East-West Rail (EWR): will it happen and how should it be done?

[gallafent]

Park and Ride is not for commuting.

It is for me, and I'm sure I'm not the only one!

 

[Steve Harris]

One £billion for ten miles of road is outrageous. That is nearly 3 times that of building new railways. Is a new road really needed or is it the road lobby at it again? How long will it be before the whole country is covered in tarmac and we won't have to follow roads?

Yes.

People commute from St Neots to Cambridge (and have done for 20+ years). Mon -Fri traffic travels at about a average of 20mph (in the peaks)... on a 60mph limit road. The new piece of road will be built and open long before EWR, so yes it is needed and long overdue.

If you don't want the country covered in Tarmac then Central Government need to change tack and get houses built within walking distance to where people work !!

 

[jfowkes]

Of course, induced demand will mean that journey times will return to about the same as now once everyone realises St Neots is now more attractive for commuting to Cambridge by car. The A14 is now four lanes wide next to us in North Cambridge and it's regularly 40mph in the peaks.

 

[Steve Harris]

Of course, induced demand will mean that journey times will return to about the same as now once everyone realises St Neots is now more attractive for commuting to Cambridge by car. The A14 is now four lanes wide next to us in North Cambridge and it's regularly 40mph in the peaks.

Indeed. That's why housing needs to be near where people work.

Even with EWR, you still have the journey's at either end which will involve a public highway* (with a bus or car journey), unless your workplace is right next to a station and your home is right next door to another station so you can walk and not add to any congestion ! +

*Unless of course Cambridge gets a underground system.

+Yes, a vast amount of EWR passengers will probably work at the Biomedical Campus but there will no doubt be some people who won't, who will have to use a bus, taxi, car or bicycle.

 

[mwmbwls]

GWR tests passenger growth in Bristol-Oxford weekend services

Operator plans to gauge travel interest between cities, though return of route's weekday services unclear.

www.railmagazine.com

Rail Magazine reports on a GWR proposal for a four trains per day service from Bristol to Oxford. Would it be a good idea to link this service through to Cambridge via the EWR in a manner reminiscent of Cross Country's service from Cornwall to Scotland?

 

[swt_passenger]

GWR tests passenger growth in Bristol-Oxford weekend services

Operator plans to gauge travel interest between cities, though return of route's weekday services unclear.

www.railmagazine.com

Rail Magazine reports on a GWR proposal for a four trains per day service from Bristol to Oxford. Would it be a good idea to link this service through to Cambridge via the EWR in a manner reminiscent of Cross Country's service from Cornwall to Scotland?

Theres already discussion of this in two threads:

GWR planning Saturday Bristol - Oxford service Sept to Dec 2024

Anyone got the timetable for the old Bristol to Oxford service? Theres certainly demand. People can be put off using rail if there's no direct service as People don't always want to change trains on a journey I don’t have a timetable, but it was a lot slower because it used a turbo via the...

www.railforums.co.uk

Extensions of East-West Rail Past Oxford

It is a good idea, but the problem is it'll never compete with the Cowley plans on cost. And buses will always be a better choice into the centre of Oxford from Abingdon, due to the sprawling estates meaning most of the population is closer to the A34 than the centre, and the frequency of...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Snow1964]

BBC reporting Bedford looking at upto 8 alternative routes,

They are shown on map on article

In a meeting at Borough Hall, the mayor said he had commissioned the study in response to EWR announcing its preferred route last May.
The EWR route going through Bedford to the north was one of the eight routes considered by consultants.
A map included in the report shows the other potential routes running close to places including Shortstown, Elstow and through Priory Country Park.
It evaluated each route against 13 criteria, including environmental considerations and potential demolitions.
Consultants SLC Rail explained that deciding on a preferred route was "finely balanced".
They added: "However, we believe that a southern route option... could be feasible if further development work were undertaken to resolve some of the current deficiencies.
"In all options East West Rail represents a sizeable boost to the economy in Bedford worth between £257m and £268m over 60 years."

East West Rail: Bedford mayor unveils eight alternative routes

Conservative Tom Wootton spent £40k on consultants to compare eight other routes through Bedford.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[A0wen]

BBC reporting Bedford looking at upto 8 alternative routes,

They are shown on map on article

Now this is going to be fun - on the one hand people who usually complain about local government "waste" and spending on things they don't agree with, will be lauding this because it's looking at options other than EWR's preferred route because they don't like it.

From the pretty picture on the BBC link, you can safely discount anything with ERTA on it - they're a bunch of crayonistas with no real understanding of the real world. As with other such groups, their basic approach is "there used to be a railway running along this formation, therefore that's where you should put a new one" - the fact that the Victorians didn't get everything right seems is overlooked. They just want to run into Bedford Midland, reverse and then pick up the old formation until somewhere around Sandy, which is fine apart from the time penalty it causes for other passengers and within Bedford it would need a new level crosssing across Cardington Road - one of the busiest roads in Bedford - and ignores the fact that Network Rail have made it pretty clear they aren't looking at new level crossings - quite the opposite. Add in it would pretty much destroy Bedford Priory Marina which is a leisure facility as well as a wildlife haven.

The reality is it either goes south of Bedford (and doesn't serve Bedford) or goes through Bedford and exits to the north. EWR prefer the latter, which is probably the right decision, though it would make me laugh if EWR pivoted and went for a southern route which then didn't serve Bedford Midland at all and in many ways would be karma given the number of people in Bedford who claim to want EWR, want EWR to serve Bedford, but don't want any demolition in Bedford to achieve it, but are quite happy for there to be demolition in other places.

 

[SynthD]

What is route 9 in pink on the SLC, second, map in the BBC article? There is a relevant chart in this local article. https://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news...l-routes-published-by-bedford-council-4509790

 

[richieb1971]

Watching the presentation now.

So far I haven't heard much about the car park capacity requirement for the future, especially considering the car park is already full on week days by around 07:30am. 3 extra platforms would eat into the already existing capacity.

I have not heard where the trains currently residing in Jowitt sidings will stable under the new plans.

There is no new available information about the current architecture requirements of the bridges north and south of Bedford when the new lines are in place. Will the bridges suffice in their current state or will the bridges requirement a new build? Also the bridge at St Johns wasn't even mentioned, will that require a new build?

Although there are plans for the Bedford station layout taken directly from the video presentation at 40:22 time stamp. https://bedford.public-i.tv/core/portal/webcast_interactive/853510



What is interesting in the above map is that the new platforms east of the station to support EWR terminate south of the Bromham road bridge and continue on a 4 track alignment. Is this a mistake? Since 10 mins of the presentation are allocated to 6 tracking this makes this map a little redundant.

The presentation states that current P3 will be used as a freight holding platform (Excellent in my humble opinion) and that GTR (Grovia Thameslink) will stable in P0 (currently 1A but with capacity for 12 car trains), P1 and P2. P3 can still be used to stable reversing GTR trains when pushed for capacity.

P5 will loop round the back of P4, apparently this is greenlit by all parties but it seems to be a loop only, not used for high speed. Unless its used to reverse trains i'm not sure what benefit it actually has unless the down fast is used as an up fast. Judging by the point alignment facilitating that in the map thats what is in mind.

I am happy that the presentation has brought up the 27% freight path utiisation on the up/down slow lines north of Bedford. Considering a lot of that is in the wee hours of the morning its less than that in busy periods. There maybe 78 paths a day but anyone with RTT knowledge knows most of that doesn't run, some of those paths rarely get used at all. The problem seems to be the over estimated usage by freight and the insistance of a 30 min service in each direciton by passenger (I think its 30 I can't remember without actually looking it up). I have to assume that with EWR in place, there is a crunch with timetables but I believe the utilisation of freight paths would need to be raised to over 50% utilisation in the day.

The presentation made mention that Universal Studios group has already made contact with the government with requests that trains be x amount of carriages long and that any park should expect a lot of train traffic. It was also asked if recalibration efforts would be required for EWR in the event the park gets built. The answer was YES. Which puts a rather different spin on things when you consider that any work done prematurely will inevitably need to be revised at a later date. There was mention of Tempsford being an exchange station for park goers. Which is "new" to me. What is interesting here is that EWR (I might be a bit speculative here) is that EWR seems to be the primary stopping point for Universal, not Wixams.

It was reported that no soil work has been done on Route E to date, meaning that any costs laid out on budgets could create a shortfall similar to HS2.

The 8 routes are as follows -


Considering all new known considerations my preference would be the BRARe route. I really think Bedford needs a triangle junction to be future proof just from the rail perspective of joining up everything very nicely.. Giving a nice east north curve. However, its in the wrong place, it needs to be west of Kempston hardwick. No point knocking down one estate in spite of the other (Elstow). Be better to get rid of the Car auction at Wixams. Yes Bedford would require reversible EWR trains but it would only be the station needing expansion without the requirement for the demolition of quite a bit north of Bedford. Which is not a nice price to pay for the railway in my humble opinion (I don't live in that area I just think its too much).

Flooding was mentioned comprehensively but apparently there is no evidence that flooding risk is higher than on any other route. Commercial road in Bedford was mentioned as a flood risk. Well, thats practically in the town centre I don't see how building a railway many miles south of Bedford will impact that area. Both the MML and Marston vale go right past it already. Although playing Devils advocate the Hitchin railway did flood in the early 1900's in Bedford. It happened once to my knowledge.

 

[The Planner]

P5 will loop round the back of P4, apparently this is greenlit by all parties but it seems to be a loop only, not used for high speed. Unless its used to reverse trains i'm not sure what benefit it actually has unless the down fast is used as an up fast. Judging by the point alignment facilitating that in the map thats what is in mind.

Allows an overtake on the Down Fast (and up fast but probably wouldn't be used) and also allows the two track scenario that people were complaining about at Wixhams.

 

[A0wen]

The 8 routes are as follows -
View attachment 151852

Considering all new known considerations my preference would be the BRARe route. I really think Bedford needs a triangle junction to be future proof just from the rail perspective of joining up everything very nicely.. Giving a nice east north curve. Yes Bedford would require reversible EWR trains but it would only be the station needing expansion without the requirement for the demolition of quite a bit north of Bedford. Which is not a nice price to pay for the railway in my humble opinion (I don't live in that area I just think its too much).

Flooding was mentioned comprehensively but apparently there is no evidence that flooding risk is higher than on any other route. Commercial road in Bedford was mentioned as a flood risk. Well, thats practically in the town centre I don't see how building a railway many miles south of Bedford will impact that area. Both the MML and Marston vale go right past it already. Although playing Devils advocate the Hitchin railway did flood in the early 1900's in Bedford. It happened once to my knowledge.

Mmm - want the benefits to Bedford but without any of the development and happy to extend the journey times for others who aren't travelling to Bedford... Feels a bit "Nimbyish" to me.

On a more practical note, I'm intrigued to know what route they have in mind on to run south of Bedford, because a cursory glance at Google Maps suggests there really isn't a nice clean route from south of the A421 to swing south of Shortstown - it would help if the map clearly marked the A421 southern bypass on as that would make reading it a bit easier. Though that "southern" route basically blights a few villages and boxes in Sandy (which of course wouldn't be served as it's station is further south on the ECML) - so it really is the ultimate 'cake and eat it' option for Bedford.

And I assume the 'blue' bits are the water courses and their flood plains - which if the case, then shows all the southern routes have something of a problem which neither of the northern ones do.

 

[Nottingham59]

Forget Bedford. I say that EWR should run from Ridgemont to Letchworth, crossing the MML between Ampthill and Flitwick. 15 miles as the crow flies. Add a third platform at Letchworth to allow 2-4 tph Thameslink trains to terminate without conflicts to release capacity on the line from Hitchin to Cambridge South (and with skip stopping at the minor stations or additional passing loops if necessary).

 

[A0wen]

Forget Bedford. I say that EWR should run from Ridgemont to Letchworth, crossing the MML between Ampthill and Flitwick. 15 miles as the crow flies. Add a third platform at Letchworth to allow 2-4 tph Thameslink trains to terminate without conflicts to release capacity on the line from Hitchin to Cambridge South (and with skip stopping at the minor stations or additional passing loops if necessary).

Good luck with that - quite apart from finding a route which works, the Hitchin - Cambridge line is limited in terms of its capacity and you'd be having endless contentions between EWR services and Thameslink services. And why should TL services be cut back to Letchworth for EWR services ? There is *far* more demand for travel to Stevenage and London from Cambridge than there is from Milton Keynes and points further west.

 

[Nottingham59]

Good luck with that - quite apart from finding a route which works, the Hitchin - Cambridge line is limited in terms of its capacity and you'd be having endless contentions between EWR services and Thameslink services. And why should TL services be cut back to Letchworth for EWR services ? There is *far* more demand for travel to Stevenage and London from Cambridge than there is from Milton Keynes and points further west.

In that case, concentrate public investment in increasing capacity from Cambridge to Stevenage and London, rather than to Milton Keynes. What you say (my bold) undermines the rationale for building EWR at all.

 

[Trainbike46]

In that case, concentrate public investment in increasing capacity from Cambridge to Stevenage and London, rather than to Milton Keynes. What you say (my bold) undermines the rationale for building EWR at all.

It does not undermine the case for EWR at all.

In the current situation, travel westwards to Bedford, Milton Keynes, etc. is hard from Cambridge. There is a good connection with London.

EWR, as proposed by EWR, massively improves connections westward, while not changing London connections at all

you then proposed an alternative that replaced some of the London connections with EWR ones. That is a bad idea given how important London connections are. However, it isn't an argument against EWR's preferred route, as it doesn't impact london connections. The fact that London connections are important doesn't diminish the benefits of improving connections with other places, such as Bedford, Milton Keynes, etc.

 

[A0wen]

In that case, concentrate public investment in increasing capacity from Cambridge to Stevenage and London, rather than to Milton Keynes. What you say (my bold) undermines the rationale for building EWR at all.

Some of which has already been done by virtue of platform length extensions, deployment of Class 700's which have greater capacity than what went before them as well as building Cambridge South station and improving Shepreth Junction.

 

[Nottingham59]

It does not undermine the case for EWR at all.

In the current situation, travel westwards to Bedford, Milton Keynes, etc. is hard from Cambridge. There is a good connection with London.

EWR, as proposed by EWR, massively improves connections westward, while not changing London connections at all

If you want to improve connection westward from Cambridge, then build a line that goes westward, not one that meanders all over the countryside and approaches Bedford from the north west. My route would require around 15 miles of new build track, rather than the 30 odd miles of new track proposed by EWR. And avoid having to rebuild the entire Marston Vale line.

you then proposed an alternative that replaced some of the London connections with EWR ones. That is a bad idea given how important London connections are. However, it isn't an argument against EWR's preferred route, as it doesn't impact london connections.

2tph already terminate at Letchworth. (I had assumed they were Thameslink services, but I now see they are Great Northern. Apologies for that error.) Currently, they use the sidings beyond Letchworth to reverse, and then have to cross back over both lines to restart southbound. There are two gaps in the northbound timetable each hour (xx20 to xx39, and xx49 to xx08) which accommodate these crossing movements.

These were the services that I suggest reversing in a new central bay platform at Letchworth. This alone would increase the capacity of the Hitchin-Cambridge line. It should be enough to allow 2tph from EWR to use that 20 minutes gap to approach Cambridge (by which point the gap has reduced to 8 minutes), within the current timetable.

If you want to carry 4tph on EWR, you would have to terminate two more trains at Letchworth. Or add capacity with loops around the stopping stations, which would still be far cheaper than building the line through Cambourne.

 

[richieb1971]

I certainly agree that route E is about 1.5x the actual distance between Bedford and Cambridge. Which is a step backwards to how direct the western section is.

Heading as far north as cambourne and entering Cambridge from the south causes most of this.

I think we are derailing the thread talking of options 9 plus. All official pointers show Bedford will be on the route for better or worse.

The only factor that will design this railway is growth and profit margins. If the public want a different route that is the language they need to speak. Because the listeners don't understand any other language.

 

[Nottingham59]

The only factor that will design this railway is growth and profit margins.

It will have to be growth, as there aren't any profit margins:

"In 2021, DfT assessed that the benefit–cost ratio for the project was between 0.5 under a low-growth scenario, and 1.1 under a high-growth scenario associated with housing growth ambitions for 1 million new homes in the region by 2050."

"May 2023, following revisions to their methodology and growth assumptions, and the publication of a preferred route, DfT and EWR Co assessed that the benefit–cost ratio had fallen. Even when including wider benefits associated with land use change, DfT and EWR Co assessed the benefit–cost ratio to be below 1."

Both quotes from NAO report https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/u...n-into-the-east-west-rail-project-summary.pdf

 

[richieb1971]

It will have to be growth, as there aren't any profit margins:

"In 2021, DfT assessed that the benefit–cost ratio for the project was between 0.5 under a low-growth scenario, and 1.1 under a high-growth scenario associated with housing growth ambitions for 1 million new homes in the region by 2050."

"May 2023, following revisions to their methodology and growth assumptions, and the publication of a preferred route, DfT and EWR Co assessed that the benefit–cost ratio had fallen. Even when including wider benefits associated with land use change, DfT and EWR Co assessed the benefit–cost ratio to be below 1."

Both quotes from NAO report https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/u...n-into-the-east-west-rail-project-summary.pdf

The railway may not make profit, but it may help lobbyists make profit. There is always gold at the end of the rainbow for someone.

Route E is not in the interests of anyone that lives in Bedford at all. All the drive from that is coming from elected people not the people themselves. The irony of representation huh.

Ive always wanted a railway east of Bedford, even I am scared of what I asked for.

 

[Magdalia]

The only factor that will design this railway is growth

The case for East West Rail only stacks up if it can deliver economic growth, and lots of it.

There is huge potential for that in and around Cambridge in the life science and tech industries, which is why East West Rail is still alive.

East West Rail works to deliver economic growth in two main ways. One is to improve synergies between universities, hospitals and businesses, all the way from Cambridge to Oxford, so that more life science and tech businesses start up and grow. Most of these high growth, high productivity businesses don't exist yet, the entrepreneurs that will start them up are probably still at school.

The other is to provide places were lots of houses can be built to provide the workforce for Cambridge's high tech companies, research laboratories and hospitals. Those places need to be within a decent commuting journey time to/from Cambridge.

East West Rail's recommended option comes from needing the southern approach to Cambridge, because that's where the Biomedical Campus is, and needing to go through Cambourne and Tempsford because they are the places where lots of houses can be built.

I say that EWR should run from Ridgemont to Letchworth, crossing the MML between Ampthill and Flitwick. 15 miles as the crow flies. Add a third platform at Letchworth to allow 2-4 tph Thameslink trains to terminate without conflicts to release capacity on the line from Hitchin to Cambridge South (and with skip stopping at the minor stations or additional passing loops if necessary).

The Letchworth option does not work for many reasons, but mainly because the places on the line are already well developed and already have lots of commuters. Traditionally that has been to London: in recent years there has been a pivot towards Cambridge, but it is a slow process. The Letchworth option does not have the potential for the housing growth that's needed to deliver economic growth.

It also does not work from a railway engineering and operation perspective. Only 1tph currently terminate at Letchworth, the other stopper runs through to/from Cambridge. In the peaks all of the stoppers run through to/from Cambridge. The central reversing platform at Letchworth has not been an option since the platforms were extended to 12 cars and now go right up to the bridge at the western end of the station.

 

[richieb1971]

When will procurement of rolling stock take place for the grand opening of the Oxford-MKC stretch? We must be in the final 12 months or so of this section before it becomes a fully operational railway.

Will the trains maximize the platform lengths available?
If not, is there provision to lengthen the stock when demand rises?

Also has anyone thought about the knock on effect on the Marston Vale line services during the period in which it will only operate as a 2 car service but will inevitably incur the extra exchange traffic to Bletchley? As I understand it, currently there is only a limited service running during peak hours. I would also assume any ticketting during this period would direct a passenger this route or not?

 

[Trainbike46]

When will procurement of rolling stock take place for the grand opening of the Oxford-MKC stretch? We must be in the final 12 months or so of this section before it becomes a fully operational railway.

It has been previously confirmed they will be using 196s from LNWR/WMR, at least initially, operated by Chiltern

 

[zwk500]

When will procurement of rolling stock take place for the grand opening of the Oxford-MKC stretch? We must be in the final 12 months or so of this section before it becomes a fully operational railway.

Will the trains maximize the platform lengths available?
If not, is there provision to lengthen the stock when demand rises?

Six 2-Car Class 196 units will be subleased from WMT to Chiltern for the initial service. Presumably a later stock order will follow either when EWR has rebuilt the Marston Vale, when (if) EWR reaches Cambridge, or when Chiltern replace their existing fleet to implement the full service.

From the technical specification: https://eastwestrail-production.s3....blic/EAS060_TechDoc_Appendix_Master_DIG-1.pdf

5.9.1. There shall be a provision for 106m operational length at all station platforms within the TSS (at the point in which entry into service occurs for each configuration state) adequate to accommodate 4-car (4 x 24m) rolling stock.
5.9.2. All new station platforms shall provide positive passive provision for 202m operational length.

 

[mwmbwls]

I found the video of the Bedford Council meeting most informative. The Planning Officer produced a comprehensive brief that demonstrated that it was technically feasible for EWR to be routed north and east of Cambridge north of Bedford Station and raised the possibility of an option of junction between the slow MML lines and EWR north of Bromborough Road avoiding the controversial land take at Poets Corner.

I think that in the long term it will be necessary to consider rebuilding Bedford “City”Station whereby the station is repositioned over the tracks, as has happened in Reading. They would facilitate the need for increased interchange between the MML and EWR – especially in the light of Universal’s proposals for a major theme park and studios facility at the former Kempston Brick Works. Such a stacking move would allow for expanded multi story car parking/local transport in front of the station.

The theme park will attract large crowds. Many will come by road – but local readers will be familiar with the existing congestion issues on the M1 and A423, together with the grid lock that already occurs in Bedford City Centre and its Ring Road.

There needs therefore to be a plan to encourage as many visitors as possible and employees at the Universal site to come by train. I believe that this can best be achieved by stations at both Kempston and Wixams having direct mass light rail transit links to the Universal Site, which could also serve the car parks. It is also reasonable to expect Universal to make a contribution to the new rail infrastructure.

If I recall correctly there have been several debates on this forum concerning Wixams station and whether it is necessary given the short distance between Bedford (City) Station. Short runs between stations are known on the MML – as evidenced by the two-minute trip from Luton Airport Parkway and Luton Interchange. Again, if I recall correctly Wixams station should/could/would also benefit from housing developers’ contributions from proposed housing developments east of the MML.
.

 

[richieb1971]

I found the video of the Bedford Council meeting most informative. The Planning Officer produced a comprehensive brief that demonstrated that it was technically feasible for EWR to be routed north and east of Cambridge north of Bedford Station and raised the possibility of an option of junction between the slow MML lines and EWR north of Bromborough Road avoiding the controversial land take at Poets Corner.
.

Where is Bromborough road? The only one I can find is near Liverpool!!!

 

[snowball]

Where is Bromborough road? The only one I can find is near Liverpool!!!

Bromham Road intended perhaps?

 

[richieb1971]

Bromham Road intended perhaps?

Probably, its kind of confusing what mwmbwls actually means. He mentions north and East of Cambridge north and then states Bedford station.

 

[Steve Harris]

Probably, its kind of confusing what mwmbwls actually means. He mentions north and East of Cambridge north and then states Bedford station.

Indeed.

The posters post seems to contain rather a lot of factual errors. For instance there is no such thing as Bedford "City" railway station.

Likewise, the former brick pits are at Stewartby and not at Kempston.

And the A423 runs between Coventry and Banbury !!!