East-West Rail (EWR): Alternative options

[edwin_m]

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.

I imagine someone would already have decided how to deal with this bridge, before cancellation of the electrification made it unnecessary.

 

[fishwomp]

I imagine someone would already have decided how to deal with this bridge, before cancellation of the electrification made it unnecessary.

That's a fair point. If no electrification, the bridge could stay, if electrified, the field needed a strip cutting from it. So long as that option remains open in the future..

 

[Andyjs247]

I imagine someone would already have decided how to deal with this bridge, before cancellation of the electrification made it unnecessary.

Prior to ‘descoping’, plans were in place to replace the bridge with a two-lane structure with the necessary clearance for electrification. A new bridge would also have removed the bottleneck on the approach to Launton village.

The existing bridge has now been retained after having been closed for about a year for repairs. New plans were drawn up, new environmental assessments were done but the bottleneck remains and the bridge is an obstacle to future electrification.

 

[Mark24]

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.

I would have thought the obvious answer was to put a new bit of road here, and do away with the Launton bridge altogether

 

[The Planner]

I would have thought the obvious answer was to put a new bit of road here, and do away with the Launton bridge altogether

View attachment 140547

A junction half way up the bridge slope doesnt strike me as ideal.

 

[gantier]

Streetview shows level, uncultivated land between Bicester Road, Manor Farm and Charbridge Lane https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.902,-1.125091,206.38h,-20.68p,1z,wH5ya8YkajUWlXOQi6_Ssg. I can't understand why the access road to Manor Farm was not extended to Bicester Road and a traffic Island placed at a new junction with Charbridge Lane and Charbridge Way - one less old bridge to maintain. https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.898676,-1.127489,8.33h,-3.41p,1z,n15awKDDLCCtVbXIxgGNWw. However the option seems open for the future.

 

[mwmbwls]

Have any indicative point to point journey times been published for the route?

 

[DavidLL]

This was looked at, but ruled out because it trashes a significant portion of the bus network between Cambridge and Huntingdon.

The southern approach means that it’s not necessary to do that in any event.

As @zwk500 says:

You would also have to expand capacity on the West Anglia Mainline south of Cambridge to run services through, negating much of the cost and constructability advantage.

This is very much a ‘long term sustainability and quality of development’ decision.

That being said, the St Neots South station location wasn’t all that much better in terms of immediate benefits because it’s still a fair way from the town centre and on the ’wrong’ side of the river.

The MVL service pattern isn’t confirmed. There’s a high likelihood that all 3FP on the MVL will run through to Cambridge and, potentially, it might be a consistent stopping pattern for all three i.e. all three call at largest settlements with the remaining stations going parliamentary or getting a bus instead.

The opportunity has been taken to grasp the nettle: houses are going to be demolished.

This is going to be looked at again as part of the next phase of detailed design, but ultimately if the railway is going to be built then there will be some inevitable impacts.

You won’t believe some of the internal arguments about this, but things ended up where they did. There was a large contingent in the company which wanted to say even less!

The service pattern needs to be confirmed first. The timetable modelling indicated that trains wouldn’t really get up to this line speed due to the intermediate station calls which then calls into question whether a 100mph uplift is actually value for money.

And if a lower maximum line speed reduces the scope of works, costs and severance (level crossing closures and so on) then that has to be factored in as well.

It’s not that simple because you would have to expand capacity between Cambridge and Cambridge South to run anything more than a token service each hour. That increases the costs significantly, but is already being done on the selected southern approach.


There isn’t one.

In theory, yes, but that wouldn’t align with the strategic and economic case for the scheme which is about joining up the shorter intermediate flows as well i.e. EWR only makes sense if you call at Cambourne, MVL settlements and so on to join them to the bigger population and employment centres.

The southern approach to Cambridge is the wrong choice. The train can come from the north, take in Northstowe and then travel to Cambridge North, Central and South. This makes it so much easier for freight to join from Ely and travel west rather than travel through the centre of Cambridge. It is cheaper and quicker to build from the north, saving the tax payer a fortune and saving the people of South Cambridge having to put up with noisy freight trains day and night. Perhaps Mr Gove's densification will do away with it all together and people can travel to their work at the Biomedical Campus using local transport.

 

[jfowkes]

The southern approach to Cambridge is the wrong choice. The train can come from the north, take in Northstowe and then travel to Cambridge North, Central and South. This makes it so much easier for freight to join from Ely and travel west rather than travel through the centre of Cambridge. It is cheaper and quicker to build from the north, saving the tax payer a fortune and saving the people of South Cambridge having to put up with noisy freight trains day and night. Perhaps Mr Gove's densification will do away with it all together and people can travel to their work at the Biomedical Campus using local transport.

Hi David, welcome to the forum!

Can you evidence your claims there, specifically about 1) volume of freight on EWR, 2) the relative speed and costs of the Northern approach and 3) the viability of either reversing EWR services at Cambridge South or extending them to other destinations.

 

[swt_passenger]

Have any indicative point to point journey times been published for the route?

I suggest this isn’t really the right thread for this question, but they’ve been discussed fairly often in the main consultation thread.

I don’t think there’s ever been a proper draft timetable published, although on the EWR official site a quick look found general statements such as “Oxford to Milton Keynes in 45 mins”, and “Bedford to Cambridge in 35 mins”.

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

Hi guys, It was recently reported that the East-West Rail link between Oxford and MK has been delayed by 2 years from 2017 until 2019. Does anyone have any idea why?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[The Planner]

I suggest this isn’t really the right thread for this question, but they’ve been discussed fairly often in the main consultation thread.

I don’t think there’s ever been a proper draft timetable published, although on the EWR official site a quick look found general statements such as “Oxford to Milton Keynes in 45 mins”, and “Bedford to Cambridge in 35 mins”.

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

Hi guys, It was recently reported that the East-West Rail link between Oxford and MK has been delayed by 2 years from 2017 until 2019. Does anyone have any idea why?

www.railforums.co.uk

47 minutes Oxford to MK seems to be the average and 41/42 in the other direction.

 

[zwk500]

I appreciate you're new here, so apologies if some of these are a little direct.

This makes it so much easier for freight to join from Ely and travel west rather than travel through the centre of Cambridge.

Freight at Ely won't be able to access a northern approach without an additional chord forming a triangular junction at both Ely and Cambridge (the freight that EWR would take is that originating at Felixstowe predominantly).

saving the tax payer a fortune and saving the people of South Cambridge having to put up with noisy freight trains day and night.

Why should the people of South Cambridge recieve this consideration to the disbenifit of the people of North Cambridge?

Perhaps Mr Gove's densification will do away with it all together and people can travel to their work at the Biomedical Campus using local transport.

Local transport will hardly help Tempsford/St Neots commuters, or even Cambourne particularly.

 

[edwin_m]

I appreciate you're new here, so apologies if some of these are a little direct.

Freight at Ely won't be able to access a northern approach without an additional chord forming a triangular junction at both Ely and Cambridge (the freight that EWR would take is that originating at Felixstowe predominantly).

Why should the people of South Cambridge recieve this consideration to the disbenifit of the people of North Cambridge?

Local transport will hardly help Templecombe/St Neots commuters, or even Cambourne particularly.

Tempsford? Or are you going to tell us about this wild new extension via Didcot West, a new link in Bath and no doubt worked by 442s...

 

[zwk500]

Tempsford? Or are you going to tell us about this wild new extension via Didcot West, a new link in Bath and no doubt worked by 442s...

Apologies, again you've caught a typo.

 

[RT4038]

Tempsford? Or are you going to tell us about this wild new extension via Didcot West, a new link in Bath and no doubt worked by 442s...

Surely much easier and straightforward via Reading West, Basingstoke and Salisbury. No new build or reinstated track?

 

[bspahh]

The southern approach to Cambridge is the wrong choice. The train can come from the north, take in Northstowe and then travel to Cambridge North, Central and South. This makes it so much easier for freight to join from Ely and travel west rather than travel through the centre of Cambridge. It is cheaper and quicker to build from the north

@tspaul26 wrote that the Northern route into Cambridge is cheaper for the physical costs than the Southern routes because those costs don't include the cost to the economy of the disruption when you get the railway to cross the A14.

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

And it doesn’t really drive any material incremental benefit. Fascinating - I'm really surprised by this; many thanks! (Out of interest if the 12 stops is 90-95 mins end-to-end, does this mean that an express service would be 70ish?)

www.railforums.co.uk

The political cost of that would also be enormous.

 

[jfowkes]

@tspaul26 wrote that the Northern route into Cambridge is cheaper for the physical costs than the Southern routes because those costs don't include the cost to the economy of the disruption when you get the railway to cross the A14.

We can do bridge drives that keep road closures to no more than a few days. If that were done for an EWR A14 crossing, would there really be that much economic impact?

(Full disclosure, I live in Longstanton and would benefit from a Northstowe station! Mainly asking out of curiosity.)

 

[Magdalia]

The train can come from the north, take in Northstowe and then travel to Cambridge North, Central and South.

Full disclosure, I live in Longstanton and would benefit from a Northstowe station!

Northstowe doesn't need East West Rail because it already has the Guided Busway capable of delivering a frequent and rapid connection to its nearest railhead at Cambridge North. Journey time on the busway Longstanton Park and Ride to Cambridge North is 15-17 minutes.

 

[edwin_m]

Surely much easier and straightforward via Reading West, Basingstoke and Salisbury. No new build or reinstated track?

But much less fun.

 

[takno]

Northstowe doesn't need East West Rail because it already has the Guided Busway capable of delivering a frequent and rapid connection to its nearest railhead at Cambridge North. Journey time on the busway Longstanton Park and Ride to Cambridge North is 15-17 minutes.

15-17 minutes on a shaky bus and then an indeterminate change time at an out-of-town shed doesn't sound like an appealing connection to the rail network tbh. It would almost certainly eliminate rail as a realistic option for the majority of likely journeys from Northstowe on EWR.

 

[jfowkes]

Northstowe doesn't need East West Rail because it already has the Guided Busway capable of delivering a frequent and rapid connection to its nearest railhead at Cambridge North. Journey time on the busway Longstanton Park and Ride to Cambridge North is 15-17 minutes.

15-17 minutes on a shaky bus and then an indeterminate change time at an out-of-town shed doesn't sound like an appealing connection to the rail network tbh. It would almost certainly eliminate rail as a realistic option for the majority of likely journeys from Northstowe on EWR.

I'm not actually advocating for Northstowe to get EWR, just saying it would benefit me personally.
Connections to the west of the country are generally bad from Cambridge, involving either a via-London or via-Leicester journey. EWR will improve that a lot, no matter which approach it takes.
When it's built, Northstowe residents will have the choice of Cambridge North, Huntingdon and Cambourne (if they have a car) as railheads, which is pretty good if you ask me.

 

[takno]

I'm not actually advocating for Northstowe to get EWR, just saying it would benefit me personally.
Connections to the west of the country are generally bad from Cambridge, involving either a via-London or via-Leicester journey. EWR will improve that a lot, no matter which approach it takes.
When it's built, Northstowe residents will have the choice of Cambridge North, Huntingdon and Cambourne (if they have a car) as railheads, which is pretty good if you ask me.

To be fair I'm not heavily invested in the choice of route either, with a mild preference for whatever is cheapest. It's just frustrating seeing some oddly unpleasant journey suggestions being posited as equivalent to having a station. Plus I really dislike guided busways

 

[Magdalia]

5-17 minutes on a shaky bus

Have you ever ridden the guided busway? It is not shaky.

then an indeterminate change time at an out-of-town shed

If busway and rail are both high frequency then waits won't be long. And Cambridge North is not an out of town shed.

It would almost certainly eliminate rail as a realistic option for the majority of likely journeys from Northstowe on EWR.

The vast majority or journeys from and to Northstowe are to and from various parts of Cambridge, journeys between Northstowe and anywhere else on EWR will be a drop in the bucket.

In particular what Northstowe needs is journeys to and from the Biomedical Campus that don't involve buses getting stuck in congested Cambridge road traffic. The way to do that is a Northstowe-Cambridge North guided bus shuttle and through ticketing to use rail between Cambridge North and Cambridge South. I say that more in hope than expectation that such a scheme will be delivered when Cambridge South opens in 2025.

 

[mwmbwls]

The southern approach to Cambridge is the wrong choice. The train can come from the north, take in Northstowe and then travel to Cambridge North, Central and South. This makes it so much easier for freight to join from Ely and travel west rather than travel through the centre of Cambridge. It is cheaper and quicker to build from the north, saving the tax payer a fortune and saving the people of South Cambridge having to put up with noisy freight trains day and night. Perhaps Mr Gove's densification will do away with it all together and people can travel to their work at the Biomedical Campus using local transport.

There is a subtle but important difference between freight train paths and freight trains. I stand open to correction on this but the freight train from Felixstowe that is being considered is a re-routed Felixstowe to Wentllog (Cardiff). This currently uses the North London line which is congested as a result of the success of the London Overground on the North London Line together with the need to allow for the expansion plans of London Gateway.
David's idea is explained in full here:

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

See Page 23 Figure 4.3

Newmarket tunnel is a problem but it could be redeployed if like Greater Manchester with the Oldham and East Didsbury Metrolink lines. Cambridge Mayor is already talking about this. In fact I might suggest he go the whole hog and convert the Cambridge busways as well although I fear I might incur a "Tut,tut" from our esteemed moderator.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

Is that really true though ?

Most of the Thameslink stoppers terminate at Bedford, therefore there must surely be ample corresponding paths available North of Bedford.

Ordinarily I wouldn't mind gold plating such schemes but demolishing sixty plus homes seems grossly unnecessary.

 

[zwk500]

Is that really true though ?

Most of the Thameslink stoppers terminate at Bedford, therefore there must surely be ample corresponding paths available North of Bedford.

Ordinarily I wouldn't mind gold plating such schemes but demolishing sixty plus homes seems grossly unnecessary.

You could probably get away with it today, but in 60 years time, will you regret not taking the opportunity?
It's a very difficult question to answer and I would not relish being the person trying to decide. Also, how many homes are saved if you are still 6 tracking through Bedford Station itself, as the platforms will drive the largest land take. And you definitely will need new platforms for EWR?

 

[yorksrob]

You could probably get away with it today, but in 60 years time, will you regret not taking the opportunity?
It's a very difficult question to answer and I would not relish being the person trying to decide. Also, how many homes are saved if you are still 6 tracking through Bedford Station itself, as the platforms will drive the largest land take. And you definitely will need new platforms for EWR?

If you're regretting not six-tracking in sixty years time, you're likely to have far more issues elsewhere on the network to worry about, including south of Bedford.

In terms of additional platforms, yes this may be a fair point, however there seems to be a large area of car park North of the station that might accommodate this.

 

[zwk500]

If you're regretting not six-tracking in sixty years time, you're likely to have far more issues elsewhere on the network to worry about, including south of Bedford.

If you do, it's a pinchpoint that could have been avoided - especially as junction in quick succession are always a problem once traffic gets busy.

In terms of additional platforms, yes this may be a fair point, however there seems to be a large area of car park North of the station that might accommodate this.

The curvature and modern standards are unlikely to fit in before the bridge, so you'd be demolishing less but still some by going into 4-track. With electrification heading further north, and electric freight with last-mile capability, I wouldn't be surprised if the MML does see increasing use of the slows north of Bedford in future. Keeping EWR separate is a good idea if it can be done. However I agree I wouldn't insist on it if it was in danger of putting a big hole in the project's case.

 

[yorksrob]

If you do, it's a pinchpoint that could have been avoided - especially as junction in quick succession are always a problem once traffic gets busy.

The curvature and modern standards are unlikely to fit in before the bridge, so you'd be demolishing less but still some by going into 4-track. With electrification heading further north, and electric freight with last-mile capability, I wouldn't be surprised if the MML does see increasing use of the slows north of Bedford in future. Keeping EWR separate is a good idea if it can be done. However I agree I wouldn't insist on it if it was in danger of putting a big hole in the project's case.

I just think that demolishing lots of homes should be avoided, if at all possible.

 

[Spekejunction]

The proposed route through Bedford towards Camborne is politically dead in the water..
A Bedford South Parkway kills all the birds…
1. Keeps existing connection for freight and local service.
2.Avoids knocking half of Bedford down
3.Gives adequate parking.
4.Connects to North South and East West lines.
5.Staying south of Bedford would allow line to shadow the A 428 all the way to Camborne..
6.Might stand a chance of being accepted by the locals..
7.Worcester Parkway is prime example of what can be achieved..