East-West Rail (EWR): Alternative options

[Spekejunction]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/east-west-rail-ewr-consultation-updates-not-speculation.99892/

East West Rail can only do good for cross country connectivity; the first bit from Oxford to Bletchley does that very well.

Its potential for freight and passenger traffic beyond Oxford and Cambridge will be a game changer.

The shortest fastest route with interconnections at Parkway stations over the Midland and Great Northern Main Lines should be the aim.

To give more capacity between Bletchley and Bedford the stopping service requires serious study maybe thinning out the number of stations.

The very expensive works through Bedford are unnecessary; the existing connection at Bedford should take what passenger and freight is on offer.

A guided bus way is already proposed to connect Cambourne and Cambridge and the Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road is to be started. I wonder if they thought of building a railway along side the road ?

 

[59CosG95]

The very expensive works through Bedford are unnecessary.
The existing connection at Bedford should take what passenger and freight is on offer.
A guided bus way is already proposed to connect Cambourne and Cambridge and the Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Road is to be started.I wonder if they thought of building a railway along side the road ?

I disagree; if the EWR lines were merged with the Slows north of Bedford, that has the potential for creating a real bottleneck on the approach to the station, especially during periods of disruption or engineering works. Adding an extra pair of tracks will allow for EWR services to keep running if all 4 tracks of the MML are blocked north of Bedford (esp. the Slows), and vice-versa.

 

[Spekejunction]

I disagree; if the EWR lines were merged with the Slows north of Bedford, that has the potential for creating a real bottleneck on the approach to the station, especially during periods of disruption or engineering works. Adding an extra pair of tracks will allow for EWR services to keep running if all 4 tracks of the MML are blocked north of Bedford (esp. the Slows), and vice-versa.

Sorry I didn’t make it clear..the only west to east traffic through Bedford would be connecting freight.
Bletchley to Bedford would terminate in the existing bay .
The east west line would pass south of Bedford interchanging at Bedford Parkway..There would be no interference with the Midland Main Lin…

 

[richieb1971]

Sorry I didn’t make it clear..the only west to east traffic through Bedford would be connecting freight.
Bletchley to Bedford would terminate in the existing bay .
The east west line would pass south of Bedford interchanging at Bedford Parkway..There would be no interference with the Midland Main Lin…

This was my preferred option. But alas, we are in the here and now and the decision has been made to go north of Bedford including the main station as a through station.

As for freight, after looking long and hard there is no pre existing freight through Cambridge that would use EWR. There was only 1 working today through Cambridge and it has no reason to use EWR. There is a path from Didcot to Dereham but I don't think it gets used much, but it could theoretically use EWR. Any freight using EWR will use the west side of Bedford and head north. I truly believe based on facts (as of time of writing) that EWR east of Bedford will see little to no freight at all. In order for EWR east of Bedford to have any freight at all there would need to be a distribution depot somewhere between Cambridge and Bedford that served the south west/west. There are zero east-north curves/junctions on EWR mandated either but I guess one could be put at Bedford north at a future date. But even then it would be more suited to go via Peterborough/Leicester if its heading to the WCML north of Nuneaton.

 

[Spekejunction]

This was my preferred option. But alas, we are in the here and now and the decision has been made to go north of Bedford including the main station as a through station.

As for freight, after looking long and hard there is no pre existing freight through Cambridge that would use EWR. There was only 1 working today through Cambridge and it has no reason to use EWR. There is a path from Didcot to Dereham but I don't think it gets used much, but it could theoretically use EWR. Any freight using EWR will use the west side of Bedford and head north. I truly believe based on facts (as of time of writing) that EWR east of Bedford will see little to no freight at all. In order for EWR east of Bedford to have any freight at all there would need to be a distribution depot somewhere between Cambridge and Bedford that served the south west/west. There are zero east-north curves/junctions on EWR mandated either but I guess one could be put at Bedford north at a future date. But even then it would be more suited to go via Peterborough/Leicester if its heading to the WCML north of Nuneaton.

I’d like fiver for every project that is set in stone but then changes due to costs ..
As for freight towards the east.. the Felixstowe to Cardiff container traffic could be routed this way.
The cross London route must be near capacity..

 

[RT4038]

I’d like fiver for every project that is set in stone but then changes due to costs ..
As for freight towards the east.. the Felixstowe to Cardiff container traffic could be routed this way.
The cross London route must be near capacity..

Only with some very expensive modifications to a tunnel at Newmarket, and an increase in track capacity of the single line between Newmarket and Cambridge (as has been discussed a few times in the preceeding 196 pages!). The cost of this work is not going to be paid back by a few container trains from Felixstowe to Cardiff, which can be routed via London.

 

[richieb1971]

I’d like fiver for every project that is set in stone but then changes due to costs ..
As for freight towards the east.. the Felixstowe to Cardiff container traffic could be routed this way.
The cross London route must be near capacity..

As RT4038 suggests, there are lots of issues with container traffic and gauging issues. For every thing that is said in this kind of rhetoric of freight and container traffic there is an argument to use the pre existing paths as a preference. There is a good reason why Bedford does not see container traffic to date with the only container trains travelling through Bedford having no containers on them at all and I have only seen one of those in my life time. South of Bedford you have tunnels that don't fit container gauge. Going north you also have a tunnel on the slow lines. The midland mainline see's very little container traffic and the only container traffic that uses the midland mainline that I know of is between Syston and south of Leicester which amount to about 10 miles of line. The Corby stretch also has a tunnel. You have severe pathing issues at Cambridge and as RT3048 states there is also a tunnel at Newmarket. To circum navigate all these obstacles would take years. Also, a major ECML project was undertaken north of Peterborough at Marholm to increase capacity of freight there. What EWR does offer is limited by its surroundings.

 

[zwk500]

To circum navigate all these obstacles would take years.

[PEDANT] Circumnavigating them doesn't take years, only a few hours - it's what the paths do now (go around them) [/PEDANT]

What EWR does offer is limited by its surroundings.

Yes, although by EWR being built it potentially makes work on the surroundings more viable. After all, if a W12 route is available from Cambridge to Southampton, Cardiff and Bristol and from Chippenham Jn to Felixstowe, then sorting out Newmarket Tunnel (as painful as that would be) does have more worth to it (for the record I do NOT think it will have enough to make it actually get approved).

 

[Tobbes]

[PEDANT] Circumnavigating them doesn't take years, only a few hours - it's what the paths do now (go around them) [/PEDANT]

Yes, although by EWR being built it potentially makes work on the surroundings more viable. After all, if a W12 route is available from Cambridge to Southampton, Cardiff and Bristol and from Chippenham Jn to Felixstowe, then sorting out Newmarket Tunnel (as painful as that would be) does have more worth to it (for the record I do NOT think it will have enough to make it actually get approved).

And until then, presumably you could run Felixstowe - Cardiff containers via Ely and then onto EWR. Inconvenient, but saving GEML and NLR paths must be valuable.

 

[zwk500]

And until then, presumably you could run Felixstowe - Cardiff containers via Ely and then onto EWR. Inconvenient, but saving GEML and NLR paths must be valuable.

Depends, the Ely loops are busy, run rounds would eat up capacity especially during disruption. Electrify Acton and you could out a pair of 90s on the front from Ipswich all the way to Wales.

 

[richieb1971]

I suspect that EWR consortium knows that freight on the central section is very restricted regarding container traffic and that there are currently very few flows that would use the central section today if it were open. If that is the case why don't they just come out and say that? Of all the documents I have read there is no defense of that argument. In fact the NIMBY's are still using it as their defense. There seems to be a political angle to this where it is purposely not mentioned so that it is used as a selling point. Personally I believe it is a good selling point if it was possible out of the box.

Things that are apparent from the EWR route decision that do not drive freight usage on the central section:

1. No loops mentioned on the central section
2. No mentions of new freight flows that currently do not exist (except perhaps the incinerator traffic going to Stewartby)
3. No mention of current flows that would use it
4. No mention of gauging issues outside of the EWR wider area that would require further works to make any new freight paths from the wider area be included on EWR (Central section)
5. No mention of any freight distribution hubs along the route, including any quarry's or oil refinery plants (which make up most of the freight diagrams on the UK network today)
6. No new depots that would house locomotives anywhere near EWR
7. No east-north curve anywhere on the route
8. No mentions of Cambridge getting any resilience to support further expansion of freight usage.
9. No sidings/stabling points anywhere on the route are mandated
10. The only pre existing infrastructure on the route as far as I know is at Forders sidings (Stewartby) and there are no mention of any plans to use it.

 

[tspaul26]

I suspect that EWR consortium knows that freight on the central section is very restricted regarding container traffic and that there are currently very few flows that would use the central section today if it were open. If that is the case why don't they just come out and say that? Of all the documents I have read there is no defense of that argument.

You mean something like this:

EWR’s primary purpose is to support economic growth as a passenger railway – to connect lives and unlock opportunities. Alongside this, and noting that some freight already runs on sections of our route, we’re considering whether EWR might also support new freight opportunities as part of delivering wider economic growth. These opportunities would need to be balanced against the required investment and also the impact to local communities. When it opens, our railway is likely to enable up to two additional freight trains per day in each direction from Oxford to Bletchley, and another two from Cambridge to Oxford. This would take nearly 70,000 HGV journeys off the road each year, and the volume of additional freight trains would be unlikely to exceed this level without significant further investment, both on EWR and elsewhere on the rail network.

 

[RT4038]

There is East-West connectivity further north albeit not fast. There is literally nothing east-west north of the North London line until one reaches Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester-Melton Mowbray-Peterborough-Ely-Norwich.

Cambridgeshire isn’t the Home Counties by any stretch.

In the inter-war years, when the phrase 'Home Counties' was first coined, this meant the counties bordering the London conurbation, as this was the furthest the vast majority of commuters to London would have had their home. (Yes, there would have been the odd exception, such as Luton). This would be a strict historical interpretation, but in the intervening years, with the advent of Diesel and particularly Electric traction, this radius has considerably expanded to include Hampshire, Suffolk, Cambridgeshire, Beds., Northants, Warwickshire, Oxon., Wiltshire and even further afield, which are now all 'Home' counties of London commuters, even though they are in other geographic areas too.

 

[A0]

I’d like fiver for every project that is set in stone but then changes due to costs ..
As for freight towards the east.. the Felixstowe to Cardiff container traffic could be routed this way.
The cross London route must be near capacity..

Bit in bold - as has been explained by others on many, many occasions, routing freight via EWR would create more problems than it solves.

You'd be routing it through Cambridge - which it isn't at present and is busy already. Newmarket tunnel is gauge limited, so another issue there.

As @Bald Rick has pointed out (several times), the single biggest single improvement for freight to/from Felixstowe would be sorting out Ely as that would increase capacity and alleviate conflicts with passenger services also trying to get through Ely.

 

[Adrian1980uk]

Bit in bold - as has been explained by others on many, many occasions, routing freight via EWR would create more problems than it solves.

You'd be routing it through Cambridge - which it isn't at present and is busy already. Newmarket tunnel is gauge limited, so another issue there.

As @Bald Rick has pointed out (several times), the single biggest single improvement for freight to/from Felixstowe would be sorting out Ely as that would increase capacity and alleviate conflicts with passenger services also trying to get through Ely.

Ely is also going to limit through passenger options from EWR as well as frieght as it does today.

 

[Verulamius]

The Network Rail Suffolk Corridor Study 2022 Strategic Advice suggested an East South Chord near Ely, so that freight could avoid Ely Station complex, to enable Freight to access the EWR without the problems of the Newmarket tunnel.

It also suggested routing a new service from EWR to Norwich via Newmarket with a new west north chord accessing the mainline towards Norwich north of Stowmarket.

Post covid the routes in East Anglia appear to be recovering well.

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Suffolk%20Corridor%20Strategic%20Advice%202022.pdf

General observations and recommendations:
The following general observations and recommendations are made:
o It was confirmed that the scope for improving connectivity and convenience of services between Peterborough, Cambridge and Ipswich is limited by capacity constraints. This supports the case for addressing constraints at Ely, and Haughley Junction. Line-speed and/or headway improvements, and doubling of the single-line sections of track between Ely and Soham, or Newmarket and Cambridge would improve timetabling and/or increased reliability of services. Opportunities to ease these infrastructure constraints should be considered as part of signalling and trackwork renewals.
o The previous option for funders for electrification between Felixstowe, and Peterborough (and beyond) is repeated.
o Extension of the electrification for platform 1 at Ipswich is an option for funders – this would allow trains to be more conveniently positioned for passengers.
o Available passenger data is limited. It is recommended that more detailed data collection and monitoring is implemented to inform future decision-making.
o Platform availability at Ipswich station is limited. Ideally, additional platforms would be provided to allow more timetable flexibility, improved operational efficiency and service reliability. It is recommended that land to the south-west of Ipswich station (formerly occupied by the Freightliner refuelling point) is safeguarded for possible use for additional platforms.
o It is recommended that land required for re-doubling singled sections of track between Ely and Soham, and Coldham Lane (Cambridge) and Chippenham Junctions is safeguarded against further development (including placement of railway-related equipment/buildings on this land). Opportunities should be taken to upgrade these routes as part of track and signalling renewal programmes

 

[camflyer]

The Cambridge Approaches group are now calling for the whole eastern section to be scrapped after failing in their previous attempt to get a northern approach to the city.

Campaigners are calling for the central section of East West Rail to be scrapped on the grounds of dependence on housing development and a poor business case to justify the next steps.

Cambridge Approaches says the East West Rail Company (EWR Co) has demonstrated a “complete disregard for wildlife and people living along the proposed line”.

Cambridge Approaches: ‘East West Rail Company is flogging a dead horse’

Cambridge Approaches says EWR Co has demonstrated a ‘complete disregard for wildlife and people living along the proposed line’.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

 

[D365]

I certainly don't remember the anti-A421/428 mob being quite this vocal.

 

[Spekejunction]

I certainly don't remember the anti-A421/428 mob being quite this vocal.

Pity EWR didn’t get together with the Caxton Gibbet to Black Cat Road gang..
My rule of thumb for the most cost effective route is to do a distance check and bridge count..
As to Cambridge to Newmarket line ..
Stay South of Cambridge and join up with the Newmarket line at Six Mile bottom.
The existing line through Cherry Hinton would close and Trains from Cambridge to Newmarket could call at Cambridge South before heading East.
The Ely bottleneck could be solved by keeping the existing Station and Junction as is
..freight could be cleared from the present line by constructing a bypass to the south of the station then turning North to join up with March Line.
But I guess this is all very many years in the future and I’ll be pushing up Daisies.

 

[Magdalia]

The Cambridge Approaches group are now calling for the whole eastern section to be scrapped after failing in their previous attempt to get a northern approach to the city.

Cambridge Approaches: ‘East West Rail Company is flogging a dead horse’

Cambridge Approaches says EWR Co has demonstrated a ‘complete disregard for wildlife and people living along the proposed line’.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Cambridge Approaches = South Cambridgeshire NIMBYs.

Stay South of Cambridge and join up with the Newmarket line at Six Mile bottom.

There is absolutely no prospect of getting a new railway anywhere near the Wandlebury Country Park.

 

[tspaul26]

The Cambridge Approaches group are now calling for the whole eastern section to be scrapped after failing in their previous attempt to get a northern approach to the city.

Cambridge Approaches: ‘East West Rail Company is flogging a dead horse’

Cambridge Approaches says EWR Co has demonstrated a ‘complete disregard for wildlife and people living along the proposed line’.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

Well they would say that, wouldn't they?

Cambridge Approaches = South Cambridgeshire NIMBYs.

I am shocked, shocked to hear this.

 

[Redbus74]

The Cambridge Approaches group are now calling for the whole eastern section to be scrapped after failing in their previous attempt to get a northern approach to the city.

Cambridge Approaches: ‘East West Rail Company is flogging a dead horse’

Cambridge Approaches says EWR Co has demonstrated a ‘complete disregard for wildlife and people living along the proposed line’.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

So they would rather it be scrapped than get the route they want, how ridiculous. Surely any connection is better than none ??? People dont want it in their backyard but there probably also the same people who moan about too much traffic on the roads, would they not rather people used public transport ?

 

[daodao]

@Magdalia and @tspaul26

Do you have any response to the poor business case referred to in the article?

Cambridge Approaches: ‘East West Rail Company is flogging a dead horse’​

Cambridge Approaches: ‘East West Rail Company is flogging a dead horse’

Cambridge Approaches says EWR Co has demonstrated a ‘complete disregard for wildlife and people living along the proposed line’.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

Dr Harrold added: “To their credit EWR Co have published a lot more of the business case. This shows that the level two benefit to cost ratio for their preferred route has fallen from 1.31 in 2020 to a ridiculous 0.3 today. There is no business case for this railway.”

Cambridge Approaches says EWR Co have attempted to boost their business case by assuming a population increase of 53,400 at Cambourne from a base of 9,200 and an increase of 44,000 at Tempsford from a base of 500.

This falls outside, and in addition to, any Local Plan – with no clear route to achieving it, says the group. Nor does EWR Co address the fundamental issue of lack of spatial plan and first/last mile solution, the campaigners say. Yet the benefit to cost ratio remains low at 0.59.

 

[Redbus74]

Im sure i remember all sorts of routes that were discussed years ago, im sure i remember one going from the varsity line to the thameslink line down to Luton with a new line to Stevenage with one option just carrying on to Cambridge another going to Hertford North then a new line to Hertford East then to Cambridge via Bishops Stortford. Tried to google these but i cant find anything, someone tell me i didn't dream it ?

 

[Magdalia]

Do you have any response to the poor business case referred to in the article?

Yes.

The economic case for the railway is well set out in the EWR report published on 26 May. My initial summary of it is in #5704 here, which I'm doing with a link not a quote because I think that the latter will lose the extracts from the report.

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

That was my point: you may well keep the stations, but receive no service or only a nominal service. In the latter case, it is also unlikely that it would operate at ‘peak’ times. Quite the opposite. I could see a case for a "directed" non-clockface service using one unit. The one that...

www.railforums.co.uk

I've written before about business cases and benefit/cost ratios. These are not useful tools for assessing whether to go ahead with a project that has such a big impact over such a long period. Any estimate of benefits over 50 years is hugely dependent on assumptions made about UK economic performance. Given the difficulty that the Bank of England and the Office of Budget Responsibility have in forecasting what will happen to the UK economy in the first year, it is quite clear that using business case methodology over a 50 year period is a pointless exercise.

Continuing attempts to assess East West Rail using inappropriate tools is disingenuous. The Theory of Change analysis used in the report is a much more appropriate way of assessing it.

 

[camflyer]

So they would rather it be scrapped than get the route they want, how ridiculous. Surely any connection is better than none ??? People dont want it in their backyard but there probably also the same people who moan about too much traffic on the roads, would they not rather people used public transport ?

They also don't want the new housing built in the Cambridge-MK corridor but are probably the same people who complain that their children and grandchildren cannot afford to buy in the area

 

[tspaul26]

@Magdalia and @tspaul26

Do you have any response to the poor business case referred to in the article?

Cambridge Approaches: ‘East West Rail Company is flogging a dead horse’​

Cambridge Approaches: ‘East West Rail Company is flogging a dead horse’

Cambridge Approaches says EWR Co has demonstrated a ‘complete disregard for wildlife and people living along the proposed line’.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

The “poor business case” referred to is actually the ‘benefit to cost ratio’ or BCR.

This is one element of the ‘economic case’ for the project, which is in turn one of the five ‘cases’ which make up a DfT ‘Green Book’ business case.

The BCR only factors in certain economic benefits and does not include an allowance (in money terms) for the wider-scale economic or social benefits which are expected to flow from a given project.

These are either dealt with in narrative fashion as part of the economic case or through the ‘strategic case’. The agglomeration benefits of overlapping the economic hinterlands of Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge would fall into this category.

In the case of EWR, the direct BCR is fairly poor, but this is only one (very minor) part of the picture. All other elements of the EWR business case (including the non-monetised elements of the economic case and the overall strategic case in particular) are very strong.

In summary: the fixation on the BCR (and the slapdash use of the term ‘business case’ to describe it) merely demonstrates that these people are either (1) ignorant or (2) disingenuous or (3) both.

My money is on (3).

 

[BrianW]

The “poor business case” referred to is actually the ‘benefit to cost ratio’ or BCR.

This is one element of the ‘economic case’ for the project, which is in turn one of the five ‘cases’ which make up a DfT ‘Green Book’ business case.

The BCR only factors in certain economic benefits and does not include an allowance (in money terms) for the wider-scale economic or social benefits which are expected to flow from a given project.

These are either dealt with in narrative fashion as part of the economic case or through the ‘strategic case’. The agglomeration benefits of overlapping the economic hinterlands of Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge would fall into this category.

In the case of EWR, the direct BCR is fairly poor, but this is only one (very minor) part of the picture. All other elements of the EWR business case (including the non-monetised elements of the economic case and the overall strategic case in particular) are very strong.

In summary: the fixation on the BCR (and the slapdash use of the term ‘business case’ to describe it) merely demonstrates that these people are either (1) ignorant or (2) disingenuous or (3) both.

My money is on (3).

I find it hard to imagine that the EWR team of professionals and their paymasters would still be in business let alone developing these proposals if they wer 'flogging a dead horse'- why would they- what kind of 'business case' would that be?

Of course I understand every NIMBY using every opportunity and ploy to have their way, as I would. I would expect the current occupants of the Poets estate to be vehemently opposed to six tracking north of Bedford (Midland) Station. I would expect various iterations to be/ have been developed and evaluated. I seem to recall a lot of attractive documentation being produced, e.g for road arrangements at Bicester. EWR come across to me as well-meaning and considerate, but I don't live there!

Regarding stations on the Marston Vale stretch (Bletchley- Bedford) they have given a lot of consideration to number and (re)location of stations- in another document! IIRC all these documents are available free- see website. https://eastwestrail.co.uk/library?type=consultation-documents&category=&query=&start=10

 

[Magdalia]

This is one element of the ‘economic case’ for the project, which is in turn one of the five ‘cases’ which make up a DfT ‘Green Book’ business case.

The BCR only factors in certain economic benefits and does not include an allowance (in money terms) for the wider-scale economic or social benefits which are expected to flow from a given project.

These are either dealt with in narrative fashion as part of the economic case or through the ‘strategic case’. The agglomeration benefits of overlapping the economic hinterlands of Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge would fall into this category.

In the case of EWR, the direct BCR is fairly poor, but this is only one (very minor) part of the picture. All other elements of the EWR business case (including the non-monetised elements of the economic case and the overall strategic case in particular) are very strong.

Thanks for this helpful explanation.

In the dim and distant past I was involved in various coloured books, but kept a safe distance from green ones!

 

[fishwomp]

It didn’t get fully gauge cleared for wires. Only the bridges that were completely new are definitely clear for electrification. Some were not altered at all, if they were ok for the necessary freight gauge. The best example is just out of Bicester at Charbridge Lane where the level crossing replacement bridge is clear for wires, but about 100 yards past it towards Bletchley it’s the same tight brick arch it’s always been.

If need be, that bridge could be closed and the current road get a 100 yard diversion to by the new bridge, it's currently only a field there. I was expecting that to be the end picture but it didn't materialize. Of course, having not done this when they had the opportunity/reason, it could be built on in the future.