East West Rail Link Cambridge - Bedford is it worth it?

[oliMw]

Hi, after reading about the East West Rail Link last night it got me wondering whether the Eastern section of the Link would be worth wile to build, a lot of the trackbed between Bedford and Cambridge has been either built over or turned into farmland, reinstating the track would cost millions of pounds. There are also a number of advantages as well incluing a direct link from Norwich/Ipswich to Oxford and the west of England and releif for freight from the congested north London Lines for freight. What do you think?

 

[D365]

If the route was to be diverted via [South of] Sandy-Hitchin-Royston-Cambridge, then I don't understand why the Hitchin flyover isn't being built with, or with the provision for, an overpass to take ex-Cambridge trains northbound on the ECML/towards Bedford, and a chord for the opposite. Also, if IEP is supposed to take over the Cambridge fasts, wouldn't it make sense to build a stopping track around the outside of the ramp so slows don't have to be held up on the platform? Oh well, that's another story...

Would be nice to have the Bedford Thameslinks carry on up to Kettering/Corby and supplementing Peterborough/Cambridge, and freight could make good use of the route. But would Bedford-Cambridge, with possible electification, be worth it overall? I'm not sure.

 

[joeykins82]

If you could get to Cambridge from Bedford/Bletchley/Aylesbury/Bicester it may encourage some of the people currently driving to Stanstead from the MML/WCML corridors to take the train instead. Likewise getting to Luton airport from anywhere to the East of, well Luton. It'd also reduce the congestion on the A14 and reduce the passenger flows through London. So yes, totally worth it in my opinion.

Apologies for the crap MS Paint edit to the EWR route map thing but I made some edits & additions.

Better alignment from Sandy-Cambridge perhaps via Royston to serve more passengers
A link from Watton-at-Stone on the Hertford Loop line to Ware on the Hertford East branch line with a further link from St Margarets to Roydon thus allowing services from Stevenage through to Stanstead Airport, ideally with a through route from Stanstead to Braintree. This probably belongs in the fantasy thread rather than here though I suppose!

 

[jopsuk]

If the route was to be diverted via [South of] Sandy-Hitchin-Royston-Cambridge, then I don't understand why the Hitchin flyover isn't being built with, or with the provision for, an overpass to take ex-Cambridge trains northbound on the ECML/towards Bedford, and a chord for the opposite. .

Because E-W remains an aspiration. The funding for the current bridge scehem is for just that. Even British Rail would have done it this way, sadly.

 

[D365]

If you could get to Cambridge from Bedford/Bletchley/Aylesbury/Bicester it may encourage some of the people currently driving to Stanstead from the MML/WCML corridors to take the train instead. Likewise getting to Luton airport from anywhere to the East of, well Luton. It'd also reduce the congestion on the A14 and reduce the passenger flows through London. So yes, totally worth it in my opinion.

Apologies for the crap MS Paint edit to the EWR route map thing but I made some edits & additions.

Better alignment from Sandy-Cambridge perhaps via Royston to serve more passengers
A link from Watton-at-Stone on the Hertford Loop line to Ware on the Hertford East branch line with a further link from St Margarets to Roydon thus allowing services from Stevenage through to Stanstead Airport, ideally with a through route from Stanstead to Braintree. This probably belongs in the fantasy thread rather than here though I suppose!

Agreed, but it would probably help more with longer-distance traffic on the A428/A421, although that would have an impact on the A14. But not where we need a solution most (Huntingdon-Cambridge).

Because E-W remains an aspiration. The funding for the current bridge scheme is for just that. Even British Rail would have done it this way, sadly.

Quite a waste imho, and may cause disruption if Cambridge-Peterborough chords are added at Hitchin later...

 

[mr_jrt]

I still think that the best option for EWR is to go via new build from Bedford Midland to an interchange at St. Neots then more new build via Cambourne to enter Cambridge from the north (joining the old St. Ives branch route on the outskirts of Cambridge, displacing the MGB), thence down to Stansted.

IMHO, using the Royston route is only viable if the Bedford-Hitchin alignment is used given ECML capacity constraints, and the Stewartby chord is a complete non-starter given MML capacity constraints. The Hitchin-Cambridge axis has a good service already, so you'd largely just be detracting from those loadings. A new route via areas with no rail access opens up much more opportunity for getting cars off the roads.

 

[Chris125]

Quite a waste imho, and may cause disruption if Cambridge-Peterborough chords are added at Hitchin later...

Looking at the alignment of the flyover. chords would not be sufficient - its likely an entirely new structure would be needed if only to allow for double track. Seeing as EWR appear to be concentrating on other alignments for the eastern section and doubt over whether its even viable i see no justification for altering the flyover's design and adding to the cost.

Chris

 

[D365]

I meant that a rather large fully seperated 'flying T' would be built, but diverting EWR that way would probably need 1-2 extra tracks alongside ECML. I wonder how journey times, cost, distance etc. would compare for the various options...

Alright, my plan may be [a little] far-fetched, but I have produced a rather crude diagram of what the Hitchin 'Super Junction' looks like in my mind. I hope you get the jist of it.

Current Hitchin Flyover...EWR Overpass 1 & new Up Line
.........../------\............../---------------------------------
----/-\-/-------)\(-------)/(---------------------------------
---/---\---------)\(-----)/(----------------------------------
--------\---------)\(---)/(-----------------------------------
-------\-\---------)\(-)/(------------------------------------
ECML...\ \..Over-...\ /...../----------------------------------
Hitchin..\ \.Pass 2../\..../..New Down Line
<<<......\ \........./..\ /....ECML Sandy/Peterborough >>>
.............| |......./.....|.....EWR Sandy/Bedford >>>
.............| |....../...../
.............| |...../..../
.............| |..../..../
.............| |.../.../
Over-..../----/.../
pass 3..|.| |../-/
............\| |/
.............\ /...Cambridge Line

EDIT: Great, the diagram hasn't worked out... I'll leave it out to see if you can figure it out, however over-ambiguous it may seem.
EDIT #2: Ignore the dots (or whatever they're called, I'm too tired to think properly... Man-flu sucks) - that's the only way which I could think of formatting the diagram properly. Too much effort to white them out!

 

[ainsworth74]

You could try putting it in code tags, that does sometimes help with more complex formatting.

 

[D365]

I doubt anybody would/will understand now, but thanks anyway

 

[philjo]

I personally prefer the route to go via Luton and Stevenage. This should include a proper station at Luton airport albeit it probably has to be in a tunnel but would have direct passenger acces from the airport terminal building. A southward facing link from the airport the MML would also be included allowing thameslink to serve the airport (diverting some existing services) and mextend those through to Letchworth providing airport connections at Stevenage with EC and also providing an alternative route to Welwyn & Hertford. Direct st Albans to Stevenage services would be useful. The east-west service should probably be a semi-fast Norwich-Bristol service replacing probably the existing Norwich-Cambridge service and run via Stevenage, Luton Airport then Bletchley, Oxford Swindon and Bath.

It would then only need to use the slow lines between hitchin flyover and Stevenage so would not have to cross the ecml fast lines.

A direct link through Hertford should also be investigated to allow a service from Mk via Luton Airport and Stevenage to Harlow and Stansted airport, possibly extending east later to access Colchester.

 

[Fred26]

I personally prefer the route to go via Luton and Stevenage. This should include a proper station at Luton airport albeit it probably has to be in a tunnel but would have direct passenger acces from the airport terminal building. A southward facing link from the airport the MML would also be included allowing thameslink to serve the airport (diverting some existing services) and mextend those through to Letchworth providing airport connections at Stevenage with EC and also providing an alternative route to Welwyn & Hertford. Direct st Albans to Stevenage services would be useful. The east-west service should probably be a semi-fast Norwich-Bristol service replacing probably the existing Norwich-Cambridge service and run via Stevenage, Luton Airport then Bletchley, Oxford Swindon and Bath.

It would then only need to use the slow lines between hitchin flyover and Stevenage so would not have to cross the wcml fast lines.

A direct link through Hertford should also be investigated to allow a service from Mk via Luton Airport and Stevenage to Harlow and Stansted airport, possibly extending east later to access Colchester.

Excellent post. I fully agree that the line should run from Luton Airport to Stevenage. I like your ideas, but I'd add to them by diverting the Hertford services away from Letchworth and terminating them at Luton (town).

 

[D365]

An interesting idea, but how much would it cost? Isn't there supposed to be a LRT of some sort in the works for Luton Airport/Parkway? They would compliment each other quite well though. If the Abbey Line was connected to MML, services from Watford Junction would be rather interesting to play with!

BTW, philjo referred to the ECML as the WCML Don't know quite why I've mentioned it.

 

[yorksrob]

Basically yes - as the alternatives seem to be threading an inter-regional service along already busy main lines. Going via the old Bedford - Hitchin route might also be a goer, but it's a bit of a detour.

 

[asylumxl]

I personally prefer the route to go via Luton and Stevenage. This should include a proper station at Luton airport albeit it probably has to be in a tunnel but would have direct passenger acces from the airport terminal building. A southward facing link from the airport the MML would also be included allowing thameslink to serve the airport (diverting some existing services) and mextend those through to Letchworth providing airport connections at Stevenage with EC and also providing an alternative route to Welwyn & Hertford. Direct st Albans to Stevenage services would be useful. The east-west service should probably be a semi-fast Norwich-Bristol service replacing probably the existing Norwich-Cambridge service and run via Stevenage, Luton Airport then Bletchley, Oxford Swindon and Bath.

It would then only need to use the slow lines between hitchin flyover and Stevenage so would not have to cross the ecml fast lines.

A direct link through Hertford should also be investigated to allow a service from Mk via Luton Airport and Stevenage to Harlow and Stansted airport, possibly extending east later to access Colchester.

Main issues. Costs and gradients. To avoid gradients would require a lot of tunneling through soil which I would say is not well suited to it. This is why the current E-W route has been chosen, as it is prohibitive in many ways to go via their preferred route.

 

[Skimble19]

Basically yes - as the alternatives seem to be threading an inter-regional service along already busy main lines. Going via the old Bedford - Hitchin route might also be a goer, but it's a bit of a detour.

Not to mention fairly significant sections have been built over.. Shefford springs to mind. It'd probably be harder to get around Shefford than Sandy!

 

[Aictos]

Excellent post. I fully agree that the line should run from Luton Airport to Stevenage. I like your ideas, but I'd add to them by diverting the Hertford services away from Letchworth and terminating them at Luton (town).

Totally agree, not only would this mean improved connectivity between the MML and ECML but also faster journey times as it means avoiding Leicester and London.

My only query regarding the Hertford's is I hope the service is increased to a half hourly service north of Hertford to tap into the suppressed demand that exists between Stevenage/Hitchin and Hertford as a hourly service isn't enough especially off peak Monday to Friday or on Saturdays.

 

[joeykins82]

I think it's been discussed elsewhere but (I think) the Stevenage remodelling includes a bay platform so that some of the Hertford North services can be extended there

 

[mr_jrt]

Random other tangent - but I agree that Luton-Hitchin should be connected up with a new station under Luton airport, but I'd see it as a separate alignment from EWR.

Projecting from Luton-Hitchin-Cambridge, (and ignoring the silly guided bus nonsense to Dunstable) a diversion from Dunstable down to Cheddington, thence along the old branch alignment to Aylesbury and down to Princes Risborough, thence down towards Reading....

Ignoring all the other gumph on here, here's a visual version: http://goo.gl/maps/51aew

...although I'll concede there's a fair argument for running EWR from Bletchley down via Leighton Buzzard onto Luton as well...

 

[cjp]

Large portions of pie in the sky here.

I do not think there is the private money to pay for the scheme. Private money goes to generate more money.

The lines closed as they did not make a profit. Yes times have changed since but the infernal combustion engine is king and there are radial bus services plugging the gaps for those needing eg X5.

Chiltern's run to Oxford is based on existing an insitu route with the exception of the linking chord and there is proven demand evidenced by the growth of the Oxford Tube and traffic on the FGW lines. Money is going to make money and not an idealised concept of building train lines as they are a "good thing" and greener than a cars.

The politicians will not want to be associate with so much being spent in the SE/London which will seen a benefit for the local area.

So sorry, dream on, make your plans but do not expect to see things being restored any time soon.
Real trains are distressingly more expensive than train sets or lines on a map. I wish it was not so

 

[yorksrob]

Large portions of pie in the sky here.

I do not think there is the private money to pay for the scheme. Private money goes to generate more money.

The lines closed as they did not make a profit. Yes times have changed since but the infernal combustion engine is king and there are radial bus services plugging the gaps for those needing eg X5.

Wow, it's like living in the seventies - is "On The Buses" on again ? (I love that show ).

 

[mr_jrt]

...unless you can implement both through ticketing and convenient interchanges for orbital bus routes they're simply non-starters. The fact they're orders of magnitude slower due to getting stuck in urban road traffic also doesn't help.

 

[Metrailway]

...unless you can implement both through ticketing and convenient interchanges for orbital bus routes they're simply non-starters. The fact they're orders of magnitude slower due to getting stuck in urban road traffic also doesn't help.

Through ticketing is available to destinations on the X5 if your train/coach interchange is at Milton Keynes.

E.g. According to brfares a Cheddington to Buckingham Anytime Day Return is £19.70.

 

[tbtc]

It's tempting to have such a route, but there's no way of doing it so that you tick all of the boxes (is the eastern end Ipswich, Norwich, Stansted or Cambridge? Is it more important to serve Bedford, Luton or Luton Airport en route? Divert into Milton Keynes or settle for Bletchley? Should the western side be aiming for Oxford or Heathrow?)...

...for rail to work it needs to concentrate on the biggest market, but what we have here are a mixture of overlapping markets/ routes/ demands - I can't see how one line could serve these?

It's nice to say that you could have a direct service from Norwich to Bristol this way, but how many people would make such a journey? And would it really be quicker than a fast train into London, a frequent Crossrail service and a fast service out of the other side of London?

 

[joeykins82]

You wouldn't necessarily think that a direct Norwich to Liverpool service would be successful and yet EMT run one and it is regularly very busy. It doesn't necessarily have to be quicker than a via London service, especially if it's cheaper. I suspect many people, offered the choice between a direct cross country service vs a packed service via London and an awkward tube connection would opt for the former. There are also a lot of journeys begrudgingly undertaken by car in the EW belt because the train is an unviable option and buses/coaches are just awful.

 

[HSTEd]

I believe this is where I jump in and suggest a Shinkansen in the corridor

I will also get my coat.

 

[eastdyke]

You wouldn't necessarily think that a direct Norwich to Liverpool service would be successful and yet EMT run one and it is regularly very busy. It doesn't necessarily have to be quicker than a via London service, especially if it's cheaper. I suspect many people, offered the choice between a direct cross country service vs a packed service via London and an awkward tube connection would opt for the former. There are also a lot of journeys begrudgingly undertaken by car in the EW belt because the train is an unviable option.

The EMT Norwich-Liverpool service is indeed popular. But not just as a through route (have seen figures to the effect that less than 10% of journeys ex Norwich would use the whole route).
From Norwich the most popular destinations are Peterborough (for ECML) and Nottingham.
Sheffield-Manchester is very heavily used, especially at commuting times.

Far too much emphasis is placed on London and the radial routes.

East-West can both relieve London and provide vital/popular cross country links.

FWIW my 2050 aspiration is Heathrow-Cambridge with main lines connectivity at 125mph (which none of the current proposals can achieve). I'll keep dreaming.

 

[tbtc]

You wouldn't necessarily think that a direct Norwich to Liverpool service would be successful and yet EMT run one and it is regularly very busy. It doesn't necessarily have to be quicker than a via London service, especially if it's cheaper. I suspect many people, offered the choice between a direct cross country service vs a packed service via London and an awkward tube connection would opt for the former. There are also a lot of journeys begrudgingly undertaken by car in the EW belt because the train is an unviable option and buses/coaches are just awful.

However (as Regional Railways downgraded/ withdrew local services on some lines to use longer distance trains to fill the gap) Norwich - Liverpool is the fastest route between big cities (Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool).

There aren't the same sizes of place on an "East West" line, nor is there one obvious route to go for (if you don't go through Luton or Milton Keynes then it's not "direct" for those people). The fact that there are enough people to make a fifty-seat Stagecoach coach profitable between Oxford and Cambridge doesn't mean that a train (with at least a couple of hundred seats, paying track access charges, with much higher staffing costs) would be viable.

 

[Buttsy]

However (as Regional Railways downgraded/ withdrew local services on some lines to use longer distance trains to fill the gap) Norwich - Liverpool is the fastest route between big cities (Nottingham - Sheffield - Manchester - Liverpool).

There aren't the same sizes of place on an "East West" line, nor is there one obvious route to go for (if you don't go through Luton or Milton Keynes then it's not "direct" for those people). The fact that there are enough people to make a fifty-seat Stagecoach coach profitable between Oxford and Cambridge doesn't mean that a train (with at least a couple of hundred seats, paying track access charges, with much higher staffing costs) would be viable.

As an Oxonian, the most frustrating thing about heading north from Oxford to my cousin's in Ansdell is that you only have the options of via London (expensive) or Birmingham (generally rammed on uncomfy trains with an awful station to change at). An alternative route (particularly if connections are improved at MKC) would be a boon and no doubt see a fair number of northbound passengers using the OXF-MKC leg of the route.

The connection would also open up Bicester Village much better to the East (compared to the A4421, A421 and A422 options), so I feel that the coach only carrying 50 people would be at least doubled with a train and more likely to arrive close to time (I've used the X5 for connections from MKC to OXF before and arrived an hour late in OXF after an on-time departure from MKC).

 

[tbtc]

As an Oxonian, the most frustrating thing about heading north from Oxford to my cousin's in Ansdell is that you only have the options of via London (expensive) or Birmingham (generally rammed on uncomfy trains with an awful station to change at). An alternative route (particularly if connections are improved at MKC) would be a boon and no doubt see a fair number of northbound passengers using the OXF-MKC leg of the route.

The connection would also open up Bicester Village much better to the East (compared to the A4421, A421 and A422 options), so I feel that the coach only carrying 50 people would be at least doubled with a train and more likely to arrive close to time (I've used the X5 for connections from MKC to OXF before and arrived an hour late in OXF after an on-time departure from MKC).

I could see Oxford - Bicester - Bletchley - Milton Keynes working, no doubt. The current proposals (to electrify the Marston Vale line etc) seem sensible.

The problem I have is that if you start going further east, you start finding it harder to "join the dots".