Without seeing the TWAO detail, I'm guessing it's likely to be as per the consultation last year:
-4 platforms
-Shepreth Branch Jn speed upgrade
-Modification to south end of Cambridge main station
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Cambridge South new station construction progress.
- Thread starter whittlesfordok
- Start date
Without seeing the TWAO detail, I'm guessing it's likely to be as per the consultation last year:
-4 platforms
-Shepreth Branch Jn speed upgrade
-Modification to south end of Cambridge main station
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
starlightEXPRESS
Member
The North Downs Line in Surrey runs along Gault Clay and Upper Greensand between Gomshall and Reigate. That line was built in the late 1840s, so I'm sure the same geology in south Cambridge will pose no significant problems in the 2020s!
Documents for the TWAO application now online:
www.networkrail.co.uk
They fall just short of making it continuously 4 tracks from Cambridge to Shepreth Branch Junction.
Cambridge South station - Network Rail
The Department for Transport published a Strategic Outline Business Case in November 2017 for a new railway station in the south of Cambridge.
www.networkrail.co.uk
They fall just short of making it continuously 4 tracks from Cambridge to Shepreth Branch Junction.
Last edited by a moderator:
jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 894
EWR are planning to four-track the lot according to the consultation document. Might as well just do that rather than ripping everything up when EWR arrives...? Or is that premature?
Probably depends on *how* EWR want to do the 4 track (given that they are still in concept/consultation phase). Would be risky to fully 4 track the lot now, only for EWR to then rip out even more if they need to change it.
As proposed, Cambridge South Station provides the 4 platforms, and only a relatively limited amount of track infrastructure that would need to be subsequently changed.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Not only the track configuration, the EWR route isn't even defined. It wouldn't necessarily go through Shepreth Branch Junction and from the vague information currently on the EWR website I'm not sure if it even has to go through Cambridge South! (though if it didn't it would pass pretty near)
Steve Harris
Member
I don't know where you have got your information from but I have seen the EWR consultation documents (that's the one which closed earlier this month) and the current defined plan is for EWR to build a new junction between Shepreth Branch Junction and Foxton (somewhere close to Harston village) and then use the existing railway to gain access to Cambridge.
So what you have posted is completely inaccurate, as the plan (as it currently stands) is for EWR to go through Shepreth BJ (wand Cambridge South, that is clearly defined in the consultation documents. Of course that may change depending on how much opposition there is.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
That may be the plan but the result of the consultation has not yet been announced, so the plan is not "defined". Even when "defined" it won't be committed until it has legal powers and funding. So I suggest your use of "completely inaccurate" is itself inaccurate! While the Cambridge South scheme may make zero-cost passive provision for whatever EWR might look like, it's most unlikely to spend any extra money to progress a scheme that isn't defined, isn't funded and may never happen.
There is no specific requirement for East West Rail either to go via or to serve the new Cambridge South station, but on balance it is probably preferable for it to do so as opposed to by-passing it altogether (for example, trying to thread a new connection through Trumpington and Shelford onto the West Anglia Mainline somewhere north of Long Road).
If it does go through Cambridge South, my understanding is that the four-tracking would need to be extended (compared to what Network Rail is proposing for the station) and might also need to be revised from paired by direction (down, down, up, up) to paired by use (down KGX, up KGX, down LST, up LST).
Steve Harris
Member
Well, let's break this down shall we ?
You said that EWR won't necessarily go through Shepreth Branch Junction - The current plan is that it will.
You also said that you wasn't sure if EWR even has to go through Cambridge South. Again, the current plan by EWR is that it will (although EWR services may or may not call there).
The route for EWR is "defined" as so far in that the route from the proposed Hauxton Junction to Cambridge is clearly defined by using the existing route and infrastructure. Whereas the route between Hauxton and Bedford is not defined as yet (as there are a multitude of route options).
However, you are correct in that EWR could change routes (something I elluded to in my post) or funding could get withdrawn or it may not get built. However, we can only base our views on the current information that is available to us, (unless of course you have a crystal ball). So far going on the information which is in the public domain and freely available, my post is more accurate than your 1st post that I replied to. To say it isn't just shows that you either can see into the future (if so, why didn't you warn us all about Covid?) or you haven't read the EWR technical documents.
And as a side note... it has been clearly stated on this very forum that EWR is a national infrastructure project, so I think to say it won't happen is rather foolhardy, as it will happen in some way shape or form. Unless of course there's a nuclear war or another pandemic !!
Last edited:
David Goddard
Established Member
Given that a large amount of traffic heading to the Cambridge area (from all directions) has a final destination of somewhere in the Cambridge South area (ie hospital or college sites) then it would be daft for EWR to do anything other than go that way.
jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 894
@edwin_m 's point about the EWR route not being certain aside (which I think is valid), I think if we assume EWR is going to implement it's preferred option, it seems to me makes sense to make provision now where possible.
Even if the track configuration changes, having the land acquired, OLE in place (EWR will eventually have electric trains), only having to move services/cycle paths etc. once all seems sensible to me.
"Provision" can simply mean "minimise the stuff built now to minimise the stuff that needs to be changed later".
The risk of leaving something too specific for EWR to plug into is tying down their options later.
The only stuff you want to try to tie down now is the stuff that's really difficult/expensive/disruptive to change later, like drainage.
Steve Harris
Member
Indeed, there really is nowhere to thread a new railway line out of the south of Cambridge until you get south of Trumpington (unless of course you want to demolish loads of buildings) which isn't really ideal to getting locals onside. The idea of using the original route has well and truly sailed off into yonder (what with Trumpington P&R and the guided bus being on it).
I agree. It would also need to cross the M11. Is there enough clearance to fit a railway underneath the motorway, or would that need to be raised a bit? Doing that would need much more time, money and concrete.
Aside from the M11, the old alignment smacks basically straight through the middle of the modern development at Trumpington. No chance of reinstatement.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
I have read the EWR technical documents. They are consultation documents and put forward a preferred route in some cases. They may define the preferred route but the route they put forward is not definitive and this part of the scheme (at least) is far from certain to happen at all.
People on this forum seemed to think NPR (another nationally-significant infrastructure project) would go via Bradford, until this morning when the Express seems to have leaked otherwise.
Assuming it goes via Shepreth Branch Junction, which I agree is likely, we still don't know whether it will need grade separation there or anywhere else. So the post-EWR configuration of tracks between the junction and Cambridge is unknown, other than that there will probably be four of them for at least some of the way. Cambridge South provides that within the limits of its own works.
I would like to hope they've done that as far as they can, given the low level of certainty on EWR. But there are cost and possible legal implications if extra work is done to cater for a future scheme that hasn't got funding or even gone through statutory consultation.
I'm still not entirely sure why UUDD is an unsuitable arrangeable for EWR. Single track flyover at Shepreth Branch Junction over the Shelford lines and it's fine? Everything will then be on the correct sides of the station at Cambridge, unless they want to use the bays, which given the noise about through services to Ipswich, I doubt is the case.
North of Cambridge the line is only two tracks, so it's not like it makes any difference on that side of things.
I also find it incredulous that they're not going for two islands, the MGB bridge being built as it was (not wide enough) is bad enough given that this was not exactly a surprise project, but the claimed desire to reduce land take is very minimal, IMHO.
North of Cambridge the line is only two tracks, so it's not like it makes any difference on that side of things.
I also find it incredulous that they're not going for two islands, the MGB bridge being built as it was (not wide enough) is bad enough given that this was not exactly a surprise project, but the claimed desire to reduce land take is very minimal, IMHO.
- Joined
- 23 Mar 2011
- Messages
- 2,572
These points have already been extensively covered on this thread so I don't think there's anything specific to add here.
Cambridge South is not delivering a railway ready for EWR, it is delivering cost effective infrastructure to support a four track new station, which is exactly what is proposed.
It’s partly because anything departing platforms 1 to 4 at Cambridge in the up direction then conflicts with any arriving down services (unless they terminate in the bays).
Why "incredulous"? With the proposed arrangement, one platform will have, in effect, completely level access to the hospital and biomedical campus.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
I would also expect it to depend upon whether EWR heads north beyond Cambridge. If EWR does not head north of Cambridge then UUDD would be pointless as two crossing moves would be required for services from Platforms 2 and 3 towards Kings Cross and EWR. Now the flyover would get rid of one of these moves (the crossing move at Shepreth Branch Jn) but is an expensive way to do it. Therefore the logical thing to do is to have UDUD with EWR services sharing 2 and 3 with 8 car Class 700 services. 12 car Class 700 services and Kings Lynn services using 1 and 4. West Anglia services using 7 and 8 (and maybe other new platforms).
The issue comes if EWR want to head further north to Ipswich and Norwich at that point you might as well have UUDD because the only crossing moves at Cambridge (Central) Station south end itself become services out of Platforms 1, 2, 3 and 4, currently 3 times per hour, as well as services into 7 or 8 currently once per hour off peak.
Steve Harris
Member
I would like to point out that in the EWR Consultation Technical Report is the following statements:
So going on that, you can rule out EWR using platforms 1-3, as it looks like they want to use the east side of Cambridge Station, which does make sense, as you would need to do a "Bedford" to use the west side. Not impossible of course, as it's being done at Bedford. However, I believe that the frontage of Cambridge Station is a listed building !
So going on that, you can rule out EWR using platforms 1-3, as it looks like they want to use the east side of Cambridge Station, which does make sense, as you would need to do a "Bedford" to use the west side. Not impossible of course, as it's being done at Bedford. However, I believe that the frontage of Cambridge Station is a listed building !
Just because EWR would need to build two extra platforms on the East side it doesn’t mean EWR would use them rather than shuffle existing services over.
They say, correctly, that extra platforms will be required, and these will have to be on the East side. That doesn't necessarily mean that they will be used by the EWR trains.
It has always seemed to me that the only efficient way to operate the southern approaches to Cambridge is to arrange it as UDUD, with terminating trains from KX/EWR using the existing bay platforms on the west and terminating trains from Liverpool Street using new terminating platforms on the East. The remaining through trains would merge at the North end.
It has always seemed to me that the only efficient way to operate the southern approaches to Cambridge is to arrange it as UDUD, with terminating trains from KX/EWR using the existing bay platforms on the west and terminating trains from Liverpool Street using new terminating platforms on the East. The remaining through trains would merge at the North end.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,942
It would be interesting to know where EWR thinks the replacement stabling sidings would be if the additional Eastern though platforms were built though.
Which is a great opportunity to build a new eastern entrance to Cambridge station to help redevelop the area on the "other side of the tracks" and move some of the foot traffic, cars, taxis and bus routes away from the main entrance to reduce overcrowding
Even just make foot/cycle access from the eastern side so much easier that people are less inclined to drive/taxi to the station in the first place.
Definitely. The divide is so absolute, and it could really change that side for the better.
I'd think that if EWR were shorter trains (3-4 cars) they will be in the bays. Especially given that TL/GN/WAML services all somewhat extend to Cambridge North here and there, or further - and are much longer. With the Stansted shuttle merged into the Norwich, that makes the most sense.
And if the track layout remains similar from South up to Central, the new platform(s) would likely see Liverpool St and Stansted-bound services (from Norwich and Birmingham).
I could see one side platform being enough. Services per hour are not ever going to go up in a crazy way due to Ely and other constraints in most directions. Another reason to spirit the EWRs into the bays, like at Oxford. Not obviously if they run through to Ipswich, or take on a Norwich path.
The primary argument for EWR to come in from the south is to continue on to Ipswich as a through service. Services terminating at Cambridge aren't going to go down very well with the eastern section folk who have been campaigning for the line for decades, so I'm not sure how relevant the bays are to EWR. Presumably their existing conflicts are part of the reason for running services through to Cambridge North now?
(Apologies in advance if my information is somewhat out of date, I haven't been through Cambs for quite some time), but yes, the bays at Cambs used by the 8-car terminating services are unfortunately off to one side. Presumably given sufficient new through platforms they could be abolished, though, with terminating services using the central through platforms effectively as double-ended terminal platforms. No conflicts then. North of the station everything merges into 2 tracks anyway, so no conflicts there, and you only need a smaller single-track flyover at SBJ as well. Not sure how many platforms you would need at Cambridge station for that sort of arrangement though.
I recall when I used to commute through there musing if you could jack the listed building up and shift it away from the railway enough to convert the bays into through lines
I doubt it would fare well given its age, but stranger things have happened at sea.
Having UDUD means you will get passengers at Cambridge South having to change platforms at short notice as their next train could depart from one of two platforms, so unless you designing it so they're waiting on an overbridge or being very strict with the timetabling so the same services always call at the same platforms, you will get all sorts of undesirable flows as people move between platforms trying to speed up their journeys.
(Apologies in advance if my information is somewhat out of date, I haven't been through Cambs for quite some time), but yes, the bays at Cambs used by the 8-car terminating services are unfortunately off to one side. Presumably given sufficient new through platforms they could be abolished, though, with terminating services using the central through platforms effectively as double-ended terminal platforms. No conflicts then. North of the station everything merges into 2 tracks anyway, so no conflicts there, and you only need a smaller single-track flyover at SBJ as well. Not sure how many platforms you would need at Cambridge station for that sort of arrangement though.
I recall when I used to commute through there musing if you could jack the listed building up and shift it away from the railway enough to convert the bays into through lines
I doubt it would fare well given its age, but stranger things have happened at sea.Having UDUD means you will get passengers at Cambridge South having to change platforms at short notice as their next train could depart from one of two platforms, so unless you designing it so they're waiting on an overbridge or being very strict with the timetabling so the same services always call at the same platforms, you will get all sorts of undesirable flows as people move between platforms trying to speed up their journeys.