Oxford - Cambridge in 60 minutes??

[Oscar]

A new report has set out an economic case for the Varsity Line:

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/news...ment-east-west-rail-central-section-rail-link

New study supports economic case for investment in East West Rail ‘Central Section’ rail link

The East West Rail Consortium has published a report that shows that extending the East West Rail line from Oxford to Cambridge has real potential. It shows that the delivery of attractive new rail services between key locations could deliver substantial economic benefits and support significant growth in the East West Rail corridor.

The report concludes a study by Atkins Consultants and is the first step towards developing an outline business case for the East West Rail ‘Central Section’.

Working closely with the East West Rail Consortium and Department for Transport, Network Rail will now lead the next phase of work which will consider and examine the engineering, operational and planning feasibility and cost of several potential route options.

The aim is to establish a scheme with a robust and convincing business case that can be submitted to Government in 2016 to secure inclusion of the scheme, subject to funding availability, in the 2019-24 investment plans for the rail industry.

It has been a long term aim of the East West Rail Consortium to improve rail connections within the region by re-instating the former ‘Varsity Line’ between Cambridge and Oxford. This would provide the rail infrastructure for train services to run from East Anglia to Oxfordshire (and beyond) with connections to all national mainline services to the north, west and south of England.

It assumes a journey time of 24 minutes between Cambridge and Bedford and 60 minutes between Cambridge and Oxford. Where do these journey times come from? Previously I've heard 60 minutes between Oxford and Bedford and 100 minutes between Cambridge and Oxford, which seems much more realistic.

 

[jopsuk]

surely 60 minutes Oxford-Cambridge, whilst it would be very welcome, would require considerable sections of 110-125mph running? As it's the best part of 90 miles or so (or likely will be by whatever rail route is finally approved) and no-one seems to be suggesting non-stop services.

Even 100 minutes would be a huge improvement on the X5!

 

[NotATrainspott]

surely 60 minutes Oxford-Cambridge, whilst it would be very welcome, would require considerable sections of 110-125mph running? As it's the best part of 90 miles or so (or likely will be by whatever rail route is finally approved) and no-one seems to be suggesting non-stop services.

Even 100 minutes would be a huge improvement on the X5!

There has been talk of having four-aspect signalling and to upgrade the route to be as fast as the alignment practically allows. The central section will be a completely new section of railway rather than a reopening - similar to the Selby diversion of the ECML - so there's no point making it artificially slow.

 

[jopsuk]

Whilst that's true, I doubt we'll see (without huge additional investment) much speed improvements on the (mainly 80mph I think- and slower through Royston) Hitchin-Shelford line. There's a lot of level crossings, many of them AHB- though the crossing at Foxton has long been something that everyone wants replaced with a new road alignment round the village and a foot/cycle bridge/underpass at the station.

What about the other existing sections?

Even for the new build section, whatever route that takes (so very far from chosen yet!) there's a lot of extra cost involved in building a high speed formation, it isn't just alignment.

 

[CockneySparrow]

surely 60 minutes Oxford-Cambridge, whilst it would be very welcome, would require considerable sections of 110-125mph running? As it's the best part of 90 miles or so (or likely will be by whatever rail route is finally approved) and no-one seems to be suggesting non-stop services.

Even 100 minutes would be a huge improvement on the X5!

It will surely mean an upgrade to the current track between Hitchin and Cambridgr to ECML spec and the train running non stop on this section

 

[NotATrainspott]

Whilst that's true, I doubt we'll see (without huge additional investment) much speed improvements on the (mainly 80mph I think- and slower through Royston) Hitchin-Shelford line. There's a lot of level crossings, many of them AHB- though the crossing at Foxton has long been something that everyone wants replaced with a new road alignment round the village and a foot/cycle bridge/underpass at the station.

What about the other existing sections?

Even for the new build section, whatever route that takes (so very far from chosen yet!) there's a lot of extra cost involved in building a high speed formation, it isn't just alignment.

With increased traffic, even at normal speeds, it's unlikely these level crossings would be able to last long. Other crossings on the line are being replaced or heavily upgraded for that reason.

The extra costs of building a new line over the relatively flat terrain there to be capable of 200km/h rather than 160km/h is going to be negligible. The cheapest alignment will be the shortest which means it won't curve around unnecessarily which means it'll work just fine for 200km/h running. Same arguments as HS2, and NR apply the same cost per kilometre as HS2 to other new-major-line projects like the Dawlish Avoiding Line ideas.

 

[21C101]

The route with the best business case dosent go via Bedford. It involves a Millbrook Flitwick chord north of Ampthill tunnel, down the mml slows to Luton airport then a new route from Luton airport to Stevenage joining the top end of the Hertford loop just south of stevenage , ecml slows to Hitchin and then via Royston to Cambridge, which would provide intercity interchange at Luton and Stevenage with both mml and ecml plus serve Luton airport.

The report is about potential demand between towns/cities in the areas and does not suggest routes, however Page 72 of the report states

"Furthermore, if we were to consider alternative service patterns which took in more locations (Luton, Hitchin etc.) then the overall benefits would also be higher.

This initial analysis suggests that the benefits that might be generated by an EWR-CS scheme could justify a
capital investment of over £400 million (2010 prices) while still meeting the DfT’s economic cost benefit
threshold criteria"

additionally in Appendix F:

In the category of journeys up to 15 mins the only journey patterns where "Value is significantly higher than threshold level" are (top first):

* Luton - Stevenage
* Luton - Welwyn
* Luton Airport - Stevenage
* Luton Airport - Welwyn,

For Journeys of 15-30 mins the journey patterns where "Value is significantly higher than threshold level" are (top first)

* Bedford Cambridge
* Bedford Stevenage
* Cambridge Luton
* Cambridge Luton airport Parkway
* Harlow Town - Luton
* Bedford - Northampton

30-60 mins

* Cambridge - Northampton
* Cambridge - St Albans
* Luton - Northampton

>60 mins - nil.

So it looks to me like via Luton and Stevenage with a Flitwick - Millbrook chord at Millbrok is still the favourite. The terrain is not ideal but you would only need about 7 miles of new railway between Luton Airport and Stevenage. Plus you can still run Bedford - Cambridge if you build it. If you go direct from Bedford to Sandy/Cambridge you can't serve Luton and Airport or provide e.g. Luton Northampton journeys (or interchange at all with Midland Main line/Thameslink or ECML intercities.

If the Luton - Stevenage option is chosen, the original options stated that additionally the junction south of Stevenage may be a triangle with trains continuing to Hertford north new line to Hertford east and new chord on to stanstead airport.

Last I heard for oxon bletch was that it would be 125mph line speed with some ICXC routed that way.

 

[The Planner]

Oxford Bicester re-opens at 100, though I suspect its spaced and capable of 125.

 

[HSTEd]

This is where I suggest the Norwich-Penzance Varsity Shinkansen.

 

[jopsuk]

Cambridge-Luton Airport would be a welcome service; currently it's served by a coach that takes an hour and a half, every 2 hours. Even bus connections from Stevenage or Hitchin are sparse or slow.

 

[MK Tom]

surely 60 minutes Oxford-Cambridge, whilst it would be very welcome, would require considerable sections of 110-125mph running? As it's the best part of 90 miles or so (or likely will be by whatever rail route is finally approved) and no-one seems to be suggesting non-stop services.

Even 100 minutes would be a huge improvement on the X5!

Going into London and out again is quicker than the X5.

I would like to see a solution for 100mph or more down the Marston Vale, through the middles of Lidlington, Woburn Sands and Fenny Stratford.

 

[Class 170101]

Presumably the existing AHBs between Cambridge and Hitchin are capable of letting trains pass over them at 100mph rather than the current line speed of 80mph as noted above?

Another 'slow' spped improvemnet could be made at Shepreth Branch Jn, FCC trains have to slow down to turn right to head to the ECML at Hitchin.

 

[philjo]

I think the limit is 50mph on the curve through Royston station and also on the curve at Shrepreth. The latter used to be much lower before the 10 day closure in WAGN days when the track between Royston & Shepreth branch junction was upgraded
I think the line from Hitchin up to Letchworth is 90mph - I have certainly seen 90mph on the speedo before (if you stand by the join of 317 units you can see the speedo in the middle cab) - though with the flyover line the 90mph stretch is now shorter.


I would certainly think a line from Luton -Stevenage with a proper station at Luton airport (which may have to be in a tunnel due to the hill) would have a lot of local use plus linking Stevenage/Luton for connections to MML/ECML services etc plus airport traffic.
The thameslink stopper that terminates at Luton can be diverted via the airport to Letchworth (& possibly on to Cambridge) to give a direct service to St Albans from North Herts. it would also allow a 2nd diversion route for Welwyn.

 

[jopsuk]

I'd have thought it almost certain that the Stevenage-Luton link would join the MML from the south south of Luton Airport parkway. No tunnelling under the airport, no way (without a reversal) for services from London to access the link.

Shepreth Branch junction has the low speed because it's a ladder-type junction (up trains have to traverse two sets of points) into quite a tight bend. Hard to see how this could be sped up much.

 

[petersi]

I think the limit is 50mph on the curve through Royston station and also on the curve at Shrepreth. The latter used to be much lower before the 10 day closure in WAGN days when the track between Royston & Shepreth branch junction was upgraded
I think the line from Hitchin up to Letchworth is 90mph - I have certainly seen 90mph on the speedo before (if you stand by the join of 317 units you can see the speedo in the middle cab) - though with the flyover line the 90mph stretch is now shorter.

.

With there being from 2018
2* stopper
2* major station
2* non stop
Is there capacity for 4* non stop ?
Plus is this not supposed to be a freight route as well

getting the crayons out
you could terminate the Cambridge stoppers at Stevenage. But a bay on the west side of Stevenage station and add a curve so the the trains could use the Hereford north dive under to access the up slow line.

 

[mr_jrt]

I just cannot see how the MML would have capacity for any EWR services, nor the ECML. The only options that stand up are those that do not run on the main lines, IMHO. By all means link Hitchin and Luton via the airport, and it stands up even more if you could run it to Leighton Buzzard via Dunstable (and maybe up to EWR on segregated lines alongside the WCML), but running it down the MML is a non-starter.

As for interchange with the MML, then you have 3 options:

1. Move Bedford station south west to where the lines cross over. Shame as the current station is fairly well located.
2. Reverse in Bedford station. Just an operation inconvenience, really.
3. Build your new alignment through Bedford station, heading north from Bedford and across to St Neots, thence across to Cambridge via Cambourne, giving you more new 125mph build, with probably only a couple of stops between the ECML and Cambridge (i.e. Cambourne, Histon, Science Park), reducing journey times.

 

[philjo]

The table in the annex showing possible journey times shows Welwyn Garden City-St Albans as 6 minutes and Letchworth-St Albans 15 minutes (currently Letchworth-WGC on stoppers take 20 minutes but the non-stop service pass through WGC in about 10 minutes) so it looks like they are examining a possible link in the Welwyn area? Though I'm not sure how that fits in with the Welwyn north problem!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

getting the crayons out
you could terminate the Cambridge stoppers at Stevenage. But a bay on the west side of Stevenage station and add a curve so the the trains could use the Hereford north dive under to access the up slow line.

There is already the turnback facility at Letchworth. the Moorgates via Hertford use this off-peak but it is planned for these to turn back at Stevenage. Also the Hitchin flyover now allows more trains to get to Letchworth without disrupting the fast lines.

Letchworth was designed as a 4 platform station with 2 island platforms - the outside lines were never implemented. A 3rd platform could be put on the down side to allow terminating trains to reverse from there or go into the siding without blocking the main down line. The new lifts installed over the last few weeks are blocking installation of the outside platform on the up side. There is more room on the downside to to round the lift I think.

 

[petersi]

There is already the turnback facility at Letchworth. the Moorgates via Hertford use this off-peak but it is planned for these to turn back at Stevenage. Also the Hitchin flyover now allows more trains to get to Letchworth without disrupting the fast lines.

The reason for Stevenage rather than Letchworth is Hitchin only has two platforms which can lead to additional delays even if a train is only 5 Minutes late due to trains catching each other up.

If this scheme is going ahead the Hitchin Cambridge branch will be very busy so timetabling is easier to terminate at Stevenage. Plus in-times of disruption you help minimise additional delay as turn around are grade separated.

Stevenage is the main interchange station so little is gained from extending these to Letchworth

 

[21C101]

I just cannot see how the MML would have capacity for any EWR services, nor the ECML. The only options that stand up are those that do not run on the main lines, IMHO.
[/LIST]

I have to disagree with you there. The full congested bit of the MML is south of Harpenden Junction (St Albans) The four tracks between Harpenden and Bedford have a maximum peak service of ten Thameslinks an hour and six Midland Main line per hour, this wont change in 2018. Plus a roughly hourly freight. A freight loop at Harlington with room for two freight trains is also currently under construction to add capacity.

Provided the chord at Millbrook is grade separated from the fast lines (the one at Luton airport would also be as it would leave the slow lines). I can't see it being a problem, although the Wall of death loop services that still go to Luton might need to be cut back to St Albans and some of the ladders at the junctions might need doubling.

Similarly with the East Coast Main line, provided the Moorgate - Letchworth services are cut back to a bay platform at Stevenage, there should not be an issue as the East West trains will occupy the slow lines only between Stevenage and Hitchin on a four track "island" between the Welwyn two track section and the two track section north of Huntington. The Flyover at Hitchin means total grade separation of the EW trains from the fast lines and makes it possible.

It looks more and more like a no brainer to me.

 

[MarkyT]

Stevenage is the main interchange station so little is gained from extending these to Letchworth

Except stations on the loop including Hertford will lose their convenient direct service to their county compatriots in Knebworth, Hitchin and Letchworth - that can't be popular at County Hall. There is only one slow platform each way at Stevenage so a reverser has to block one of these for a while and if a train sits down there with a faulty rear cab then disruption will be far worse than running through to Letchworth via the new Hitchin flyover and reversing off line in the siding, or in a new third platform created there.

 

[petersi]

Except stations on the loop including Hertford will lose their convenient direct service to their county compatriots in Knebworth, Hitchin and Letchworth - that can't be popular at County Hall. There is only one slow platform each way at Stevenage so a reverser has to block one of these for a while and if a train sits down there with a faulty rear cab then disruption will be far worse than running through to Letchworth via the new Hitchin flyover and reversing off line in the siding, or in a new third platform created there.

Hetford North I believe will be terminating in a Bay platform at stevenage. So will not have direct services north of stevenage the compensation will be two trains on hour instead of one

On the fantasy side I was suggesting a new Bay platform at Stevenage on the west side. To be Honest its not worth to much effort discussing this as if you go back to my original post there may be enough capacity on the Hitchin to Cambridge line for the stoppers to remain which is the question I asked. The question of capacity on the branch in a way needs to be answered before we get to into a problem which may not exist.(just having a bit of fun )

 

[Aictos]

Except stations on the loop including Hertford will lose their convenient direct service to their county compatriots in Knebworth, Hitchin and Letchworth - that can't be popular at County Hall. There is only one slow platform each way at Stevenage so a reverser has to block one of these for a while and if a train sits down there with a faulty rear cab then disruption will be far worse than running through to Letchworth via the new Hitchin flyover and reversing off line in the siding, or in a new third platform created there.

Hertford doesn't have a direct service to Knebworth though, it does though to Stevenage/Hitchin/Letchworth but from May 2016 the new bay platform (Plat 5) comes into use at Stevenage and all Hertford Loop services will use that.

 

[MarkyT]

Hertford doesn't have a direct service to Knebworth though, it does though to Stevenage/Hitchin/Letchworth but from May 2016 the new bay platform (Plat 5) comes into use at Stevenage and all Hertford Loop services will use that.

Ok my mistake about Knebworth - forgot to recheck on a map before typing! And the extra Stevenage bay will solve the reliability issue. Shame about losing the through service though and to add to inconvenience making these journeys in one direction in the future will mean a schlepp across the footbridge at Stevenage. I wonder what waiting times for connections will be in the future timetable.

On the one hand EWR is making an economic case to build new lines based on making new direct connections between nearby towns in the area, on the other such existing links are being removed.

 

[petersi]

e. I wonder what waiting times for connections will be in the future timetable.

On the one hand EWR is making an economic case to build new lines based on making new direct connections between nearby towns in the area, on the other such existing links are being removed.

This is not to do with EWR. It does mean that Watton on stone gets 2 trains on hour.

 

[MarkyT]

This is not to do with EWR. It does mean that Watton on stone gets 2 trains on hour.

I understand this has nothing to do with EWR at least directly, but it will affect the baseline service pattern onto which the EWR will overlay their proposals. I assume the 2TPH at Watton-at-Stone (usage rising slightly to 0.141 million in 2012/13 after years of stagnation) and terminating at Stevenage can be acheived with no additional rolling stock. I expect that will be hardwired into the new rolling stock fleet size too so there will be no prospect of reintroducing the trains to Letchworth in the future.

 

[philjo]

The reason for Stevenage rather than Letchworth is Hitchin only has two platforms which can lead to additional delays even if a train is only 5 Minutes late due to trains catching each other up.

If this scheme is going ahead the Hitchin Cambridge branch will be very busy so timetabling is easier to terminate at Stevenage. Plus in-times of disruption you help minimise additional delay as turn around are grade separated.

Stevenage is the main interchange station so little is gained from extending these to Letchworth

That is all very well except that Stevenage/Hitchin already have more services as the Peterborough ones call there. Letchworth loses out at the moment with only 2tph & if one is cancelled as happened last Saturday there is a long gap if you have connections to make to/from EC services at Stevenage.
Personally I would aim to include a south facing MML connection so that MML can be used for Thameslink diversions if there is a problem at Welwyn in addition to the Hertford loop which can't cope if everything is diverted at short notice.
Also diverting a Thameslink stopper that currently terminates at Luton to Stevenage onto Cambridge would be best (so there is a hourly through service to Harpenden, St Albans and does not add any extra trains on the MML) with one of the via-Welwyn Cambridge stoppers terminating at Letchworth instead.
One semi-fast could go that way instead of via Welwyn (& call at West Hampstead instead of Finsbury Park - the trains all go into THameslink core anyway) if it made better use of the paths available for ECML through Welwyn.

I would imagine the fast Oxford-Cambridge service would call at Bletchley, Luton (airport) & Stevenage (probably extending to Norwich in place of the existing service ?)

The Hertford-Harlow link also needs planning to allow access to Stansted which could then run stansted-Harlow-Hertford-Stevenage (reverse in your new bay platform at Stevenage) and on via Luton to Milton Keynes & northampton ?

East coast passengers can then change at Stevenage for connections to both Luton & Stansted airports

 

[21C101]

That is all very well except that Stevenage/Hitchin already have more services as the Peterborough ones call there. Letchworth loses out at the moment with only 2tph & if one is cancelled as happened last Saturday there is a long gap if you have connections to make to/from EC services at Stevenage.
Personally I would aim to include a south facing MML connection so that MML can be used for Thameslink diversions if there is a problem at Welwyn in addition to the Hertford loop which can't cope if everything is diverted at short notice.
Also diverting a Thameslink stopper that currently terminates at Luton to Stevenage onto Cambridge would be best (so there is a hourly through service to Harpenden, St Albans and does not add any extra trains on the MML) with one of the via-Welwyn Cambridge stoppers terminating at Letchworth instead.
One semi-fast could go that way instead of via Welwyn (& call at West Hampstead instead of Finsbury Park - the trains all go into THameslink core anyway) if it made better use of the paths available for ECML through Welwyn.

I would imagine the fast Oxford-Cambridge service would call at Bletchley, Luton (airport) & Stevenage (probably extending to Norwich in place of the existing service ?)

The Hertford-Harlow link also needs planning to allow access to Stansted which could then run stansted-Harlow-Hertford-Stevenage (reverse in your new bay platform at Stevenage) and on via Luton to Milton Keynes & northampton ?

East coast passengers can then change at Stevenage for connections to both Luton & Stansted airports

Letchworth would additional get semi fast East West Trains though.

Agree with you about the south curve at Luton, even if single track it would be very useful, especially if a station was built in a tunnel under the airport terminal. It would also enable freight services to run that way to the new freight terminal at Radlett.

I would say that fast Oxon - Cambs trains ought to also stop at Flitwick to give a fast connection to Bedford for ex Oxford Passengers (10 min journey time from Flitwick 4 trains per hour)

 

[CockneySparrow]

By all means link Hitchin and Luton via the airport, and it stands up even more if you could run it to Leighton Buzzard via Dunstable (and maybe up to EWR on segregated lines alongside the WCML), but running it down the MML is a non-starter.
[/LIST]

You will have a job running a train to Dunstable as the stretch (trackbed) is now a guided busway

You will need a complete new cutting
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

East coast passengers can then change at Stevenage for connections to both Luton & Stansted airports

Why would they want to do that for when the current system works fine, I mean why would someone who travels from LST to Stansted Airport today any the many years in the past decide to go by EC from KX and change at SVG when any new route is available

 

[Carlisle]

This is where I suggest the Norwich-Penzance Varsity Shinkansen.

Already been approved and officially named HS 4 ,services due to begin in December 2060

 

[Bald Rick]

This is where I suggest the Norwich-Penzance Varsity Shinkansen.

No ambition.

Holt - Hugh Town has a nice ring to it.