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

[fishwomp]

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.

For those going to Oxford or Cambridge station it is unbeatable.. but most people don't want exactly that so may not be clear cut.

My (unfortunately too frequent at times in the past) experiences are that journey time either M25 or via Milton Keynes are comparable at about 2h10 driving from central Oxford to an office just 2 miles from the station on the south eastern side of Cambridge - most hours of the day. Other drivers may have to pick park and ride, depends on the destination.

The fastest rail (when nuneham is fixed) is actually timetabled 2h27. That involves almost 50 mins to connect in London (25 mins tube, then wait 25 more for CBG departure). In reality, you can get lucky sometimes and catch a service 30 minutes earlier than that (by skin of teeth). I have done 2h since the Oxf-PADs became 50 minutes. Add to the journey time for your onward bus/taxi of course - I have missed plenty trains in Cambridge due to congestion stopping the bus half a mile from the station..

Cambridge South will be a good addition to the service, although the dogs leg of a route feels like it adds cost to the project and time to future city to city services

 

[tspaul26]

Cambridge South will be a good addition to the service, although the dogs leg of a route feels like it adds cost to the project and time to future city to city services

The “dogs leg” is a vital part of the strategic case for the scheme because it provides shorter distance connectivity.

And the bulk of the construction cost relates to the works needed in Bedford and Cambridge because of the interaction with existing active mainlines in the confined built-up areas. The cost of the “dogs leg” is a sideshow bagatelle in that context.

The ‘golden thread’ which underpins the design is not about whizzing between Oxford and Cambridge. If that were so then it wouldn’t really stack up.

 

[Tobbes]

The “dogs leg” is a vital part of the strategic case for the scheme because it provides shorter distance connectivity.

And the bulk of the construction cost relates to the works needed in Bedford and Cambridge because of the interaction with existing active mainlines in the confined built-up areas. The cost of the “dogs leg” is a sideshow bagatelle in that context.

The ‘golden thread’ which underpins the design is not about whizzing between Oxford and Cambridge. If that were so then it wouldn’t really stack up.

I get this, but if the infrastructure is there for 2 tph express service between Oxford and Cambridge, it would be obtuse not to use it.

 

[Magdalia]

The “dogs leg” is a vital part of the strategic case for the scheme because it provides shorter distance connectivity.

From my perspective at the Cambridge end the "dog's leg" is key for delivering connectivity to both the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne.

And the bulk of the construction cost relates to the works needed in Bedford and Cambridge because of the interaction with existing active mainlines in the confined built-up areas. The cost of the “dogs leg” is a sideshow bagatelle in that context.

The differences in costs between various options are a mere bagatelle in the context of the massive contribution to UK economic growth (and hence tax income) that EWR to Cambridge can unlock. The "dog's leg" will deliver more bang for each buck by serving both the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne.

The ‘golden thread’ which underpins the design is not about whizzing between Oxford and Cambridge. If that were so then it wouldn’t really stack up.

Absolutely. The eastern end of EWR is about feeding the Cambridge Life Sciences industry with workers and places for them to live. Whizzing between Oxford and Cambridge is useful, and makes the case stronger, but on its own doesn't unlock economic growth to the same degree.

 

[Tobbes]

From my perspective at the Cambridge end the "dog's leg" is key for delivering connectivity to both the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne.

The differences in costs between various options are a mere bagatelle in the context of the massive contribution to UK economic growth (and hence tax income) that EWR to Cambridge can unlock. The "dog's leg" will deliver more bang for each buck by serving both the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and Cambourne.


Absolutely. The eastern end of EWR is about feeding the Cambridge Life Sciences industry with workers and places for them to live. Whizzing between Oxford and Cambridge is useful, and makes the case stronger, but on its own doesn't unlock economic growth to the same degree.

Staff at the biomedical campus will also live east of Cambs, so if you were to come in from the north and reverse all services at Cambs South, then you'd still achieve the connectivity without the dogleg, great wall of Cambridgeshire and the grade separated junction onto the Royston line. The only 'loss' here would be end-to-end times of Bedford-Ipswich or Bletchley-Norwich...

 

[tspaul26]

I get this, but if the infrastructure is there for 2 tph express service between Oxford and Cambridge, it would be obtuse not to use it.

Perhaps, but that is no more than a marginal aspect of the overall case for the scheme.

 

[Tobbes]

Perhaps, but that is no more than a marginal aspect of the overall case for the scheme.

Marginal benefits all add up! For the amount of money we're talking about here, each and every marginal benefit will improve the business case and should be welcomed with open arms.

 

[tspaul26]

Staff at the biomedical campus will also live east of Cambs, so if you were to come in from the north and reverse all services at Cambs South, then you'd still achieve the connectivity without the dogleg, great wall of Cambridgeshire and the grade separated junction onto the Royston line. The only 'loss' here would be end-to-end times of Bedford-Ipswich or Bletchley-Norwich...

And the extra cost to enable such reversals to happen.

To put the matter quite bluntly, you would not do this if it costs more than EWR Co’s proposal (which it would) and has longer journey times to boot.

Marginal benefits all add up! For the amount of money we're talking about here, each and every marginal benefit will improve the business case and should be welcomed with open arms.

But it doesn’t improve the business case to any significant degree.

 

[zwk500]

Marginal benefits all add up! For the amount of money we're talking about here, each and every marginal benefit will improve the business case and should be welcomed with open arms.

Not if it costs more to implement than you get back!

 

[tspaul26]

you'd still achieve the connectivity without the dogleg, great wall of Cambridgeshire and the grade separated junction onto the Royston line.

As for this, you would have a northern dogleg, a Great Wall of (further north) Cambridgeshire and a grade separated junction near Milton.

These purported benefits are, accordingly, illusory.

 

[Tobbes]

And the extra cost to enable such reversals to happen.

To put the matter quite bluntly, you would not do this if it costs more than EWR Co’s proposal (which it would) and has longer journey times to boot.


But it doesn’t improve the business case to any significant degree.

Fair enough - but it would remove a noisy bunch of opponents which itself is no bad thing (think: Justine Greening's decision to add much more tunnelling to HS2). What would be required at Cambridge South to allow the reversals to take place there?

 

[bspahh]

Staff at the biomedical campus will also live east of Cambs, so if you were to come in from the north and reverse all services at Cambs South, then you'd still achieve the connectivity without the dogleg, great wall of Cambridgeshire and the grade separated junction onto the Royston line. The only 'loss' here would be end-to-end times of Bedford-Ipswich or Bletchley-Norwich...

... but with the uncosted and politically toxic disruption to get the railway across the A14. There would still need to be a junction with the line between Cambridge and Waterbeach. Would that be grade separated?

 

[tspaul26]

Fair enough - but it would remove a noisy bunch of opponents which itself is no bad thing (think: Justine Greening's decision to add much more tunnelling to HS2). What would be required at Cambridge South to allow the reversals to take place there?

It removes one set of NIMBYs and replaces them with another so, again, no benefit.

I have already explained the works that would be needed earlier in this thread, but in summary: (a) four-tracking the West Anglia Mainline between Cambridge and Cambridge South and then either (b) rebuilding Cambridge South station with more platforms (requiring more legally protected land from the park) and potentially grade separated approaches to avoid conflicts or (c) send the trains further south to terminate elsewhere (which means further works and extra cost elsewhere and blows up the ‘reverse at Cambridge South before heading back up to Ely/Newmarket’ suggestion).

In other words, you’d have to do all the most expensive and complex bits of the southern approach on top of the northern approaches works and it still gives you less overall flexibility for pathing and timetabling.

 

[zwk500]

Fair enough - but it would remove a noisy bunch of opponents which itself is no bad thing (think: Justine Greening's decision to add much more tunnelling to HS2). What would be required at Cambridge South to allow the reversals to take place there?

Tobbes, do you live south-west of Cambridge?

 

[tspaul26]

it would remove a noisy bunch of opponents

Out of interest, how would you take account of the impact of the northern approach into Cambridge on the traveller community in Chesterton?

 

[Magdalia]

Staff at the biomedical campus will also live east of Cambs

We are not talking about the existing workforce. The Cambridge Biomedical Campus is expanding all the time and taking on new workers. One of their main considerations on choosing where to live is how they will travel to and from work, noting that, for all but the richest, living in Cambridge is not affordable. EWR links places which have space for housing, Cambourne and Tempsford, to the Biomedical Campus. Where are you proposing to build houses east of Cambridge, and what transport links are you proposing so that the people who live there can work on the Biomedical Campus? And don't say the Newmarket line, where the prospects for more trains are very poor because of the single line Warren Hill Tunnel.

reverse all services at Cambs South

That's not an option. The Cambridge South site is very constrained, squeezed between the Biomedical Campus and Hobson's Park, and intensively used by trains running through to/from London and Stansted.

 

[Tobbes]

Tobbes, do you live south-west of Cambridge?

Ipswich, actually - so I'm interested in understanding how EWR got to a position that favours my interests! I do, however, have friends who live SW of Cambs - so this is very helpful in talking to them about this.

Out of interest, how would you take account of the impact of the northern approach into Cambridge on the traveller community in Chesterton?

With crayons out, I would have put the railway in a cut-and-cover tunnel under the busway, and then brought the trains into Cambs North....

It removes one set of NIMBYs and replaces them with another so, again, no benefit.

I have already explained the works that would be needed earlier in this thread, but in summary: (a) four-tracking the West Anglia Mainline between Cambridge and Cambridge South and then either (b) rebuilding Cambridge South station with more platforms (requiring more legally protected land from the park) and potentially grade separated approaches to avoid conflicts or (c) send the trains further south to terminate elsewhere (which means further works and extra cost elsewhere and blows up the ‘reverse at Cambridge South before heading back up to Ely/Newmarket’ suggestion).

In other words, you’d have to do all the most expensive and complex bits of the southern approach on top of the northern approaches works and it still gives you less overall flexibility for pathing and timetabling.

Thanks, I'd misunderstood this - crucially, I thought four-tracking WAML to Cammbridge South was already funded.

 

[tspaul26]

With crayons out, I would have put the railway in a cut-and-cover tunnel under the busway, and then brought the trains into Cambs North....

And then south of Cambridge North station? What about the impact of that on the travellers?

Thanks, I'd misunderstood this - crucially, I thought four-tracking WAML to Cammbridge South was already funded.

No, it’s not planned unless EWR goes ahead.

 

[MarkyT]

A more relevant comparison is Sandy, where the old LNWR route from Bletchley/Bedford to Cambridge crossed the ECML. Even though there was a shared station there were no connections, apart from a west to north curve that was built during World War II but rarely used in peacetime.

From a 1926 OS map, it looks like there was a connection through sidings between the two lines south of the station, for movements between north and east, but I doubt it would have been signalled to passenger standards. Once the Bedford & Cambridge line had closed, BR(E) was able to rebuild the main line through the station to four tracks, eliminating a two-track bottleneck.

View map: Ordnance Survey, Bedfordshire XVIII.1 (Moggerhanger; Northill; Sandy) - Ordnance Survey 25 inch England and Wales, 1841-1952

 

[Tobbes]

And then south of Cambridge North station? What about the impact of that on the travellers?

Kerry's Yard? I'm a bit confused - there wouldn't be an impact if the EWR platforms were on the old alignment where the busway is.

 

[tspaul26]

Kerry's Yard? I'm a bit confused - there wouldn't be an impact if the EWR platforms were on the old alignment where the busway is.

And how do the trains gets to Cambridge station and Cambridge South?

And what would you do to replace the busway?

 

[edwin_m]

Staff at the biomedical campus will also live east of Cambs, so if you were to come in from the north and reverse all services at Cambs South, then you'd still achieve the connectivity without the dogleg, great wall of Cambridgeshire and the grade separated junction onto the Royston line. The only 'loss' here would be end-to-end times of Bedford-Ipswich or Bletchley-Norwich...

You can serve anyone east of Cambridge just as well by approaching from the south and continuing through Cambridge towards Newmarket. This has issues with flat junctions, but would be even more difficult with a northern approach as EWR through trains would have to pass over those junctions twice. The southern route also avoids the extended journey time going to Cambridge South and back for (admittedly probably few) passengers not wanting to board or alight at a Cambridge station.

 

[Steve Harris]

There's nothing to stop future stations from being added, either in the plans before construction or subsequently as the settlements develop. It would be useful to identify some candidate locations though, for access safeguarding purposes and to ensure there are straight and level sections of track in the vicinity.

And in the case of the current Wintringham development, all of that is non applicable. To assume otherwise just shows that you don't know where and what the Wintringham development is.

 

[tspaul26]

And in the case of the current Wintringham development, all of that is non applicable. To assume otherwise just shows that you don't know where and what the Wintringham development is.

And EWR Co already knows about all of this, has taken it into account and reached the conclusions and decisions that it has.

 

[Class 170101]

Because of a lack of suitable places to terminate the trains south of Cambridge. Cambridge South itself won't be able to reverse trains without a severe impact on the throughput, so you'd need to run them through to either Royston (no bay platform) (or Maybe Letchworth, quite far away) or Stanstead Airport (single lines and platform occupancy). Whereas trains approaching from the South can run to Cambridge North, Ely or King's Lynn which although tight do have more scope for intervention as well as generally more capacity available.

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.

Or to Ipswich and Norwich as some backers want. But as highlighted with Stansted Airport these and the Kings Lynn route the lines to Ipswich and Norwich have single lines and single line junctions to those places to address ourside of EWR. Cambridge itself is a constraint to through services due to the layout there, especially on Platfvorm 1 and 4 side (though there are other constraints too).

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

But W10/12 is problem between Cambridge and Bury St Edmunds. Currently only possible on low floor wagons via this route.

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

Would still leave only three platforms at Stansted Airport though.

 

[MarkyT]

And don't say the Newmarket line, where the prospects for more trains are very poor because of the single line Warren Hill Tunnel.

The tunnel is only ~1km of the 8km single line to Dullingham. After the ~1km passing loop there, it's 16km single to Coldhams Lane Jn. There's definitely some scope for additional double track or passing loops to increase capacity if desired on this formerly double track line. A Penryn-style passing loop might be formed at Newmarket with a turnout part way along the former long (~240m) platform, and another loop nearer Cambridge, at Fulbourne perhaps, where there remains some disconnected track alongside the single line, the remnants of a former freight siding facility I think.

 

[70014IronDuke]

A more relevant comparison is Sandy, where the old LNWR route from Bletchley/Bedford to Cambridge crossed the ECML. Even though there was a shared station there were no connections, apart from a west to north curve that was built during World War II but rarely used in peacetime.

Not only was there no through running possible at Sandy with the branch open (apart from that curve - I suspect that closed before 1960), but I reckong the number of transfer passengers from main line to branch and v v was no more than one per month.

Of course, with larger populations and regular 2 TPH each way on both lines at Tempsford once EW is built, there would be more inter-change than that, but surely not capable of sustaining stopping Class 1 trains on the ECML.

 

[zwk500]

The tunnel is only ~1km of the 8km single line to Dullingham. After the ~1km passing loop there, it's 16km single to Coldhams Lane Jn. There's definitely some scope for additional double track or passing loops to increase capacity if desired on this formerly double track line. A Penryn-style passing loop might be formed at Newmarket with a turnout part way along the former long (~240m) platform, and another loop nearer Cambridge, at Fulbourne perhaps, where there remains some disconnected track alongside the single line, the remnants of a former freight siding facility I think.

A more cost effective solution is likely to be simply doubling Dullingham-Newmarket. It becomes a dynamic loop, and you can manage traffic flow easier as you can stack a couple of trains on the double track section, but don't need to make major signalling alterations at junctions. It's c10 miles from Cambridge to Dullingham, 3 miles from Dullingham to Newmarket, and then a further 3 miles to Chippenham Jn. At 60mph line speed, a 10 mile single line with 3 minute reoccupation does't quite allow 2tph in each direction, but a short extension of double track west of Dullingham or some limited line speed interventions could easily get there.

 

[Steve Harris]

And EWR Co already knows about all of this, has taken it into account and reached the conclusions and decisions that it has.

You know that, I know that, but other's on this forum apparently don't, lol.

 

[MarkyT]

And in the case of the current Wintringham development, all of that is non applicable. To assume otherwise just shows that you don't know where and what the Wintringham development is.

I was attempting to make the more general point that whatever is built initially is unlikely to stay in exactly the same configuration forever. Like all infrastructure, it will develop, over decades perhaps. If there proves to be sufficient demand for people going to Cambridge, then it is within the realms of possibility that future generations may choose to build an additional St Neots East station. In the meantime, people from the particular new development and the wider St Neots/Eynesbury area will have to drive/cycle/bus to Tempsford or Cambourne station if they wish to catch the train or go south first to Tempsford by GN train.