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

[DarloRich]

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.

Agreed - you can store them anywhere. Having something to put in them or something to take out and sell locally always helps!

PS is it Radlett or Sundon where you live

EDIT - BTW i am against all three proposals (Stewartby, Radlet or Sundon) on the basis that they all appear stupid!

 

[asylumxl]

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

I'm sceptical as to whether there are any economically viable corridors. I seem to remember they originally wanted Bedford-Luton-Stevenage, but knowing the area well, there's some substantial changes in topography along the way. I can see it requiring tunnelling or raised sections, all of which would raise costs.

 

[richieb1971]

Agreed - you can store them anywhere. Having something to put in them or something to take out and sell locally always helps!

PS is it Radlett or Sundon where you live

EDIT - BTW i am against all three proposals (Stewartby, Radlet or Sundon) on the basis that they all appear stupid!

I live in Bedford. I want to see Bedford's railways revitalized on passenger connectivity and freight.

 

[HowardGWR]

See today's release from East West, only two options now studied in detail.

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/2015...corridors-for-east-west-rail-central-section/

Seven possible geographic corridors have been evaluated in detail to establish which offer the best value for money, as follows:
1A Bedford Central – Sandy – Cambridge
1B Bedford South – Sandy – Cambridge
2 Bedford Central – Sandy – Hitchin – Cambridge
3 Stewartby – Flitwick – Luton – Stevenage – Hitchin – Cambridge
4A Bedford Central – Hitchin – Cambridge
4B Bedford South – Hitchin – Cambridge
5 Ridgmont – Luton – Hitchin – Sandy
Corridors currently being evaluated further are:
Bedford (South or Central) to Cambridge via Hitchin
Bedford (South or Central) to Cambridge via Sandy
Analysis indicates that all of these corridors offer different levels of benefit, and costs. Further work on all other corridors will be paused at this stage but may be revisited.

Via Sandy actually looks a no-brainer to me, but I suppose endless studies have to be done nowadays.

 

[jimm]

See today's release from East West, only two options now studied in detail.

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/2015...corridors-for-east-west-rail-central-section/



Via Sandy actually looks a no-brainer to me, but I suppose endless studies have to be done nowadays.

Looks like they have just caught up with the August issue of Modern Railways, which said via Sandy or via Hitchin were the only two routes now being looked at. They seem to have decided, not unreasonably, that addressing Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire's transport needs is best left to someone else.

Probably will need a fair degree of study given the obvious problems with 'via Sandy', not that using the ECML to Hitchin would be exactly problem-free either, given the well-aired issues over future capacity on that route.

 

[edwin_m]

Via Sandy actually looks a no-brainer to me, but I suppose endless studies have to be done nowadays.

The choice is far from obvious as far as I can see. Based only on a quick look at the map...

Via Sandy requires around twice as much new/reinstated route, with major problems getting into Cambridge which would probably require striking southwards off the old alignment to meet the Hitchin-Cambridge line (a really off-the-wall idea would be to pick up the Barrington branch!).

The old line from Bedford to Hitchin looks irretrivably lost in Bedford, Shefford and Lower Sundon. Avoiding all three probably results in a largely new alignment over the entire section. Interchange with the ECML would be better at Hitchin than at Sandy, but Hitchin would require connecting east-west trains to reverse.

 

[richieb1971]

Sandy looks better to me.

Does not say which Cambridge station it would tend to.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The choice is far from obvious as far as I can see. Based only on a quick look at the map...

I agree. It looks like a choice between a direct route through lots of countryside (via Sandy), or a very indirect route (via Hitchin) which will lead to longer journeys but serving a much bigger centre of population en route. It's not obvious to me which of those would be best on balance - although I'm finding it hard to see how they could realistically serve Hitchin and Bedford without a reversal somewhere - which seems to me to be something of a disadvantage of the Hitchin route.

Via Sandy requires around twice as much new/reinstated route, with major problems getting into Cambridge which would probably require striking southwards off the old alignment to meet the Hitchin-Cambridge line (a really off-the-wall idea would be to pick up the Barrington branch!).

Would it be twice as much? The options Network Rail are pursuing are either via Hitchin or via Sandy. Looking at their list of options, They appear to have ruled out the option of going via Sandy AND Hitchin, which seems to imply their Hitchin option doesn't use the existing ECML - so presumably it involves building a completely new railway from Bedford most of the way to Hitchin.

 

[edwin_m]

Would it be twice as much? The options Network Rail are pursuing are either via Hitchin or via Sandy. Looking at their list of options, They appear to have ruled out the option of going via Sandy AND Hitchin, which seems to imply their Hitchin option doesn't use the existing ECML - so presumably it involves building a completely new railway from Bedford most of the way to Hitchin.

My map suggested that Bedford to Cambridge is about twice as far as Bedford to Hitchin. It might be a bit less new infrastructure (but more travelling distance) if the Sandy route diverted off the old alignment not far east of Sandy to join onto Hitchin-Cambridge.

 

[Blamethrower]

no no no, St Neots is where the connection has to be.

Take the line north through bedford, round the top and then join the A421.

The A421 will be dualled in a few years time to go all the way from MK to Cambridge, an ideal corridor sharing option.

Yes it will be new build, the main difficulty being bedford station and round bedford, but we can't have it meandering back down to Hitchin to reverse, that's not a solution.

Another option is to build Bedford south parkway at the interchange park where the lines cross, but this place is already heaving and any extra traffic would make it unworkable

 

[CdBrux]

From what I found on the websites linked above it was not 100% clear to me if the via Sandy option is to use the ECML from Sandy to Hitchin (and a new chord to the Cambridge line) or would have rebuilt / new railway from Sandy to Cambridge.

 

[jopsuk]

no no no, St Neots is where the connection has to be.

But it won't be. That option is now very much dead.

 

[HowardGWR]

From what I found on the websites linked above it was not 100% clear to me if the via Sandy option is to use the ECML from Sandy to Hitchin (and a new chord to the Cambridge line) or would have rebuilt / new railway from Sandy to Cambridge.

If you look at the link and my quote from it, we are talking option 1A /1B here; in other words direct to Cambridge via Sandy and not using the ECML.

My 'no-brainer' comment was based on the idea that if one wanted a link between Bedford and Hitchin, that is one thing (perhaps desirable), but not to make a through east west service go all around the houses simply because there is a line from Hitchin to Cambridge. The whole East West strategic concept is, to my mind, to reinstate and provide a fast cross country link between East Anglia and its ports and the West Country and indeed Wales, avoiding the London and Birmingham area; not just a series of links that provide localised rail transport, albeit that this included feature would be a very much welcome addition to rail provision along the route.

 

[Buttsy]

I thought the plan if the ECML was to be used was that the flyover at Hitchin would allow bi-di running so trains could go north onto the down slow EMCL without fouling the up lines. This would indicate a flyover near Sandy to connect with the up slow line to avoid fouling the downs.

 

[jimm]

Would it be twice as much? The options Network Rail are pursuing are either via Hitchin or via Sandy. Looking at their list of options, They appear to have ruled out the option of going via Sandy AND Hitchin, which seems to imply their Hitchin option doesn't use the existing ECML - so presumably it involves building a completely new railway from Bedford most of the way to Hitchin.

I'm sure edwin m is on to something with the old Bedford-Hitchin route. There would clearly be obstacles here but the question presumably is whether they would be easier/cheaper to overcome than those via Sandy and what value is placed on giving Hertfordshire some sort of connection into East West Rail. An obvious advantage of via Hitchin is you already have a working electrified railway in place a good deal of the way, which will save you a lot of work and money compared with Sandy.

 

[CdBrux]

Thanks, I see now that option 2 was using the ECML between Sandy & Hitchin.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

My map suggested that Bedford to Cambridge is about twice as far as Bedford to Hitchin. It might be a bit less new infrastructure (but more travelling distance) if the Sandy route diverted off the old alignment not far east of Sandy to join onto Hitchin-Cambridge.

Ah yes, if the comparison is new-build Bedford-Hitchin vs new-build Bedford-Cambridge via Sandy, then your figures are likely to be correct. I think I was assuming any via Sandy route would be likely to join the existing Hitchin-Cambridge line somewhere north of Royston - but obviously that's not certain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

no no no, St Neots is where the connection has to be.

Take the line north through bedford, round the top and then join the A421.

When I read that, I had visions of the trains literally trundling down the A421.

 

[Blamethrower]

Ah yes, if the comparison is new-build Bedford-Hitchin vs new-build Bedford-Cambridge via Sandy, then your figures are likely to be correct. I think I was assuming any via Sandy route would be likely to join the existing Hitchin-Cambridge line somewhere north of Royston - but obviously that's not certain.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


When I read that, I had visions of the trains literally trundling down the A421.

heh, it's the new guided trainway

Apologies for being a bit of a dunce, but which of the options are available without reversing (either at Bedford or Hitchin) ?

If no reversing then there will be no connectivity, if no reversing then there will be overly long journey times.

The only option that satisfies everything is the round the top of Bedford option. However this would require collaboration between road builders, network rail, councils, highways agency etc etc which to me is insurmountable due to the way that everything is divided up into sub-contracts.

It's a national scheme to improve connectivity across the home counties, it needs a national driver/facilitator to ensure that it gets done.

 

[mr_jrt]

Quite, St Neots is the ideal option as St Neots is the only station of the three viable options (inc. Sandy & Hitchin) that is even remotely likely to justify ECML express stops for interchange.

Via Hitchin is the budget option, but you end up building a lot of new railway to get there anyway, and you then have a much longer (and slower) (and more congested) route. Via Sandy is admittedly the most direct, but it'll all be new build anyway, so you may as well try to:
a) hit a more viable mainline interchange (i.e. St Neots)
b) avoid reversals (i.e. continue through Bedford Midland)
c) Hit as many population centres as you can en-route (i.e. Cambourne)

...if the primary objective is an intercity 125mph line moving people between Cambridge and Oxford they will want as few stops as possible, so perhaps running through empty countryside is in fact the preferred option...

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Quite, St Neots is the ideal option as St Neots is the only station of the three viable options (inc. Sandy & Hitchin) that is even remotely likely to justify ECML express stops for interchange.

Via Hitchin is the budget option, but you end up building a lot of new railway to get there anyway, and you then have a much longer (and slower) (and more congested) route. Via Sandy is admittedly the most direct, but it'll all be new build anyway, so you may as well try to:
a) hit a more viable mainline interchange (i.e. St Neots)
b) avoid reversals (i.e. continue through Bedford Midland)
c) Hit as many population centres as you can en-route (i.e. Cambourne)

...if the primary objective is an intercity 125mph line moving people between Cambridge and Oxford they will want as few stops as possible, so perhaps running through empty countryside is in fact the preferred option...

In my opinion the best route for the EWR central section is for the route to diverge on the approach south of St John's (which should be rebuilt to the South of the existing St John's as a triangular platform station, the West side of the side of the triangle would be for services from Bedford Midland to Bletchley, the East side of the side of the triangle would be for services from Bedford Midland to Cambridge and the South side of the triangle for services from Bletchley to Cambridge bypassing Bedford Midland.

Looking on Google Earth the route from Bedford St Johns is intact as far as Willington however the route from Willington to Sandy looks to be largely gone so a new route would be needed to the North of Sandy which if an interchange with the East Coast Mainline was to be built would require the closure of the existing Sandy station to the South.

Once over the East Coast mainline the route to Cambridge should head cross country to pick up the Hitchin-Cambridge line just past Foxton for the final approach into Cambridge.

 

[richieb1971]

More importantly it doesn't even look like Bedford Midland features on the route at all. So Bedford South would likely be positioned somewhere near the Kempston retail park?

Bedford central would be positioned near Kempston Hardwick?


I know it would take longer to make it happen but I think a triangle station in the current Bedford yard is most beneficial. If Corby gets the EMU depot then BDM becomes a slightly less needed depot and the station could be moved south of the Ford end road bridge.

edit - Triangle station was to support the St Neots option which no longer looks considered. Looks like Bedford is getting a 3rd station after all.

 

[a good off]

I'd stick with the plan to build a double track curve linking Letchworth to Arlesey with a flyover feeding the line from Letchworth into the Down Slow line heading north on the ECML. I'd then create a new double track line to Bedford from a junction north of Biggleswade (with flyover to allow trains access to the Up Slow) cutting through open countryside to regain the original formation west of Willington.

 

[HowardGWR]

I'd stick with the plan to build a double track curve linking Letchworth to Arlesey with a flyover feeding the line from Letchworth into the Down Slow line heading north on the ECML. I'd then create a new double track line to Bedford from a junction north of Biggleswade (with flyover to allow trains access to the Up Slow) cutting through open countryside to regain the original formation west of Willington.

Why send the route south on the ECML at all? Why not just cut across to join the Hitchin to Cambridge south of Cambridge, as I believe @Mainlie has just suggested. Your extensive works with all those flyovers will be expensive and detract from ECML capacity, albeit on the slows. Looks like Sandy station should be moved north, by the way, does it not?

 

[a good off]

Why send the route south on the ECML at all? Why not just cut across to join the Hitchin to Cambridge south of Cambridge, as I believe @Mainlie has just suggested. Your extensive works with all those flyovers will be expensive and detract from ECML capacity, albeit on the slows. Looks like Sandy station should be moved north, by the way, does it not?

Its the fast lines on the ECML where the capacity is limited. On the slow lines between Hitchin and Biggleswade there is plenty of capacity. I personally think that building two flyovers and a line from Biggleswade to Bedford makes more financial and political sense than having to build a brand new railway from Foxton to Sandy. It also solves the issue of how to get through Sandy by skirting around the Southern end of the town. They could even build a station there for Sandy residents.

 

[jimm]

Quite, St Neots is the ideal option as St Neots is the only station of the three viable options (inc. Sandy & Hitchin) that is even remotely likely to justify ECML express stops for interchange.

Via Hitchin is the budget option, but you end up building a lot of new railway to get there anyway, and you then have a much longer (and slower) (and more congested) route. Via Sandy is admittedly the most direct, but it'll all be new build anyway, so you may as well try to:
a) hit a more viable mainline interchange (i.e. St Neots)
b) avoid reversals (i.e. continue through Bedford Midland)
c) Hit as many population centres as you can en-route (i.e. Cambourne)

...if the primary objective is an intercity 125mph line moving people between Cambridge and Oxford they will want as few stops as possible, so perhaps running through empty countryside is in fact the preferred option...

Not sure why St Neots - population 40,000 - would be a top spot for ECML trains to call, as opposed to Hitchin, population 33,000, with Letchworth -33,000 more - and Stevenage's 84,000 both close by, adding up to more than the 124,000 population of Cambridge. Which was presumably a key factor in via Hitchin being one of the two preferred options for further study.

Plenty of East Coast trains call at Stevenage, Alliance has just added plans to serve it to its London-Edinburgh open access proposal, First Group's rival London-Edinburgh open access plan already includes Stevenage calls, so it seems fair to say that this corner of north Hertfordshire is on the radar of TOCs one way and another. Make Hitchin an interchange with East West and giving access to frequent Cambridge connections and they might well favour it instead of its southern neighbour.

Distance-wise the old Bedford-Hitchin line was about 20 miles. The Hitchin-Cambridge line is probably about 26 miles.

Bedford-Cambridge via Sandy probably clocks in at a nudge over 30.

And reversals are not the end of the world if properly handled, e.g. align them with crew changeovers, so the new driver and guard are waiting ready to go as the train rolls in. It's not as if you're trying to achieve F1 pitstop times at what would be a place where lots of passengers would be getting on and off to make connections, whether Hitchin or anywhere else.

 

[mr_jrt]

Not sure why St Neots - population 40,000 - would be a top spot for ECML trains to call, as opposed to Hitchin, population 33,000, with Letchworth -33,000 more - and Stevenage's 84,000 both close by, adding up to more than the 124,000 population of Cambridge. Which was presumably a key factor in via Hitchin being one of the two preferred options for further study.

...because:
a) you won't get an ECML express serving Hitchin as well as Stevenage as they're so close
b) Hitchin has no fast line platforms, so unless you build loops around the current buildings, you'll be creating bottlenecks on the slow lines.

I propose St Neots because it has a significant population (with room to grow), but also because it is roughly midway between Peterborough and Stevenage, the current two express stops, so will give the longest amount of high-speed running possible, meaning more services are likely to call, improving the network effect from more interchange being possible.

 

[D365]

A shame that the garden city proposals have been knocked down [for St. Neots or Sandy], otherwise the EWR extension to Cambridge would have found a definitive route

 

[Passenger John]

Why not rebuild the busway as the EW railway link from Huntingdon - its falling to bits anyway!

 

[jopsuk]

the "re use the busway" option is dead...

In "reality based pondering" I'm guessing the "direct to Sandy" proposals will be mainly new alignment? There's a big push to have a station at Addenbrookes Hospital (Cambridge South) as part of the scheme, on both options- and the busway and access road bridges were built with suitable spans, there's land (to the west of the line) safeguarded etc. The old line anyway is built on- with the southern busway to Trumpington, the radio observatory, light industry at Longstowe, much more industry at Gamlingay, entirely built on at Potton. Elsewhere it is now either access tracks or even completely disappeared into fields.

So, restrictions are basically that the new route would use Shepreth Branch junction and existing M11 crossing. Where would you route? There's almost no settlements worth serving en-route.

 

[jimm]

...because:
a) you won't get an ECML express serving Hitchin as well as Stevenage as they're so close
b) Hitchin has no fast line platforms, so unless you build loops around the current buildings, you'll be creating bottlenecks on the slow lines.

I propose St Neots because it has a significant population (with room to grow), but also because it is roughly midway between Peterborough and Stevenage, the current two express stops, so will give the longest amount of high-speed running possible, meaning more services are likely to call, improving the network effect from more interchange being possible.

You seem to have missed the bit where I said that if East West went via Hitchin - which would inevitably mean a major revamp of the station - then ECML operators might very well favour it over Stevenage as a place to stop, which was of course the case before Stevenage new town was built. With the profusion of Thameslink trains planned for the future it's not as if people travelling to/from Stevenage would have long to wait for a connection. Thus serving 150,000 people, whereas St Neots would serve, well, St Neots.