We have now reached the stage where there are two conversations/consultations going on.
The Central section from Bicester to Bedford and Aylesbury to Milton Keynes subject to the TWAO public enquiry which will begin early in 2019. Lessons have been drawn from previous public enquiries, notably that involving the Ordsall Chord, that the completeness and coherence of the case presented and considered by the enquiry is critical. The Inspector will no doubt make clear what is “ultra vires”, that is, outwith the scope of this particular enquiry. I suspect that he may not wish to become embroiled in the debate about the Eastern Section of EWR – which as was pointed out at the Institute of Civil Engineers Lecture by the EWR team is subject to development by a separate team in York. Does anybody know whom/which organisation is managing that programme and if they have any published timetable?
What is apparent is that there are distinct views on the Eastern Section Route. Most recently East West Rail identified a route(s) via Sandy linking to a southern approach to Cambridge.
https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/central-section-overview/
This link is mis-titled in so far as it discusses what is now defined as the eastern section of the EWR
“At this early stage of development, route options will not show construction ‘footprints’ or conceptual designs for infrastructure but are solely an incremental step in the feasibility process to inform the business case analysis. In due course, the preferred route will indicate, in general terms, how the proposed new railway will link the Bedford area to Cambridge.
The current programme would see a preferred route being selected during 2019 following several public consultation events which will be publicised in due course.
When will it open?
It was originally planned that trains would be operating on the new railway by the early 2030s. However, following the creation of the East West Railway Company, the Secretary of State has asked for this to be accelerated to the ‘mid 2020s’.
Why Sandy?
Twenty potential corridors between Bedford and Cambridge were carefully analysed by Network Rail, with input from a very wide range of stakeholders including the local authorities which make up the East West Rail Consortium.
The corridor via Sandy offered the best value in terms of economic benefits, reduced journey time between Oxford and Cambridge, population growth and employment in the area, operating costs for new services and forecast passenger demand. Local infrastructure and the wider impacts of the railway were also considered.
Work is now continuing to identify a more detailed route within this chosen corridor, and following this work, there will be a full public consultation on the proposals.”
The CamBed Railroad advocates a different approach with a route via St. Neots and an approach to Cambridge from the North and have lodged a holding letter with the forthcoming enquiry. Whether it will be a topic for discussion, or merely noted, may well become apparent during the pre-enquiry shake down meeting. It will no doubt become apparent soon.
http://www.cambedrailroad.org/fluidcms/files/files/Open-Letter-to-Mr-R-Brighouse.pdf
http://www.cambedrailroad.org/fluidcms/files/files/CamBedRailRoad-Proposal.pdf
From the limited data available in the public domain my view is that there is merit in both of those proposals with regard facilitating new development in Cambridgeshire. The CamBed proposal includes rail service provision for places such as Northstowe. Governments have traditionally not been good at providing links to New Towns:
Skelmersdale and Its Railway Lecture Slides by
Mwmbwls, on Flickr
I fear that despite fluffy cloud statements about understanding the need for infrastructure, and rail to support new development there is often a gap between the espoused and effected. Putting off to a later day, as has been the case with the Peter Hendy inspired scope reductions on the Central Section, will generate, what bean counters such as myself describe as, squeezing the cost balloon - in that deferment invariably increases later costs.
There are no doubt counter-veiling arguments for a southern approach, which yet EWR have not put forward in detail. My key concern, however, is the accessibility of Cambridge. As a frequent visitor, I find the City difficult to access by car and coach and when there the fact that in Cambridge historical terms clashes with the upstart technology of the internal combustion engine, in terms of parking and air pollution. It does have a limited guided busway system, built some think, controversially, over the track-bed of a disused railway line. There were difficulties in building this link – as it was in effect almost the first of its type in the United Kingdom. All initial technology is notchy and the use of pre-cast concrete units instead of the continuous slip-form technique used on the later Leigh Guided Busway undoubted was a major factor in latter’s better ride. It will be interesting to see how the life-cycle maintenance/replacement costs mature on the two systems. It may be that Ultra-Light Rail technologies/ AI controlled systems emerge. As a city founded on experimental science, I feel Cambridge should be ready to be at the fore-front in this area.
The important thing is that the processes and experience to develop the central section are rolled over into the Eastern Sector as well as the experience we will undoubtedly gain from building HS2.
Discontinuity costs and due to the difficulties of extracting the tacit knowledge from the heads of those people who leave organisations when projects end – (The Futurama Concept of Talking Heads in Jars is still only a concept – although there are certain ministers I would like to volunteer as crash test dummies)
Momentum will be key. This will be an exciting ride.
