Why did Sandy-Potton-Cambridge close and not Hitchin-Royston-Cambridge also?

[RT4038]

If they’d have built a curve from Letchworth to Arlesey and retained the Sandy to Bedford section, the Oxford to Cambridge connections would’ve been retained.

If 'they' had had costed such a curve, and the extensive remodelling required at Sandy including allowing for the four tracking project [the lines only being connected via a siding], 'they' would have soon realised that the costs would not have been paid back (by the meagre passenger loadings) in a thousand years!

 

[edwin_m]

If 'they' had had costed such a curve, and the extensive remodelling required at Sandy including allowing for the four tracking project [the lines only being connected via a siding], 'they' would have soon realised that the costs would not have been paid back (by the meagre passenger loadings) in a thousand years!

If they'd kept the service by that means then the two extra junctions on the ECML (undoubtedly flat ones) would have become another operational headache in recent years.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The Hitchin to Cambridge section also generated a reasonable amount of freight traffic at places like Foxton with the branch to Barrington Cement works, Royston with oil and grain, Letchworth with coal, plus the through freights such as the Fen Drayton- KX sand.

If they’d have built a curve from Letchworth to Arlesey and retained the Sandy to Bedford section, the Oxford to Cambridge connections would’ve been retained.

If they had ever been going to do anything like that, it would have been far more sensible to have re-opened Hitchin to Bedford, constructed an underpass beneath the ECML to that line and closed the Cambridge/Bedford line.

 

[RT4038]

If they had ever been going to do anything like that, it would have been far more sensible to have re-opened Hitchin to Bedford, constructed an underpass beneath the ECML to that line and closed the Cambridge/Bedford line.

The cost of this curve and underpass north of Hitchin, plus reinstatement of the Hitchin-Bedford line (which by the time the Bedford-Cambridge direct line was shut had been lifted between Hitchin and Cardington), and whatever work would have been necessary to facilitate reversal of trains at Bedford Midland Road, would probably have paid for the maintenance of the direct line for the next 100years.

 

[alistairlees]

IIRC, Royston - Cambridge was a late addition to the ‘Anglia West’ electrification, which was originally just Stortford - Cambridge. Nice work by BR.

Correct. It was done as "infill". Ironically that infill fairly quickly led to Cambridge - London services being concentrated on the (faster) route to Kings Cross, with the route to Liverpool Street effectively becoming a secondary route (other than for commuting to the City of London).

 

[edwin_m]

Correct. It was done as "infill". Ironically that infill fairly quickly led to Cambridge - London services being concentrated on the (faster) route to Kings Cross, with the route to Liverpool Street effectively becoming a secondary route (other than for commuting to the City of London).

Indeed. It always seemed ridiculous to me that Liverpool Street was the primary terminus (and the only terminus to enjoy any through service for around 10 years), even with a stop at Tottenham Hale for West End connections.

 

[bramling]

Indeed. It always seemed ridiculous to me that Liverpool Street was the primary terminus (and the only terminus to enjoy any through service for around 10 years), even with a stop at Tottenham Hale for West End connections.

Cambridge did quickly result in capacity issues on the ECML though, with by the mid-1990s ramping up to 4tph off-peak, and by the 2010s 6tph in the peaks (2 of which starting or finishing at Royston). By 2018 the branch had increased to 8tph in the peaks.

No doubt the shift away from Liverpool Street made space for the Stansted Express, with that route now having capacity issues of its own.

 

[edwin_m]

Cambridge did quickly result in capacity issues on the ECML though, with by the mid-1990s ramping up to 4tph off-peak, and by the 2010s 6tph in the peaks (2 of which starting or finishing at Royston). By 2018 the branch had increased to 8tph in the peaks.

No doubt the shift away from Liverpool Street made space for the Stansted Express, with that route now having capacity issues of its own.

The Kings Cross route is four-track as far as Hitchin except for the Welwyn bottleneck, so much more suitable for fast running than the Liverpool Street line which is only two tracks quite far in to London. But I guess measures such as cutting back the former Letchworth terminators via Hertford to finish in Stevenage (and creating a new platform for them) were driven to quite a large extent by Cambridge demand. Which probably goes to show how much more popular the Kings Cross route is!

 

[A0wen]

The Kings Cross route is four-track as far as Hitchin except for the Welwyn bottleneck, so much more suitable for fast running than the Liverpool Street line which is only two tracks quite far in to London. But I guess measures such as cutting back the former Letchworth terminators via Hertford to finish in Stevenage (and creating a new platform for them) were driven to quite a large extent by Cambridge demand. Which probably goes to show how much more popular the Kings Cross route is!

Sorting out the Hertford services has been talked about for years though - the problem was always terminating trains at Stevenage meant they were in the way of other services.

Worth remembering when electrification was first completed, all Hertford loop Moorgate services terminated at Hertford Nth and the DMU shuttle from Huntingdon ran to / from Hertford. That was curtailed and the decision made to run 1 tph on from Hertford to Letchworth - more convenient as there were / are the sidings there where a unit can be put out of the way. The Cambridge branch was a bit quieter in those days as there weren't the through trains to Kings Lynn or Cambridge.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The cost of this curve and underpass north of Hitchin, plus reinstatement of the Hitchin-Bedford line (which by the time the Bedford-Cambridge direct line was shut had been lifted between Hitchin and Cardington), and whatever work would have been necessary to facilitate reversal of trains at Bedford Midland Road, would probably have paid for the maintenance of the direct line for the next 100years.

Yes, seen today with benefit of hindsight. Back in the early to mid 1960s, when Hitchin to Bedford was only recently closed, when almost no-one travelled on the 'Varsity Line from Cambridge to west of Bedford, when one of B.R.'s main commercial problems was the high cost of unused capacity, when Hitchin to Cambridge had masses of spare capacity, when the southern portion of the ECML had spare train paths, it would have been a better idea than constructing a curve to route trains to Sandy.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, seen today with benefit of hindsight. Back in the early to mid 1960s, when Hitchin to Bedford was only recently closed, when almost no-one travelled on the 'Varsity Line from Cambridge to west of Bedford, when one of B.R.'s main commercial problems was the high cost of unused capacity, when Hitchin to Cambridge had masses of spare capacity, when the southern portion of the ECML had spare train paths, it would have been a better idea than constructing a curve to route trains to Sandy.

With the train services of the time, a reversal in platform at Hitchin would have been workable.

 

[RT4038]

Yes, seen today with benefit of hindsight. Back in the early to mid 1960s, when Hitchin to Bedford was only recently closed, when almost no-one travelled on the 'Varsity Line from Cambridge to west of Bedford, when one of B.R.'s main commercial problems was the high cost of unused capacity, when Hitchin to Cambridge had masses of spare capacity, when the southern portion of the ECML had spare train paths, it would have been a better idea than constructing a curve to route trains to Sandy.

The line between Hitchin and Bedford had been carrying even less passengers than on the Bedford-Cambridge section, having been latterly operated (although not right up to closure) by [empty] 4-wheel railbuses, so really would not have been considered.

The situation was quite hopeless; the bus service no. 128 (and predecessor numbers) had taken most of the Bedford-Cambridge trade quite some years earlier, much due to the more central stops available in both Bedford and Cambridge, rendering a centre to centre journey time not that dissimilar to the train, but with a more frequent service, and the general comfort of the omnibuses [prior to a levelling up on DMU substitution].

With the train services of the time, a reversal in platform at Hitchin would have been workable.

There would also be a reversal in a bay at Bedford Midland Road, and work carried out to permit passenger trains to depart from there towards Bletchley. I know this was done later, but was facilitated by the Hitchin line already being lifted. Quite what effect these perambulations would have had on journey time.....

 

[Railwaysceptic]

With the train services of the time, a reversal in platform at Hitchin would have been workable.

Agreed.