What is really happening with East West Rail (EWR) between Bedford and Cambridge

[The Planner]

If it does happen as I am purely speculating, could they prove that it is economically viable? whats to stop the freight depot saying "it looked good for rail when we planned it but not now as the market and numbers don't stack up". What can the operators do anyway? Someone builds a terminal and there is no initial traffic or it dies off at a different established site that's been about for years for which there must be plentiful examples of. It is up to the owner to decide how they move their goods about surely?

 

[Bald Rick]

If the original plan is to put a Sundon or Radlett depot, where would they go from there?

I have no idea.. but they are going somewhere from there.

Presumably the same place, ie nowhere as the trains won't exist!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Why haven't the Rail Freight Group and rail freight operators blown the whistle on this ?

Why would they? They get a terminal built for free, that one day might come in handy.

 

[muddythefish]

If it does happen as I am purely speculating, could they prove that it is economically viable? whats to stop the freight depot saying "it looked good for rail when we planned it but not now as the market and numbers don't stack up". What can the operators do anyway? Someone builds a terminal and there is no initial traffic or it dies off at a different established site that's been about for years for which there must be plentiful examples of. It is up to the owner to decide how they move their goods about surely?

,....because they are getting planning permission under false pretences, permission that might have been denied if they were honest and said in the first place it was going to be for road freight only ?

 

[richieb1971]

This is really sad if true. Just more lies and corrupt people.

Surely the government wouldn't sell green belt land for a bogus venture. Thats almost criminal.

Someone said earlier that south of Bedford is W8, which isn't good enough for this type of freight right? Where as the WCML and north of Bedford is W10, which is good enough for this type of freight.

I am completely lost why anyone would put a terminal in a place that would require millions of cash on meeting the gauging requirements.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

 

[The Planner]

,....because they are getting planning permission under false pretences, permission that might have been denied if they were honest and said in the first place it was going to be for road freight only ?

Like I said before, at the time of planning there might have been a perceived demand via rail, that demand could fail to materialise once built. Difficult to prove otherwise and difficult to say it wouldnt ever come back.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not under false pretences though. It's being badged as a logistics park with a rail freight connection, with specific support from the rail freight lobby. If no trains run, it's difficult to blame the developers. You'd have to blame whoever agreed to give permission for the facility without fully understanding the implications, or the rail freight lobby ditto.

And it's not Government's land to sell. The Radlett site is owned by Herts CC, who are currently not inclined to sell.

 

[Class 170101]

Won't the gauge be expanded to W10 / W12 as part of the wiring improvemnets between London and Nottingham / Sheffield.

 

[The Planner]

Someone said earlier that south of Bedford is W8, which isn't good enough for this type of freight right? Where as the WCML and north of Bedford is W10, which is good enough for this type of freight.

I am completely lost why anyone would put a terminal in a place that would require millions of cash on meeting the gauging requirements.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

The MML is W8 from Cricklewood to Bedford, north of there it is only W6 to Wigston South, where it goes to W7. It doesn't stop Intermodal traffic, it just limits the size of containers (a lot though in the case of W6)

 

[muddythefish]

It's not under false pretences though. It's being badged as a logistics park with a rail freight connection, with specific support from the rail freight lobby. If no trains run, it's difficult to blame the developers. You'd have to blame whoever agreed to give permission for the facility without fully understanding the implications, or the rail freight lobby ditto.

And it's not Government's land to sell. The Radlett site is owned by Herts CC, who are currently not inclined to sell.

Aren't these parks sold to the planners as "green" developments because they are rail connected ? And isn't it the case the parks would be turned down for permission if they were road only ? The point is my journalistic nose tells me that is all a con to get a huge development past planning under the pretences that most of the freight will be rail borne when there is little or no intention to send any of it by rail.

 

[CockneySparrow]

And it's not Government's land to sell. The Radlett site is owned by Herts CC, who are currently not inclined to sell.

Is that Herts Cricket Club? What do they want with the land

 

[Aictos]

Is that Herts Cricket Club? What do they want with the land

Thought that was Herts County Council?

 

[dysonsphere]

Most councillers have no idea about railways and MP`s even less

 

[Bald Rick]

Is that Herts Cricket Club? What do they want with the land

No, that Herts CCC. Mind you, some of the sixes that their #7 hit the other day would have travelled the length of the Radlett site.

 

[asylumxl]

I thought this thread was about the possible route from Bedford to Cambridge. Seems Bedford suddenly became 35 miles further south on the Midland Main Line...

 

[richieb1971]

Thats because I am wondering why a place like Stewartby doesn't get the proposed Sundon, Radlett depot that is going on green belt land.

Then it was stated that there wouldn't be any traffic on said depot if it were built and that the railway connection to all of this is a "Green" loop hole to buy the land in the first place.

 

[asylumxl]

Thats because I am wondering why a place like Stewartby doesn't get the proposed Sundon, Radlett depot that is going on green belt land.

Then it was stated that there wouldn't be any traffic on said depot if it were built and that the railway connection to all of this is a "Green" loop hole to buy the land in the first place.

Well good reasons for not using Stewartby have been given. Reasons for not using Sundon have been given in other threads.

Is there really any use for the land that would be palatable to the residents of Park Street or Radlett? I imagine Hertfordshire County Council would have sold the land irrespective.

The problem here is not the developers, but rather the council.

 

[richieb1971]

There seems to be 10x more reasons not to do something than to do something. Even though I am pro-rail I detest people who get something from deceit, corruption and lying. Especially when green belt land is at stake.

From what I have heard the EWR will give a new report by the end of June. But people like "The Planner" seem to be able to give news ahead of reports. I got an email from the EWR that stated the Bedford-Cambridge section will not be spoken about until the end of the year. So all we do is wait on the news of the Western Section.

 

[edwin_m]

I think the people who give planning permission for freight depots are very well aware that the rail connection may not be used and may not even be extended into the site.

The point is that the connection (which is the difficult bit) is there should a use arise in the future. It is likely that rail freight will gradually become more cost-effective and some road traffic shift to rail, so it's a good idea to have terminals which are ready for this to happen.

 

[muddythefish]

I think the people who give planning permission for freight depots are very well aware that the rail connection may not be used and may not even be extended into the site.

The point is that the connection (which is the difficult bit) is there should a use arise in the future. It is likely that rail freight will gradually become more cost-effective and some road traffic shift to rail, so it's a good idea to have terminals which are ready for this to happen.

Naive view in my opinion. I see it as the road lobby cynically using the planning system to win permission that it would not otherwise have gained - it is very unlikely that we will ever see significant or any railfreight at the likes of Telford, Castle Donington or Swindon. Add to the list Radlett.

 

[richieb1971]

But the point is that the depot is nearer London and therefore adds massive incentive to use it. Quite a lot of freight liner traffic goes right through London but doesn't stop there. Which is a bit ironic.

 

[edwin_m]

Naive view in my opinion. I see it as the road lobby cynically using the planning system to win permission that it would not otherwise have gained - it is very unlikely that we will ever see significant or any railfreight at the likes of Telford, Castle Donington or Swindon. Add to the list Radlett.

Wasn't the rail connection at Hams Hall unused for some years, and now pretty busy?

I do agree however that connections should not be proposed if there is no prospect of the terminal being served by rail due to insurmountable capacity or gauge restrictions.

 

[HowardGWR]

But the point is that the depot is nearer London and therefore adds massive incentive to use it. Quite a lot of freight liner traffic goes right through London but doesn't stop there. Which is a bit ironic.

It's noticeable that in the Freight RUS that @Edwin_M just linked to in the gauge thread, there was not even an aspiration for gauge enhancement for the Varsity line. The map on page 58 of that document also shows how poor the connections between the HSLs HS1 and HS2 for night freight are, in the future (although admittedly a connection avoiding London for that is envisaged).

 

[edwin_m]

It's noticeable that in the Freight RUS that @Edwin_M just linked to in the gauge thread, there was not even an aspiration for gauge enhancement for the Varsity line. The map on page 58 of that document also shows how poor the connections between the HSLs HS1 and HS2 for night freight are, in the future (although admittedly a connection avoiding London for that is envisaged).

It wasn't me posting that link, so I can't claim any credit.

Surely Oxford to Bletchley must be reinstated at W10/W12 to allow the passage of Southampton container trains? The Freight RUS on the NR website is dated 2007 so predates the "Electric Spine" announcement.

 

[The Planner]

This is where it can get convoluted, if there is no output for gauge enhancement then the existing bridges get left alone and anything new (LC closure etc) tends to get built for W12, if nothing new is required then you get nothing, if gauge is required then the whole lot gets done in my experience. The argument that if you are going in to do something do the lot is one that I have no doubt will follow.....

 

[Bald Rick]

But the point is that the depot is nearer London and therefore adds massive incentive to use it. Quite a lot of freight liner traffic goes right through London but doesn't stop there. Which is a bit ironic.

But that is precisly the point - it's too close to London (or more specifically the container ports) to be of any economic use for rail borne container traffic.

Anyway, back on topic. I gather that work underway now is a corridor study, and not defining a specific alignment.

 

[Andyjs247]

It wasn't me posting that link, so I can't claim any credit.

Surely Oxford to Bletchley must be reinstated at W10/W12 to allow the passage of Southampton container trains? The Freight RUS on the NR website is dated 2007 so predates the "Electric Spine" announcement.

Oxford to Bletchley is being reinstated to W10/W12. Although the plans for Electric Spine are still being worked on, presumably the route beyond Bletchley (to Bedford and including MML north thereof) will all be done to the same spec? Or is that too much wishful thinking ...

 

[richieb1971]

I heard earlier in the thread the line north of Bedford will adopt W10 gauging after electrification. If so the MML suddenly becomes quite attractive being 4 tracks for 80-85+ miles and all that connectivity between Bedford and Kettering/ Corby.

 

[The Planner]

Attractive to what though? I am struggling to see what current freight flows can really utilise it.

 

[DarloRich]

Attractive to what though? I am struggling to see what current freight flows can really utilise it.

Ah, but you are using logic, facts and reason to construct an argument - that has no place here!

The level of naivety around planning displayed on this thread is almost humorous. That developers may be economical with the truth to councils who see a way of getting free infrastructure from those developers with one eye on their development master plan/pet project seems to be shocking to many. Welcome to the real world!

 

[richieb1971]

Attractive to what though? I am struggling to see what current freight flows can really utilise it.

Historically what came first, the demand or the depot? The thing about boxes is that they can be stored anywhere. I am not sure why the MML/EWR isn't as good a place as any.