Medium Sized Cities with Heavy Rail Metro Potential

[Bletchleyite]

In relation to the ideal frequency, much depends on the journey time into the city centre. Folk can argue the relationship but for roughly 45 minutes away from the centre 2tph ‘feels’ reasonable, but for a five minute hop just missing one and then having to wait 30 minutes for the next one feels disproportionately infrequent, and buses may be a better choice both for the funder and the user depending on local circumstances.

IMHO Metro networks tend to work better if the closer-in places are served by more than one route, and destinations in their own right.

Personal opinion again, but I’m sure I’m not alone amongst ‘normals’ with the word ‘metro’ setting off images in my head of the Parisian underground hence a typically non-public timetable service where if you just miss a train another one will be along in a few minutes, not 2 tph or even 3tph where you would want to be aiming for a specific timed departure.

To be fair that will depend on the individual. I would personally use a timetable at pretty much any frequency until you get down to every couple of minutes - I certainly find it a very poor feature of Metrolink that they don't properly publish times.

I think thought that you can still create a metro style network with low frequencies, though - the Swiss semi rural S-Bahnen such as that round Lausanne are a good example. These are typically based on 1tph patterns, but with a metro style map, a fully clockface timetable and fully standardised calling patterns. This is I think the sort of thing the Cornwall Metro is looking at.

If you want an example of a service that is basically what is being described, though, I'd say the Birmingham Snow Hill Lines are it.

 

[The exile]

Personal opinion again, but I’m sure I’m not alone amongst ‘normals’ with the word ‘metro’ setting off images in my head of the Parisian underground hence a typically non-public timetable service where if you just miss a train another one will be along in a few minutes, not 2 tph or even 3tph where you would want to be aiming for a specific timed departure.

Which is why "metro" is really an unfortunate choice of word for a heavy rail service which, other than between points where several routes overlap (eg Waterloo to Clapham Junction), will rarely achieve that sort of frequency. Unfortunately, we have yet to develop a really "punchy" equivalent term to RER / S-Bahn - at least in part because outside of London (and arguably Glasgow) there are no networks where the service provision gets close to that sort of level - though Merseyrail and the West Midlands get close.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Which is why "metro" is really an unfortunate choice of word for a heavy rail service which, other than between points where several routes overlap (eg Waterloo to Clapham Junction), will rarely achieve that sort of frequency. Unfortunately, we have yet to develop a really "punchy" equivalent term to RER / S-Bahn - at least in part because outside of London (and arguably Glasgow) there are no networks where the service provision gets close to that sort of level - though Merseyrail and the West Midlands get close.

Merseyrail is basically a textbook S-Bahn almost identical to what you might find in Germany - it's only really the huge cities like Hamburg and Berlin that run very frequent services, Stuttgart's for instance is based on a 2tph pattern, similar to the Snow Hill Lines. The Snow Hill Lines being diesel is maybe an oddity, but there are/were some diesel S-Bahn services in Germany, including some which were formed of LHCS like Hamburg's former S4 to Ahrensburg.

Don't forget Glasgow which basically has a heavy rail metro similar to Merseyrail, and Leeds isn't far off though coverage and frequency tends to be poor. Manchester sort of does but the odd service patterns, through services to far away and the likes make it not quite a metro, though something like the Atherton line, Hadfield and the Rose Hills are close.

 

[dodecahedron67]

I think Middlesbrough is a no brainer for metro system based on the heavy rail network. Most of the local rail network is lightly used and doesn't rely on using major intercity routes. My preference would be for a heavy rail metro service using tram trains to allow for future extensions but conventional battery EMUs could be an option. I'd electrify Saltburn to Hartlepool as part of the project. I'd run the follow services:

• 2 tph Nunthorpe to Hartlepool
• 4 tph Saltburn to Darlington

So not overly ambitious frequencies to begin with so that it could be largely accommodated with existing or planned infrastructure with limited additonal interventions above new rollingstock and electrification. This would allow acceleration of Whitby/Newcastle to Middlesbrough services.

There is almost definitely not the capacity for 8tph* Bowesfield Jn - Middlesborough as well as the freight. The freight needs to share track at minimum Bowesfield - Thornaby, and pathing the freight across all lines at Thornaby East Jn would not work with 8tph passenger trains.

*8tph calc’d
4tph Saltburn - Darlo
2tph Nunthorpe - Hartlepool

1tph TPE Boro/Redcar - Manchester
1tph Whitby/Boro - Hexham/Carlisle

That’s not including any future LNER services

 

[lachlan]

Bristol has the potential, and it feels like it is being worked towards with the increase in frequency on the Severn Beach and new stations at Portway and Ashley Down.

Unfortunately the frequencies are too low and diesel trains sluggish. Additionally there was (is?) no connectivity from Parkway to Stapleton Road which would have made onward journeys easier.

 

[AlastairFraser]

I don't agree, because it isn't just about Haverhill. What needs to be on the Metro also include Sawston village, Granta Park, Babraham Institute, and an A11 parkway. Haverhill will be served more cost effectively by a busway to the A11 parkway.

Do you think a busway will be attractive enough to justify construction costs? I wouldn't disagree with additional stations at Sawston and an A11 parkway.

I disagree here too. The tunnel does not have sufficient capacity to serve both towards Bury and Ipswich, and towards Soham and Ely, especially if Felixstowe to East West Rail becomes an important route for freight. Newmarket stands on it own without Soham (which is only a bit bigger than Sawston) because of proposed developments at Cherry Hinton, Capital Park at Fulbourn, and traffic from/to Newmarket.

Here's a question - if freight volumes Felixstowe to EWR increase significantly, would/could the tunnel be rebuilt or another bore be added to provide a second track?

 

[Grimsby town]

There is almost definitely not the capacity for 8tph* Bowesfield Jn - Middlesborough as well as the freight. The freight needs to share track at minimum Bowesfield - Thornaby, and pathing the freight across all lines at Thornaby East Jn would not work with 8tph passenger trains.

*8tph calc’d
4tph Saltburn - Darlo
2tph Nunthorpe - Hartlepool

1tph TPE Boro/Redcar - Manchester
1tph Whitby/Boro - Hexham/Carlisle

That’s not including any future LNER services

It might be that further investment is needed there then. It shouldn't be a show stopper though. The combined authority has access to City Region Sustainable Transport Settlement funds which should be able to cover the investment.

 

[The exile]

Merseyrail is basically a textbook S-Bahn almost identical to what you might find in Germany - it's only really the huge cities like Hamburg and Berlin that run very frequent services, Stuttgart's for instance is based on a 2tph pattern, similar to the Snow Hill Lines. The Snow Hill Lines being diesel is maybe an oddity, but there are/were some diesel S-Bahn services in Germany, including some which were formed of LHCS like Hamburg's former S4 to Ahrensburg.

Don't forget Glasgow which basically has a heavy rail metro similar to Merseyrail, and Leeds isn't far off though coverage and frequency tends to be poor. Manchester sort of does but the odd service patterns, through services to far away and the likes make it not quite a metro, though something like the Atherton line, Hadfield and the Rose Hills are close.

Outside of London, Glasgow and Merseyrail are the closest we get to- however, Merseyrail leaves a large swathe of the city untouched.
The “S-Bahn” principle has been greatly watered down in its homeland thanks to its “we want one too” spread over the last 20-30 years.
Once the brand spread from its Berlin / Hamburg roots, the guiding principles were:
• A (frequent) clock face timetable with standard stopping patterns planned around key interchanges with other (S-Bahn) routes
• Independence from other routes (Timetable note from the 1980s -“S-Bahn does not wait - other services don’t wait for the S-Bahn”)- ideally with independent tracks.
• A simplified fare structure (often as part of a transport authority)
I’m struggling to think of any diesel operated services that weren’t clearly pro tem or a reaction to the demographic changes in the ex-GDR.

Now we have examples like the Homburg - Osterburken service branded as an S-Bahn the brand has effectively become meaningless - but I’m straying dangerously off-topic.

 

[Zomboid]

Does the Merseyrail brand extend beyond the DC lines?
I'd think that Birmingham and Manchester ought to be able to come close, Manchester especially with the Bee Network rail proposal.

 

[Falcon1200]

Our problems are more narrow / older road networks, ringroads and park & rides which mean car commuting (and bus jams) are terrible ideas for some of our quainter, older and desirable smaller cities - Oxford, Cambridge, Bath, Norwich, York, Chester to a degree. Caveat of some having the railway a bit out of the centre.

I very much agree! Especially regarding Oxford, where I lived from 1964 to 1984 and still visit regularly. I note @Zomboid's comments in Post #2, however I feel that Oxford suffers from the station being an unpleasant walk from the city centre, and from the absurd location of the huge traffic generator which is the John Radcliffe hospital, which makes rail a most inconvenient means of transport to it.

Should the Cowley branch get its passenger service back it will be interesting to see how many commute into the city, and how many simply change to other trains at Oxford - Which I believe would be its greatest benefit.

 

[The exile]

Does the Merseyrail brand extend beyond the DC lines?
I'd think that Birmingham and Manchester ought to be able to come close, Manchester especially with the Bee Network rail proposal.

Though the West Midlands local network is much more of a “stand alone” than GM’s can ever be. OK it shares tracks along the Coventry - Wolverhampton core and down to Bromsgrove (chances of independent “S-Bahn” tracks there are vanishingly small) but most of the local services remain, err, local.

 

[daodao]

Other cities in Great Britain not yet mentioned, where an S-Bahn style service (minimum frequency every 30 minutes) may be viable, include:

• Aberdeen - to Inverurie and Stonehaven
• Dundee - to Arbroath, Cupar and Perth
• Hull - to Beverley and Brough
• Nottingham - to Bingham, Lowdham/Newark, Mansfield Woodhouse and Derby
• Sheffield - to Barnsley, Chesterfield/Dronfield, Doncaster, Dore and Worksop
• Swansea - to Llanelli and Port Talbot

 

[Zomboid]

One of the pie in the sky ideas I've seen is a tram between Botley and the JR/ Thornhill P&R. That goes in the "yeah, that would be nice wouldn't it?" bucket.

If Coventry's VLR is a winner that may be a possibility between the station, Brookes and the hospitals (there's also the Churchill of course).

If Cowley is reopened, then I can see some sense in a third station at Kennington/ Redbridge P&R. Either way if the trains continue to OXP (and Marylebone or MK) it'll be a metro of sorts that could be integrated into the Smart zone ticketing that provides citywide integration of bus tickets.

Then, in my crayon powered cheese dreams, Didcot to Charlbury will be electrified, and at the very least a loop provided at Hanborough so 1) the Cotswold line trains can change over to diesel there and b) the Didcot (or Paddington) to Oxford local trains can be EMUs terminating out there - Charlbury to Oxford is a popular commute as it stands.

Aside from the EWR 6tph between OXF and OXP, I wouldn't see either route being more than 2tph (4 between Kennington/ Redbridge and OXF) so the "Oxford metro" would be more of a ticketing/ branding concept than a turn up and go service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Does the Merseyrail brand extend beyond the DC lines?

It used to, with the DMU lines out of Lime St being branded "Merseyrail City Line" and a set of Pacers and 150s painted up in the yellow livery (though in reality you were as likely to see those in Manchester as Liverpool). These days it's more confused, some stations still have signage carrying the Merseyrail brand and some Merseytravel instead, with Northern the main brand in use. The service patterns are also not like the DC lines, with fasts and slows, and somewhat less frequent.

It will be interesting to see what approach is taken with the new Metro brand and these services.

 

[Magdalia]

Do you think a busway will be attractive enough to justify construction costs? I wouldn't disagree with additional stations at Sawston and an A11 parkway.

As things stand now I don't know one way or the other. That's why I have Whittlesford as a fallback. Much depends on the house building plans that come out of the New Towns Task Force and the Cambridge Growth Company. What I do know is that the big costs for reinstating the railway all the way to Haverhill are crossing the A11, getting through Linton and getting into Haverhill. On the other hand there are few obstacles between Shelford and Babraham, and lots of potential for housing development.

Here's a question - if freight volumes Felixstowe to EWR increase significantly, would/could the tunnel be rebuilt or another bore be added to provide a second track?

It is technically feasible, but it won't happen. The tunnel was built by cut and cover back in Victorian times to appease the very powerful horse racing interests in Newmarket. If anything the horse racing interests in Newmarket are even more powerful now, heavily supported by Middle Eastern oil money.

 

[lachlan]

Other cities in Great Britain not yet mentioned, where an S-Bahn style service (minimum frequency every 30 minutes) may be viable, include:

• Aberdeen - to Inverurie and Stonehaven
• Dundee - to Arbroath, Cupar and Perth
• Hull - to Beverley and Brough
• Nottingham - to Bingham, Lowdham/Newark, Mansfield Woodhouse and Derby
• Sheffield - to Barnsley, Chesterfield/Dronfield, Doncaster, Dore and Worksop
• Swansea - to Llanelli and Port Talbot

Inverurie to Aberdeen had an hourly through service introduced a few years ago. It was great for cross-city connectivity ans the regular service was a huge boost for smaller stations (most particularly Portlethen), although did result in the loss of some direct connections (Laurencekirk-Arbroath IIRC).

Sadly looking at live trains it appears that service has already been eroded!

 

[Maltazer]

It is technically feasible, but it won't happen. The tunnel was built by cut and cover back in Victorian times to appease the very powerful horse racing interests in Newmarket. If anything the horse racing interests in Newmarket are even more powerful now, heavily supported by Middle Eastern oil money.

The tunnel is only W8 I believe - is that big enough for the current container flows from Felixstowe? Even if it's fine, the sharp curve and subsequent low line speed at the Cambridge end surely rules out freight on that route? For EWR I'd think reversal of freight at Ely would be more likely.

For "metro" passenger use, if Newmarket station (and probably most of the rest of the line to Cambridge) were redoubled, the single line tunnel and short stretch to Chippenham junction should present no problem for a half hourly service on the Soham and Bury routes (4tph each way) - Stansted by comparison manages 6 each way.

 

[Magdalia]

The tunnel is only W8 I believe - is that big enough for the current container flows from Felixstowe? Even if it's fine, the sharp curve and subsequent low line speed at the Cambridge end surely rules out freight on that route? For EWR I'd think reversal of freight at Ely would be more likely.

The Coldham Lane-Chippenham Junction section has had diverted intermodals in the past, but the tunnel may not be ok for modern containers. If it is just a height issue it can be resolved by lowering the trackbed, as was done at Ipswich.

For "metro" passenger use, if Newmarket station (and probably most of the rest of the line to Cambridge) were redoubled, the single line tunnel and short stretch to Chippenham junction should present no problem for a half hourly service on the Soham and Bury routes (4tph each way) - Stansted by comparison manages 6 each way.

Stansted is different. The single line is very close to the terminus and is effectively part of the station throat. Ware is a similar example that only works because it is near to the terminus at Hertford East.

 

[chr]

Not much of the railway through Southampton is four track - just the mile or so between Millbrook and Central, and then a short section south of St Denys. Southampton Central itself only has 4 platforms, the centre two of which are used by the Portsmouth stopper and Brighton terminator for layovers. Southampton Tunnel is a major bottleneck. As the routes are used by a lot of heavy freightliner trains in addition to the intensive passenger service, I can't see there being much desire to introduce more stopping services.

The Southampton - Portsmouth line isn't as intensively used and isn't very fast due to the multiple sharp curves but still has 2 tph running non-stop as far as Swanwick. Getting services through Southampton Central without delaying express or freight services would seem to be the main challenge given that for long periods each hour only two lines are clear.

Southampton Terminus isn't electrified and there's no realistic chance of extending the third rail. I'm not sure that passenger trains going over the level crossings at Chapel Road and Canute Road would be particularly welcome. There are still some long freight trains trundling over the crossings at 20mph, but I understand they all come to a stop beforehand to ensure the crossing is clear. Not going to be popular on a passenger service.

They should re-open light-ish railway stops at Northam (St Marys Stadium) and Maritime Quarter / Oxford Street (the site of the old Terminus) exactly because Southampton Tunnel under the central parks is such a bottleneck. Electrification is an issue - but frankly other local trains use diesel because they're not electrified, and if that's not palatable then potentially a hybrid battery/electric train could be used (i.e. using the battery when a third rail isn't present). Some sections would require extra track, but on the positive side there are plenty of opportunities for the new stations with level access from both sides

Maritime Quarter > St Marys Stadium > St Denys > Swaythling > Airport Parkway > Eastleigh (reverse) would be a great service

 

[PTR 444]

They should re-open light-ish railway stops at Northam (St Marys Stadium) and Maritime Quarter / Oxford Street (the site of the old Terminus) exactly because Southampton Tunnel under the central parks is such a bottleneck. Electrification is an issue - but frankly other local trains use diesel because they're not electrified, and if that's not palatable then potentially a hybrid battery/electric train could be used (i.e. using the battery when a third rail isn't present). Some sections would require extra track, but on the positive side there are plenty of opportunities for the new stations with level access from both sides

Maritime Quarter > St Marys Stadium > St Denys > Swaythling > Airport Parkway > Eastleigh (reverse) would be a great service

I have suggested previously that transferring some local services to light rail would be an excellent opportunity to relieve the Southampton Tunnel bottleneck. For example, if you redoubled the Botley Line and diverted Soton - Fareham fast trains via Eastleigh, you could run a self-contained light rail service between Fareham and the old Southampton Terminus, with some street running to extend it back to Central through the City Centre

A future phase could see this tram line extended to Fawley using a mixture of railway alignment and street running. The tracks can run parallel to the main line as far as Redbridge, then would need a new bridge over the River Test to Totton, with street running through the town centre before taking over the Fawley Branch. I’d also consider another street running section through Hardley/Holbury to avoid the oil refinery.

From east to west, the calling pattern would be as follows:

Fareham, Segensworth, Swanwick, Bursledon, Hamble, Netley, Sholing, Woolston, Bitterne, St Denys, St Mary’s, Chapel, Ocean Village, Town Quay, Old Town, Bargate/West Quay, Marlands, Southampton Central, Millbrook, Redbridge, Totton, Marchwood, Hythe, Holbury, Fawley, Fawley Waterside (site of old power station)

 

[AlastairFraser]

As things stand now I don't know one way or the other. That's why I have Whittlesford as a fallback. Much depends on the house building plans that come out of the New Towns Task Force and the Cambridge Growth Company. What I do know is that the big costs for reinstating the railway all the way to Haverhill are crossing the A11, getting through Linton and getting into Haverhill. On the other hand there are few obstacles between Shelford and Babraham, and lots of potential for housing development.

Although housebuilding isn't the only reason for reinstating a railway, regeneration is also an important criterion, and Haverhill's isolation means the lack of connectivity is a significant barrier to regeneration.

It is technically feasible, but it won't happen. The tunnel was built by cut and cover back in Victorian times to appease the very powerful horse racing interests in Newmarket. If anything the horse racing interests in Newmarket are even more powerful now, heavily supported by Middle Eastern oil money.

Sounds like a good opportunity to use compulsory purchase orders, even if the tunnel had to be bored rather than cut and cover to minimise disruption.

 

[Brubulus]

The issue with building a busway only as far as the A11 is that buses will still get stuck in traffic at Linton, which is becoming a real bottleneck. Best place to put a parkway is outskirts of Haverhill, potentially alongside an A11 parkway that can serve Granta Park. Plus there will be substantial regeneration impact of rail (esp light rail), even if service is less frequent than a busway. Going back to Soham, there is no way that can justify 2 tph to Cambridge, but Bury would definitely be able to, though not 4tph. 4 tph might be justified to Newmarket if massive development takes place to the south of the town, with 1 tph to Ipswich, 1tph to Bury and 2tph terminating. I can't see a way in which the likely 9 figure cost of a new tunnel is justified just to serve Soham.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The issue with building a busway only as far as the A11 is that buses will still get stuck in traffic at Linton, which is becoming a real bottleneck. Best place to put a parkway is outskirts of Haverhill, potentially alongside an A11 parkway that can serve Granta Park. Plus there will be substantial regeneration impact of rail (esp light rail), even if service is less frequent than a busway. Going back to Soham, there is no way that can justify 2 tph to Cambridge, but Bury would definitely be able to, though not 4tph. 4 tph might be justified to Newmarket if massive development takes place to the south of the town, with 1 tph to Ipswich, 1tph to Bury and 2tph terminating. I can't see a way in which the likely 9 figure cost of a new tunnel is justified just to serve Soham.

My plan would continue from Soham north to Ely, so you'd also have Ely to Newmarket traffic (along with new stations at Fulbourn and Cherry Hinton, which would probably attract quite a few passengers).

 

[Brubulus]

My plan would continue from Soham north to Ely, so you'd also have Ely to Newmarket traffic (along with new stations at Fulbourn and Cherry Hinton, which would probably attract quite a few passengers).

Yes but even then, traffic is still limited, you could probably get more people onto the railway by giving Dullingham a decent service, large free car park and turning it into a park and ride for the villages in the area as most of these are dormitory villages with poor bus service and large commuter flows. Optimising connections at Ely is would provide a fast service for Soham residents, without hundreds of millions of pounds of tunneling.

 

[Magdalia]

Although housebuilding isn't the only reason for reinstating a railway, regeneration is also an important criterion, and Haverhill's isolation means the lack of connectivity is a significant barrier to regeneration.

I agree that Haverhill would benefit from regeneration. Also a lot of hospital workers live there. I wouldn't leave Haverhill with nothing, it would get a busway to the A11 Parkway, which would be much cheaper to build as the buses could use existing bridges over the A11 and could go onto normal roads to get in and out of the centre of Haverhill.

Sounds like a good opportunity to use compulsory purchase orders

And upset all of those oil sheikh racehorse owners that we want to invest in the UK?

Yes but even then, traffic is still limited, you could probably get more people onto the railway by giving Dullingham a decent service, large free car park and turning it into a park and ride for the villages in the area as most of these are dormitory villages with poor bus service and large commuter flows.

The local road network around Dullingham is unsuitable for this. The parkway station needs to be next to the A11, either at Babraham, if we can get the railway there, or at Six Mile Bottom.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Yes but even then, traffic is still limited, you could probably get more people onto the railway by giving Dullingham a decent service, large free car park and turning it into a park and ride for the villages in the area as most of these are dormitory villages with poor bus service and large commuter flows. Optimising connections at Ely is would provide a fast service for Soham residents, without hundreds of millions of pounds of tunneling.

Large car park at Dullingham is a decent proposal. Soham service needs to go hourly for a decent usable connection at Ely. In which case, I'd terminate my Route B at Newmarket.

I agree that Haverhill would benefit from regeneration. Also a lot of hospital workers live there. I wouldn't leave Haverhill with nothing, it would get a busway to the A11 Parkway, which would be much cheaper to build as the buses could use existing bridges over the A11 and could go onto normal roads to get in and out of the centre of Haverhill.

Buses have a very limited appeal. It would be a better use of money
to deliver the railway to the A11 parkway and then divert existing services there, and build a very large carpark at the A11 Parkway station, so that you can cut out congestion closer to Cambridge.

And upset all of those oil sheikh racehorse owners that we want to invest in the UK?

Will they invest in anything worthwhile, or just speculatively inflate our property again?

The local road network around Dullingham is unsuitable for this. The parkway station needs to be next to the A11, either at Babraham, if we can get the railway there, or at Six Mile Bottom.

You could invest in road improvements to link them to the A11/A14 though. I'd think any Dullingham car park expansion would be aimed at Bottisham/Stetchworth/Cheveley/outlying parts of Newmarket anyway, with the A11 parkway aimed at a different area (including Haverhill).

 

[Brubulus]

The local road network around Dullingham is unsuitable for this. The parkway station needs to be next to the A11, either at Babraham, if we can get the railway there, or at Six Mile Bottom.

6 Mile Bottom is a better location in terms of road links, though having the station at Dullingham takes traffic off A1307 and some road improvements would probably cost about 1/10th of a new station, given how much those seem to cost.

Agree that Soham needs an hourly service, but that Bury St Edmunds really should have 2tph in each direction.

Going back to car parks, increasing service at Whittlesford to 4tph (by stopping the XC service) and expanding car park to around 1000 spaces, while removing parking charges, would do a lot of good. Proper paths to Sawston, Duxford and the Wellcome campus could also massively increase rail usage there too. It's only another 5 mins driving compared to an A11 parkway from Haverhill, at a small fraction of the cost.

The main benefit for Haverhill would be a proper link of some sort on a separate alignment to at least past Linton, instead of a half hearted effort to the A11, which would be a lot of cost for limited benefit, especially when socioeconomic objectives for Haverhill are included.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Going back to car parks, increasing service at Whittlesford to 4tph (by stopping the XC service)

Is there capacity on XC for the extra passengers though?

It's only another 5 mins driving compared to an A11 parkway from Haverhill, at a small fraction of the cost.

An A11 parkway does have one major benefit compared to Whittlesford - it allows turnarounds away from the West Anglia Main Line, and since it's likely that this Cambridge "Metro" plan would be built
beyond 2030, technology should have significantly advanced to the point that you could charge bi-mode OHLE/BEMUs here for the unelectrified section to Newmarket during shorter turnarounds.

The main benefit for Haverhill would be a proper link of some sort on a separate alignment to at least past Linton, instead of a half hearted effort to the A11, which would be a lot of cost for limited benefit, especially when socioeconomic objectives for Haverhill are included.

I agree, although the A11 Parkway would be a good first phase, if you needed to build a business case for full reinstatement to the outskirts of Haverhill

 

[Magdalia]

Buses have a very limited appeal.

The existing Cambridge-Haverhill service suggests otherwise, with 4 bph, plus the Granta Park private service.

I'd think any Dullingham car park expansion would be aimed at Bottisham/Stetchworth/Cheveley/outlying parts of Newmarket anyway, with the A11 parkway aimed at a different area (including Haverhill).

People from Bottisham are unlikely to head for Dullingham, Stetchworth and Cheveley are not big numbers. The big win for an A11 parkway is places beyond Newmarket, particularly Mildenhall.

An A11 parkway does have one major benefit compared to Whittlesford - it allows turnarounds away from the West Anglia Main Line, and since it's likely that this Cambridge "Metro" plan would be built

My fallback plan for Whittlesford is to move the station a bit nearer to Cambridge with a central reversing platform like Beaulieu Park and better road access to the car park.

which would be a lot of cost for limited benefit,

It isn't limited benefit because it would also serve Babraham Hall and Granta Park, so it has commuting both in and out. Granta Park already has more than 2k jobs and 3.5k journeys per week on their private bus service.

 

[Brubulus]

An A11 parkway does have one major benefit compared to Whittlesford - it allows turnarounds away from the West Anglia Main Line, and since it's likely that this Cambridge "Metro" plan would be built
beyond 2030, technology should have significantly advanced to the point that you could charge bi-mode OHLE/BEMUs here for the unelectrified section to Newmarket during shorter turnarounds.

I agree, although the A11 Parkway would be a good first phase, if you needed to build a business case for full reinstatement to the outskirts of Haverhill

Pushing 4tph to A11 parkway is likely to be technically difficult, requiring double track and increased costs. 6tph to Whittlesford is viable with a bay platform, providing a genuine turn up and go service with 2tph to Newmarket. On the other hand a 2tph service from A11 isn't particularly attractive for non science park users. Charging can happen on the move. A light rail route is probably the best solution for Haverhill.

The existing Cambridge-Haverhill service suggests otherwise, with 4 bph, plus the Granta Park private service.

Absolutely, but I think it shows the overall demand on the route, which would be increased substantially with a proper transport solution.

People from Bottisham are unlikely to head for Dullingham, Stetchworth and Cheveley are not big numbers. The big win for an A11 parkway is places beyond Newmarket, particularly Mildenhall.

My fallback plan for Whittlesford is to move the station a bit nearer to Cambridge with a central reversing platform like Beaulieu Park and better road access to the car park.

Adding a bay platform to the north of platform 1 and expanding the car park near platform 2 would be much cheaper, despite potential for conflicting moves.

Burwell is a major traffic source for which Dullingham would be a very convenient P+R, while access from A11/A14 could be improved with a slip road onto Swaffam Heath Road and a roundabouts with the A1304 and A1304.

Haverhill has always been an issue and I'm not sure a CSET style truncated route, either as a busway or as heavy rail is actually going to relieve the A1307, while the best way of providing a better option for inward commuting to Cambridge on this route is probably a frequent railway service from a proper P+R at Whittlesford, which has the benefit of also providing at least 3tph to Cambridge North, enabling commuting to the Science Park.