that with Newmarket where the rail offer to Cambridge is a hourly DMU - which until recently was a 153 that could easily handle the number of passengers.

The busway won't be changed now. Nor will it be converted to tram / light rail, because that too would kill the flexibility to offer multiple destinations.

So let's focus on where EWR *will* go realistically and what that means.

I'm interested in the optimum outcome over a 50+ year horizon on a return of several hundred million pounds of public expenditure. If - and I stress if - a northerly approach via the old route and under the busway provides a shorter trip and better service to the Science Park, as well as Oxford/MKC/Bedford - Stansted without reversal at Cambs, then I would like it to be seriously considered. Re-routing the busway during construction should not be a showstopper.

 

[tspaul26]

I'm interested in the optimum outcome over a 50+ year horizon on a return of several hundred million pounds of public expenditure. If - and I stress if - a northerly approach via the old route and under the busway provides a shorter trip and better service to the Science Park, as well as Oxford/MKC/Bedford - Stansted without reversal at Cambs, then I would like it to be seriously considered. Re-routing the busway during construction should not be a showstopper.

Even if the busway route was used, almost all of the same issues and constraints would arise as for a northern approach joining the existing railway between Milton and Waterbeach. Consequently, a southern approach into Cambridge would almost certainly still be preferable.

 

[HST43257]

Is there any world in which 2 approaches to Cambridge could be built? A northern approach can serve Stansted and a southern approach can serve Norwich and Ipswich.

 

[Ianno87]

I'm interested in the optimum outcome over a 50+ year horizon on a return of several hundred million pounds of public expenditure. If - and I stress if - a northerly approach via the old route and under the busway provides a shorter trip and better service to the Science Park, as well as Oxford/MKC/Bedford - Stansted without reversal at Cambs, then I would like it to be seriously considered. Re-routing the busway during construction should not be a showstopper.

Unfortunately, you do have to consider constructability and disruption for any major scheme.

To rephrase the question, what significant advantages would a northern route involving disrupting the busway have to make it (and the associated disruption) worthwhile over the southern approach? The passenger advantages would be minimal if any, given they are already served by the frequent busway.

Is there any world in which 2 approaches to Cambridge could be built? A northern approach can serve Stansted and a southern approach can serve Norwich and Ipswich.

One with lots of money and no care for minimising the environmental impact.

 

[A0wen]

Is there any world in which 2 approaches to Cambridge could be built? A northern approach can serve Stansted and a southern approach can serve Norwich and Ipswich.

No.

Next question.

I'm interested in the optimum outcome over a 50+ year horizon on a return of several hundred million pounds of public expenditure. If - and I stress if - a northerly approach via the old route and under the busway provides a shorter trip and better service to the Science Park, as well as Oxford/MKC/Bedford - Stansted without reversal at Cambs, then I would like it to be seriously considered. Re-routing the busway during construction should not be a showstopper.

Linking Stansted is irrelevant. There's already a shortage of capacity on the Stansted branch and the current XC service provides a northern connection which links a number of key places to Stansted.

If Stansted is such a draw, perhaps you could explain why Stagecoach (and United Counties before it) never saw the need to extend the X5 there?

 

[HST43257]

No.

Next question.

Linking Stansted is irrelevant. There's already a shortage of capacity on the Stansted branch and the current XC service provides a northern connection which links a number of key places to Stansted.

If Stansted is such a draw, perhaps you could explain why Stagecoach (and United Counties before it) never saw the need to extend the X5 there?

In which case, a southern approach is all that is needed, and all that should happen.

 

[tspaul26]

In which case, a southern approach is all that is needed, and all that should happen.

With potential for cross platform interchange at Cambridge or Cambridge South

 

[A0wen]

In which case, a southern approach is all that is needed, and all that should happen.

Correct.

 

[camflyer]

Two or three. But for once in several generation investment, so what? Omlettes/eggs.

I can't even begin to imagine the chaos caused by digging up Milton Rd in order to do a cut and cover rail line to Cambridge North

Besides, I'm no alignment expert but I'm not sure that there is a sensible route from the busway to serve Cambridge North without moving the station further south.

 

[mr_jrt]

You would probably end up with a remote pair of platforms, but they'd probably be curved, which has it's own issues. As for disruption, there is a kind of recent precedent - the Hills Road bridge when the busway was pushed under it, abet the width is somewhat less than what would be required!

Musing about mitigating constructibility (and ignoring the water table!), I wonder if you could pile the length of the urban section of the busway for the sides of the "tunnel" by temporarily closing the cycle path and then once the piles were all in place, going back and overnight lifting out sections of the busway to lay spans unerneath sitting between the piles, before replacing the busway back on top. Once all those bits are all in place, you excavate out tunnel's interior.

 

[gingerheid]

The Cambridge Approaches nimby crew are offering their alternative suggestion as a red herring; they know they can't openly oppose a very popular project so they've gone sinister instead.

The logo on their paid for FaceBook misinformation campaign adverts and their posters says everything you need to know about them. Why would people who claim to be campaigning *for* a railway to be built use an image with a train inside a red circle with a diagonal red line across it?

 

[Ianno87]

You would probably end up with a remote pair of platforms, but they'd probably be curved, which has it's own issues. As for disruption, there is a kind of recent precedent - the Hills Road bridge when the busway was pushed under it, abet the width is somewhat less than what would be required!

Also wasn't closed for anything like 2-3 years. More likely a matter if weeks in that case.

 

[D365]

Musing about mitigating constructibility (and ignoring the water table!)

Should I be surprised that it took so long for this to be mentioned?