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

[Tobbes]

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?)

 

[tspaul26]

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?)

At a very early phase of design by Network Rail then sub-60 minutes was on the table, but that was ‘blue sky’ 125mph straight as an arrow alignment thinking.

Realistically, you’d have difficulty getting end to end times below 75 minutes and you’d have to do more upfront upgrade work i.e. higher cost.

I suppose there’s no reason in principle why you couldn’t do those extra works later - the current state of design wouldn’t preclude it.

 

[mr_jrt]

This excludes any costs associated with upgrades south of Cambridge station to enable EWR services to run-through to Cambridge South.

You also have to do more work in Cambridge station itself because the platform plan only works if EWR northern approach terminates at Cambridge.

These extras make northern approach more expensive if you want through EWR services to Cambridge South.

EDIT: i.e. defeating the point of selecting a northern approach to save money.

I suspected that was the case. Going full circle though, surely any through service at Cambridge be it from the south or from the north requires the same interventions on the opposite side unless it is only a partial through service. Sending everything from the south to Ely/Ipswich/etc is going to need the same platforms and presumably the same four tracks north to Coldham's Lane. If anything, if everything at Cambridge was a through service it would reduce any new platform requirements?

 

[JamesT]

End to end with 12 intermediate stops would be roughly 95 minutes.

With ideal pathing it could be done sub-90 minutes, but that’s not likely to materialise in practice.

And it doesn’t really drive any material incremental benefit.

As a comparison, Google reckons the fastest you could drive Oxford to Cambridge is 110 minutes, but gives a wide range up to 3.5 hours.
Going via London by rail (once Nuneham Viaduct is fixed again) is around 2 hours 40.

So a 95 minute stopper is still going to be extremely competitive.

 

[Tobbes]

As a comparison, Google reckons the fastest you could drive Oxford to Cambridge is 110 minutes, but gives a wide range up to 3.5 hours.
Going via London by rail (once Nuneham Viaduct is fixed again) is around 2 hours 40.

So a 95 minute stopper is still going to be extremely competitive.

Driving will be quicker than today (and more reliable) when the Caxton Gibbet - Black Cat dualling and Black Cat interchange work is done, presumably ahead of the EWR opening. Moreover, the competitiveness will depend on your starting point and destination in Oxford and Cambridge are, given how poorly sited the main stations are (thank you, colleges). A 75 min journey would be much more likely to maximise modal change from road to rail, I'd argue.

 

[tspaul26]

surely any through service at Cambridge be it from the south or from the north requires the same interventions on the opposite side unless it is only a partial through service

No, this is not actually the case.

Sending everything from the south to Ely/Ipswich/etc is going to need the same platforms and presumably the same four tracks north to Coldham's Lane

No, not from a southern approach. Pretty much the only thing you would need is to convert the bay at Cambridge North into another through platform, but that’s about it.

If anything, if everything at Cambridge was a through service it would reduce any new platform requirements?

It would reduce bay platform requirements, but this then presents a problem for the northern approach proposals which rely on (in effect) terminating EWR services in the western bays (5 and 6) and terminating Norwich/Ipswich on the eastern side. Obviously, you can’t do that if you are running EWR services through.

 

[Magdalia]

Driving will be shorter and more reliable when the Caxton Gibbet - Black Cat and Black Cat interchange work is done, presumably ahead of the EWR opening. Moreover, the competitiveness will depend on your starting point and destination in Oxford and Cambridge are, given how poorly sited the main stations are (thank you, colleges). A 75 min journey would be much more likely to maximise modal change from road to rail, I'd argue.

The Cambridge stations (3 of them by the time EWR arrives) may be poorly sited for the old City Centre, but they are well sited for where the employment is. That particularly applies to the Biomedical Campus and Cambridge South, but the area around the old station has been transformed in the last 10 years and is now a major employment hub in its own right.

We are talking life sciences researchers getting to and from the Biomedical Campus here, not history profs getting to and from the old colleges.

And in Cambridge road traffic has the same problem but worse. It reaches the edge of the City then has to negotiate a congested network of single carriageway roads, which may or may not have a congestion charge by the time that EWR arrives.

 

[MarkyT]

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.

Coming in from the south offers many possible places to extend services to beyond Cambridge if desired on a range of lines, while all easily serving Cambridge South if desired and some also being able to call at North (which has potential for expansion). Most are a logical continuation in the same general direction so are more likely to generate cross-Cambridge journeys too. From the north, there's only really Stansted as a logical terminus which couldn't cope unless EWR trains replaced another existing service from that direction through the single track north chord and tunnel under the runway. The Royston line would be a possible destination from the north too but I can't see anywhere to go along that line that would be useful for journeys from the west beyond Cambridge South, so trains might be running empty to any notional turnback location, and its a capacity constrained line too with mixed stopping patterns. The southern approach, 'automatically' serving Cambridge South station, is far more sensible in my opinion.

 

[tspaul26]

Coming in from the south offers many possible places to extend services to beyond Cambridge if desired on a range of lines, while all easily serving Cambridge South if desired and some also being able to call at North (which has potential for expansion). Most are a logical continuation in the same general direction so are more likely to generate cross-Cambridge journeys too. From the north, there's only really Stansted as a logical terminus which couldn't cope unless EWR trains replaced another existing service from that direction through the single track north chord and tunnel under the runway. The Royston line would be a possible destination from the north too but I can't see anywhere to go along that line that would be useful for journeys from the west beyond Cambridge South, so trains might be running empty to any notional turnback location, and its a capacity constrained line too with mixed stopping patterns. The southern approach, 'automatically' serving Cambridge South station, is far more sensible in my opinion.

And we have a winner!

You won’t believe the difficulties I have had in trying to ram home this message, not that the NIMBYs actually care about the realities of such things.

 

[zwk500]

You won’t believe the difficulties I have had in trying to ram home this message, not that the NIMBYs actually care about the realities of such things.

We very much appreciate the work that goes into getting these things over the line, whether we're familiar with the problems or not! Thank you, once again.

 

[mr_jrt]

No, this is not actually the case.

I'm very curious about this! Could you please elaborate why this is the case? I just can't see how the exact same number of services wouldn't require the exact same infrastructure. If you have 4 trains extra an hour from the south heading north it's no different to 4 extra trains from the north heading south. They have to come back the way they came if nothing else!

 

[tspaul26]

I'm very curious about this! Could you please elaborate why this is the case? I just can't see how the exact same number of services wouldn't require the exact same infrastructure. If you have 4 trains extra an hour from the south heading north it's no different to 4 extra trains from the north heading south. They have to come back the way they came if nothing else!

It’s a combination of the absolute capacity of the line, pathing and platforming.

These are not the same for the northern and southern approaches even if the number of trains is the same.

 

[mwmbwls]

No, this is not actually the case.

No, not from a southern approach. Pretty much the only thing you would need is to convert the bay at Cambridge North into another through platform, but that’s about it.

It would reduce bay platform requirements, but this then presents a problem for the northern approach proposals which rely on (in effect) terminating EWR services in the western bays (5 and 6) and terminating Norwich/Ipswich on the eastern side. Obviously, you can’t do that if you are running EWR services through.

EWR - possible eastern extensions from cambridge to norwich and ipswick by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

Onward EWR connection to Norwich and Ipswich was an option suggestion with each destination having an hourly service.IIRC this was suggested by the local councils. Norwich may have taken its EMR link to Liverpool as a precedent.

 

[WesternBiker]

This is such a depressing line to read. That the industry has been taken in by the promises of batteries and bionic duckweed as an alternative to OLE for a line like EWR is terrible.

My thoughts entirely. I realise the argument for (at least) getting the line built, but there must be a dividend - especially on new alignment - of doing it when the line is built, rather than doing it later.

 

[camflyer]

EWR - possible eastern extensions from cambridge to norwich and ipswick by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

Onward EWR connection to Norwich and Ipswich was an option suggestion with each destination having an hourly service.IIRC this was suggested by the local councils. Norwich may have taken its EMR link to Liverpool as a precedent.

I thought through services to Norwich and Ipswich had always been part of the EWR plan since the very beginning. A southern approach to Cambridge allows this.

 

[Tobbes]

And we have a winner!

You won’t believe the difficulties I have had in trying to ram home this message, not that the NIMBYs actually care about the realities of such things.

If Stansted were expanded to two tunnels, would it make a better destination than Cambridge North?

 

[zwk500]

My thoughts entirely. I realise the argument for (at least) getting the line built, but there must be a dividend - especially on new alignment - of doing it when the line is built, rather than doing it later.

On a new line, the argument for not electrifying is so much weaker than it was on the Oxford-MK section. At least the argument about not having to rebuild existing bridges was present there.

 

[tspaul26]

If Stansted were expanded to two tunnels, would it make a better destination than Cambridge North?

To one destination and with less scope to deliver wider EWR connectivity to Norfolk and Suffolk in the future.

 

[stuu]

If Stansted were expanded to two tunnels, would it make a better destination than Cambridge North?

It's quite a long way, through not very much. Is there very much demand - how busy is the XC service to Stansted?

 

[Magdalia]

If Stansted were expanded to two tunnels, would it make a better destination than Cambridge North?

The tunnel under the runway is just one of three capacity constraints at Stansted Airport. The north curve is also single track. The station only has three platforms, one of which (platform 2) is short, only taking 4 car trains. When Stansted Express is running at 15 minute intervals then the short platform 2 is the only platform available for all other trains.

On its own doubling the track under the runway does not add new capacity.

 

[Tobbes]

To one destination and with less scope to deliver wider EWR connectivity to Norfolk and Suffolk in the future.

That's fair enough - and living in Ipswich I'm obviously biased in the other direction!

 

[stevieinselby]

That seems to be what EWR is proposing. This is the "proposed train service pattern":
Was the 4tph between Bedford and Cambridge always in the plans?

The previous plans had 4tph between Bletchley and Cambridge, but the 2tph starting at Bletchley have now been shortened to only run from Bedford.

Coming in from the south offers many possible places to extend services to beyond Cambridge if desired on a range of lines, while all easily serving Cambridge South if desired and some also being able to call at North (which has potential for expansion). Most are a logical continuation in the same general direction so are more likely to generate cross-Cambridge journeys too. From the north, there's only really Stansted as a logical terminus which couldn't cope unless EWR trains replaced another existing service from that direction through the single track north chord and tunnel under the runway. The Royston line would be a possible destination from the north too but I can't see anywhere to go along that line that would be useful for journeys from the west beyond Cambridge South, so trains might be running empty to any notional turnback location, and its a capacity constrained line too with mixed stopping patterns. The southern approach, 'automatically' serving Cambridge South station, is far more sensible in my opinion.

Not to mention the potential for freight – approaching Cambridge from the south means that trains could continue straight through and on to Felixstowe, whereas coming in from the north wouldn't allow that without a reversal, which is not what you want to do mid-route with a freight train if you can avoid it! (Whereas for a passenger train to reverse at Cambridge, where it will be stopping anyway, doesn't actually make a huge amount of difference)

 

[zwk500]

The previous plans had 4tph between Bletchley and Cambridge, but the 2tph starting at Bletchley have now been shortened to only run from Bedford.


Not to mention the potential for freight – approaching Cambridge from the south means that trains could continue straight through and on to Felixstowe, whereas coming in from the north wouldn't allow that without a reversal, which is not what you want to do mid-route with a freight train if you can avoid it! (Whereas for a passenger train to reverse at Cambridge, where it will be stopping anyway, doesn't actually make a huge amount of difference)

Which freight is going to be heading from Felxistowe onto EWR without the north-facing connections?

 

[MarkyT]

Which freight is going to be heading from Felxistowe onto EWR without the north-facing connections?

Certainly not any existing deep-sea intermodal I agree. Maybe other future flows of unspecified nature, and not envisaged yet. Then in the longer term plausibly, new north-facing connections might be added as well! We probably shouldn't be mentioning the freight subject here again before the line's safely finished though. I recall it being quite a controversial subject among the locals en route!

 

[tspaul26]

The northern approach design would not have allowed current freight services to continue to operate as they do now, regardless of any additional freight in the future!

 

[camflyer]

If Stansted were expanded to two tunnels, would it make a better destination than Cambridge North?

But worse for the whole of East Anglia. The whole point of the scheme was to offer east-west connectivity without going through London.

 

[Magdalia]

Which freight is going to be heading from Felxistowe onto EWR without the north-facing connections?

The Felixstowe-Wentloog and vice versa?

Realtime Trains | 4V36 2245 Felixstowe North F.L.T. to Wentloog (Freightliners) | 25/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 4V36 2245 departure from Felixstowe North F.L.T. to Wentloog (Freightliners) on 25/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

Realtime Trains | 4L36 0741 Wentloog (Freightliners) to Felixstowe North F.L.T. | 25/05/2023

Real-time train running information for 4L36 0741 departure from Wentloog (Freightliners) to Felixstowe North F.L.T. on 25/05/2023. From Realtime Trains, an independent source of train running info for Great Britain.

www.realtimetrains.co.uk

 

[bspahh]

This excludes any costs associated with upgrades south of Cambridge station to enable EWR services to run-through to Cambridge South.

You also have to do more work in Cambridge station itself because the platform plan only works if EWR northern approach terminates at Cambridge.

These extras make northern approach more expensive if you want through EWR services to Cambridge South.

EDIT: i.e. defeating the point of selecting a northern approach to save money.

Do the costings for the Northern route into Cambridge include the cost of delays on the A14 whilst building a crossing for the railway?

That has both the cost to the economy, and the political cost, as it would turn a significant number of voting A14 users puce with rage. If this had been planned 10 years ago, it could have been merged in with the A14 upgrade.

 

[Bald Rick]

That’s what I thought. The poster was suggesting it was another consultation, I was thinking don’t we have enough already?

There will, of course, be another consultation as part of the DCO application.

Hmm. The Stansted branch is long overdue a capacity upgrade

But the airport’s owners are not in the slightest bit interested in contributing, despite being the main beneficiaries.

If Stansted were expanded to two tunnels, would it make a better destination than Cambridge North?

If you are a customer of Ryanair, perhaps. For everyone else, no.

 

[tspaul26]

Do the costings for the Northern route into Cambridge include the cost of delays on the A14 whilst building a crossing for the railway?

No, physical infrastructure costs only.

We probably shouldn't be mentioning the freight subject here again before the line's safely finished though. I recall it being quite a controversial subject among the locals en route!

That was largely because of deliberate scare-mongering by the two main NIMBY groups, both of which knew that what they were putting out was untrue.

As things stand, if the central section of EWR is built out as planned then you’d be looking at up to two freight paths between Bedford and Cambridge in each direction per day - that’s it.