East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

[Tobbes]

All good news. I'd prefer a routing from Sandy northerly to serve Cambourne, Histon and then down the busway to Cambridge Science Park, running through to new Addenbrookes.

We can dream!

 

[al green]

There was no clear direction on whether a via Luton route would or wouldn't include Bedford. Pretty much everything published about EWR included Bedford - either way you'd still only be saving 5 or so mins if you pathed in south of Bedford via a new chord AND you'd lose any business from Bedford unless you built another new station. Not to mention the challenge that the MML from Bedford - St P is pretty much at capacity now, so the opportunities for non-stop high speed running along that stretch are limited without relieving either EMT or Thameslink of one of their paths. So I maintain you'd be looking at a journey time of circa 20 mins Bedford - Luton and probably 20 mins Luton - Stevenage.

On the Hitchin option - factor in you'd need a reversal at Hitchin to make that work OR another flyover to allow direct access to the Cambridge line and avoid Hitchin - so once again losing connectivity.

The fastest you'd be able to make Hitchin - Cambridge is 25 mins - take a look at the current services and the fastest is 33 mins which includes stops at Letchworth, Baldock & Royston. There are limited options to run fast from Hitchin to Cambridge - again the line is close to capacity - but lets assume there is a small amount of journey time improvement possible.

Again, Bedford - Hitchin is about 20 miles, so practically you'll struggle to get that much below 20 mins journey time. So 45 mins to cover Bedford - Hitchin - Cambridge is absolutely best case.

On the X5 - my mistake, I'm sure when I'd previously checked it wasn't that long.

More made up stuff. It was always clear that it would be either Bedford or Luton but not both.

While the MML is busy South of St albans there is capacity on the slows North of there which is where any EWRL service would run. At Flitwick there is just 4tph TL and the odd freight. At LAP there is just 8tph TL and the odd freight. hardly at capacity.

 

[A0]

More made up stuff. It was always clear that it would be either Bedford or Luton but not both.

While the MML is busy South of St albans there is capacity on the slows North of there which is where any EWRL service would run. At Flitwick there is just 4tph TL and the odd freight. At LAP there is just 8tph TL and the odd freight. hardly at capacity.

For someone who's accusing me of 'made up stuff' you're similarly missing a few facts regarding the MML.

There aren't 4 trains / hour south of Bedford. There are 4 Thameslink stoppers / hour. Thameslink then have 2 further services which start at Luton - so you're now up to 6 Thameslink services / hour south from Luton.

You then have 5tph from EMT - and that's likely to go to 6 when Corby is wired as there's a demand to increase the Corby service to half hourly.

Add in a few freights - last but not least, that's only off-peak. Peak hours have additional services which fill the remaining paths - in fact I believe freights aren't allowed through Bedford during peak times - though I'm happy to be corrected by those with better knowledge.

So I restate, the MML if not at capacity, is pretty close to. The next round of upgrades will be focused on improving the services to existing destinations on the MML not adding in other stuff - which won't be EWR in any case given NR's announcement.

 

[al green]

For someone who's accusing me of 'made up stuff' you're similarly missing a few facts regarding the MML.

There aren't 4 trains / hour south of Bedford. There are 4 Thameslink stoppers / hour. Thameslink then have 2 further services which start at Luton - so you're now up to 6 Thameslink services / hour south from Luton.

You then have 5tph from EMT - and that's likely to go to 6 when Corby is wired as there's a demand to increase the Corby service to half hourly.

Add in a few freights - last but not least, that's only off-peak. Peak hours have additional services which fill the remaining paths - in fact I believe freights aren't allowed through Bedford during peak times - though I'm happy to be corrected by those with better knowledge.

So I restate, the MML if not at capacity, is pretty close to. The next round of upgrades will be focused on improving the services to existing destinations on the MML not adding in other stuff - which won't be EWR in any case given NR's announcement.

I said "on the slows". There are no EMTs on the slows. The Luton starters are included in the 8tph that I mentioned at LAP. You do realise that the MML is 4 track South of Bedford? I suggest that you look at Realtimetrains before replying.

 

[Abpj17]

For someone who's accusing me of 'made up stuff' you're similarly missing a few facts regarding the MML.

There aren't 4 trains / hour south of Bedford. There are 4 Thameslink stoppers / hour. Thameslink then have 2 further services which start at Luton - so you're now up to 6 Thameslink services / hour south from Luton.

You then have 5tph from EMT - and that's likely to go to 6 when Corby is wired as there's a demand to increase the Corby service to half hourly.

Add in a few freights - last but not least, that's only off-peak. Peak hours have additional services which fill the remaining paths - in fact I believe freights aren't allowed through Bedford during peak times - though I'm happy to be corrected by those with better knowledge.

So I restate, the MML if not at capacity, is pretty close to. The next round of upgrades will be focused on improving the services to existing destinations on the MML not adding in other stuff - which won't be EWR in any case given NR's announcement.

He's right though. The MML is only the fasts; they never never use the slows. And a fair number of the TL services use the fasts as well.

Between Bedford and Luton is nothing like capacity on the slows. Between Luton and St Albans it gets busier, I can believe it's at or near capacity on the slows south of St Albans.

(It wasn't 100% clear to me that you're are that there are two pairs of lines - the fasts and slows; with a bit of extra track here and there including at ?Bedford and Luton for extra platforms.)

 

[daodao]

All this talk about options for re-opening a railway from Cambridge to Bedford is "pie in the sky". It would be of minimal benefit to Cambridge/East Anglia unless one wishes to travel to Oxford/Bedford/Milton Keynes. There are adequate routes for travel to the Thames Valley and points west via London and to the Midlands via Peterborough.

The old trackbed can't be restored, their is no obvious alternative rail route, the cost of a "new build" railway line would result in a very unfavourable BCR and connectivity with the EC line would be poor.

There might be value in extending some trains from the "to be reopened" western section of the EW line to the much more important rail junction of Peterborough via Corby and a link south of Manton to Luffenham (west of Stamford), but I have no idea whether this would have a viable business case.

 

[jopsuk]

daodao: your assessment is wildly at odds with the assessment of national and local government and transport agencies. As well as E-W rail there's a Highways Agency programme to upgrade the A428/A421/etc to "expressway" standard throughout. The demand for transport on the Cambridge-Oxford corridor, avoiding London, is already large and predicted to grow.

It's well known that the old trackbed is not very useable, and a new build is exactly what is being proposed. There's no BCR assessment yet, as the specific route for these sections haven't been fully developed, but it is pretty clear it is expected that the BCR will be favourable (and thus it will)

 

[70014IronDuke]

I believe it was after electrification - as the journey times and frequencies improved massively when that happened.

My understanding is the main service which served Huntingdon was a KX - York 'sweeper' service that was one of the last loco hauled services before going over to an HST in around 1983. I believe the stopping pattern was something like Stevenage, Huntingdon, Peterboro, Grantham, Newark, Retford, Selby, Doncaster, York. Happy to be corrected though.

Yes. I can't remember how it all evolved exactly, but it's worth remembering that in the 60s the stopping service between Hitchin and Huntingdon was out of the Victorian era.

It is difficult to imagine it now, but apart from two peak hour commuter services to/from Kings Cross (pacific hauled in c 1962, later Cl 47 I think) it consisted of a 2 x 2 car Cravens unit which shuttled between Hitchin (or later, Stevenage perhaps) to Peterboro every four hours. :roll:

So Huntingdon relied upon Class 1 Inter-City trains for any service at all.
I'm not sure if this was improved somewhat in the late 60s and 70s, but with electrification, the elimination of the Sandy restriction (ie two slow lines establshed) and the introduction of what was a revolutionary 2 tph on the slows, Huntingdon was deemed well enough served without any Inter-City trains. Similar to the St Albans' example.

 

[daodao]

daodao: your assessment is wildly at odds with the assessment of national and local government and transport agencies. As well as E-W rail there's a Highways Agency programme to upgrade the A428/A421/etc to "expressway" standard throughout. The demand for transport on the Cambridge-Oxford corridor, avoiding London, is already large and predicted to grow.

It's well known that the old trackbed is not very useable, and a new build is exactly what is being proposed. There's no BCR assessment yet, as the specific route for these sections haven't been fully developed, but it is pretty clear it is expected that the BCR will be favourable (and thus it will)

One wonders whether the support for this proposal is related to the fact that so many members of the "great and good" went to Oxbridge. The demand for travel between Cambridge (pop 124k) and Oxford (pop 160k) has never been significant and such a link would be of little use as a through route for travel beyond either of these 2 minor cities to more important places/conurbations with bigger populations.

 

[70014IronDuke]

It would be a stronger case if St Neots station were not a mile from the town centre, but there's nothing we can do about that. But already St Neots / Eaton Socon is a larger town than Huntingdon, and once those new developments are built it will also be a larger town than Hitchin. The case will only get stronger, and my dad will be pleased if he's still around to see it!


Now, a vague memory. I seem to remember that at some point (late 80s, probably) there was one service in the am peak which ran Pboro - Huntingdon - St Neots - Sandy - Biggly - Hitchin - fast KX, and which was operated by a 125. Did it really exist, and if so why?

there was at least one such service, IIRC. I think it needed to be an HST because anything less would have resulted in pathing difficulties. A cl 47 could not have got out of the way quickly enough.

Interesting your point on St Neots/Eaton Socon, I hadn't realised there had been so much growth.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Might as well bring back St Johns. You could use all that wasteland at the end of Prebend Street to become a car park. A walk access all the way to the old station would be advisable. Thats what I would do.

Not the cheapest option of course (making another station) but its cheaper than leaving north of Bedford Midland.

Surely they will do neither? They will simply reverse at Bedford. Adds 3 mins to the timings, but by far the most cost-effective solution. Unless, that is, you head north and go via a new Manton curve.

In an ideal world, a route north across Bedford to St Neots or Huntingdon would connect bigger population centres than via Sandy, but the cost would be impossible to justify IMO. Plus it would create an absolute army of Nimbies.

 

[jimm]

One wonders whether the support for this proposal is related to the fact that so many members of the "great and good" went to Oxbridge. The demand for travel between Cambridge (pop 124k) and Oxford (pop 160k) has never been significant and such a link would be of little use as a through route for travel beyond either of these 2 minor cities to more important places/conurbations with bigger populations.

That this scheme has got as far as it has is down to the communities along the core of the route and beyond - not the "great and the good".

You seem to have forgotten that Bedford (pop 81,000 in 2011, borough population 160,000+) and Milton Keynes (pop 250,000 and rising) also lie along this route.

And it links lots of other lines together as well. It has never been intended principally as a link between Oxford and Cambridge, they just happen to be anchor points.

East-West links between the parts of England along the route at the moment are rubbish, to put it politely, whether rail or road. You must be joking if you think people would willingly travel via London, including changing stations, or battle round the M25, if there was a fast rail link completely bypassing the London area. Similarly freight operators are crying out for ways to run trains from Felixstowe to the rest of the country that do not involve going through London.

 

[daodao]

That this scheme has got as far as it has is down to the communities along the core of the route and beyond - not the "great and the good".

You seem to have forgotten that Bedford (pop 81,000 in 2011, borough population 160,000+) and Milton Keynes (pop 250,000 and rising) also lie along this route.

And it links lots of other lines together as well. It has never been intended principally as a link between Oxford and Cambridge, they just happen to be anchor points.

East-West links between the parts of England along the route at the moment are rubbish, to put it politely, whether rail or road. You must be joking if you think people would willingly travel via London, including changing stations, or battle round the M25, if there was a fast rail link completely bypassing the London area. Similarly freight operators are crying out for ways to run trains from Felixstowe to the rest of the country that do not involve going through London.

Reopening the disused line between Bicester & Bletchley is sensible and not excessively expensive; it will provide enhanced connectivity and is being progressed. Cambridge is a minor city and reopening Bedford to Cambridge is not justified IMO. Freight traffic in Great Britain is rapidly declining due to deindustrialisation and the short distances on this island. What freight traffic remains from East Anglia (mostly from Felixstowe) to the Midlands and North can be routed via March; there is none from Cambridge itself.

 

[A0]

I said "on the slows". There are no EMTs on the slows. The Luton starters are included in the 8tph that I mentioned at LAP. You do realise that the MML is 4 track South of Bedford? I suggest that you look at Realtimetrains before replying.

I travel on it, on average, once a month. So I' m very familiar with the track layout thanks.

I'm also familiar with the future demands that are already aspired to for improving the services on that line already - and since the traffic flow to London is already very busy, any future capacity demands will be to alleviate the problems there. Which is why EWR via the MML was a stupid suggestion. Luckily NR agree and it's going to go via Sandy so there's no risk of the MML being impacted by EWR capacity demands.

 

[jimm]

Reopening the disused line between Bicester & Bletchley is sensible and not excessively expensive; it will provide enhanced connectivity and is being progressed. Cambridge is a minor city and reopening Bedford to Cambridge is not justified IMO. Freight traffic in Great Britain is rapidly declining due to deindustrialisation and the short distances on this island. What freight traffic remains from East Anglia (mostly from Felixstowe) to the Midlands and North can be routed via March; there is none from Cambridge itself.

No wonder you can't see any point to it with opinions like that.

Cambridge is a minor city? That must be some other Cambridge than the one being talked about in this report then and not the one where the roads are choked with traffic in the rush hour and there is a housing shortage linked to the growth in employment.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/821...-needs-extra/story-28877418-detail/story.html

Government needs to empower Cambridge's policy makers – or risk damaging the city's economic success, hurting UK PLC in the process.

A landmark new report by the Centre for Cities thinktank pinpoints Cambridge as one of five fast-growth cities that need extra powers from Whitehall in order to capitalise on this boom.

Cambridge is identified as an exemplar for things such as its high growth in jobs and employment, especially in knowledge-intensive industries that command higher salaries.

And of course Norwich and Ipswich are also minor pimples on the map, clearly not deserving of good transport links with places other than London. And no one in Oxford or Milton Keynes ever wants to catch a flight from Stansted, though people in Birmingham are allowed to get there by train there every hour.

Freight traffic is rapidly declining? Not container traffic from ports, which is growing, because we don't make things here any more. And what use is the route via March to trains going to Bristol and South Wales - never mind that improvements planned to allow more freight via Newmarket and Ely are now on hold - oh, I forgot, they can go via London, even though Freightliner and GBRf are both desperate for better routes avoiding London but have to send trains that way to the Midlands and the North because of the limitations via March and Nuneaton. But what would freight TOCs know?

 

[The Planner]

Surely they will do neither? They will simply reverse at Bedford. Adds 3 mins to the timings, but by far the most cost-effective solution. Unless, that is, you head north and go via a new Manton curve.

It would be more than 3, a dwell which involves a reversal is likely to be that and more on its own.

 

[daodao]

Cambridge is a minor city? That must be some other Cambridge than the one being talked about in this report then and not the one where the roads are choked with traffic in the rush hour and there is a housing shortage linked to the growth in employment.

I lived in Cambridge for 3 years and don't recall serious traffic congestion compared to Greater Manchester where I currently reside. It was easy to get about by bike and house prices were also relatively cheap (and probably still are compared to Bowdon). Fenland was relatively economically deprived.

Cross-country rail connections to East Anglia via March have now considerably improved and are surely adequate for the limited traffic, compared to the services available then - 5 Norwich-Birmingham trains, the daily north Country Continental, 3 Doncaster-Cambridge trains and occasional summer Saturday trains to Great Yarmouth.

 

[quantinghome]

I lived in Cambridge for 3 years and don't recall serious traffic congestion compared to Greater Manchester where I currently reside. It was easy to get about by bike and house prices were also relatively cheap (and probably still are compared to Bowdon). Fenland was relatively economically deprived.

Cross-country rail connections to East Anglia via March have now considerably improved and are surely adequate for the limited traffic, compared to the services available then - 5 Norwich-Birmingham trains, the daily north Country Continental, 3 Doncaster-Cambridge trains and occasional summer Saturday trains to Great Yarmouth.

How long ago did you live in Cambridge? Doesn't sound anything like the place.

 

[a good off]

Cambridge is a nightmare traffic wise and the property prices are getting stupid.

http://m.cambridge-news.co.uk/Cambr...k-MONTHS-end/story-28001106-detail/story.html

 

[HowardGWR]

There are two very strange discussions taking place on this thread. One is about the need for E-W and that has been decided. The other is about other routes than via Sandy and that has just been decided as well.

I think the decision about what to do at Bedford is very interesting and I recall our colleague MarkYT coming up with an ostensibly attractive proposal for a link bend near the present station, that would avoid reversal.

 

[jimm]

I lived in Cambridge for 3 years and don't recall serious traffic congestion compared to Greater Manchester where I currently reside. It was easy to get about by bike and house prices were also relatively cheap (and probably still are compared to Bowdon). Fenland was relatively economically deprived.

Cross-country rail connections to East Anglia via March have now considerably improved and are surely adequate for the limited traffic, compared to the services available then - 5 Norwich-Birmingham trains, the daily north Country Continental, 3 Doncaster-Cambridge trains and occasional summer Saturday trains to Great Yarmouth.

'Was' being the operative word, as that long-lost train service pattern you describe indicates.

As for property prices, here is a headline from the Cambridge News website yesterday

Depth of Cambridge housing crisis revealed in new report as average house price passes £500,000

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Dep...revealed-new/story-29027320-detail/story.html

More than twice the UK average, which is £200,000 according to the Nationwide yesterday.

What use is the route via March to anyone in Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire or Bedfordshire who wants to get to East Anglia or vice versa? And who does not want the aggro of travelling via London or round the M25 or using the inadequate roads that run cross-country in that part of the world.

 

[ac6000cw]

I have to say that I lean towards 'daodao's view on this. Yes, people will use it if it is built, but I'm far from from convinced that it's going to be worth the very considerable cost of building a new line from Bedford to Cambridge, versus spending the money on other deserving projects.

The re-building of Ely North junction (for more capacity) and double-tracking of Ely-Soham keep being pushed back due to rising costs, and rural bus services are being decimated (some large villages only a few miles from Cambridge now have no evening buses, which actually makes it more difficult/expensive to use rail services if you live in them).

Rail passenger traffic flows at Cambridge are heavily London orientated, and I think have got more so over the 35 years I've lived here - just look at the frequency and train lengths of services to London versus anywhere north and east of there. Off-peak, heavily loaded 8/12 car non-stop trains to KGX every 30 mins (+ others to LST), versus 2/3 car hourly to Peterborough, Norwich and Ipswich. Peterborough-Ipswich is 2 car every two hours.

Something doesn't add up in the transport priorities to me, if we are apparently struggling to fund improvements to fix rail bottlenecks on an existing east-west route (and as for the saga of improving the A14 between Cambridge and the A1, a nationally important route...)

 

[Hadders]

I agree that traffic in Cambridge is awful and is set to get worse. I often have to travel to Cembridge City Centre on business and I usually get the train from Stevenage these days to avoid the traffic.

 

[jopsuk]

house prices were also relatively cheap (and probably still are compared to Bowdon). .

I live in Cambridge. Cambridge houses prices are the very opposite of cheap. Cambridge house prices make people like me who don't own property cry if we think about them at all.

 

[daodao]

I live in Cambridge. Cambridge houses prices are the very opposite of cheap. Cambridge house prices make people like me who don't own property cry if we think about them at all.

Currently, the average house price in Cambridge is about £360k, compared to nearly £600k in Bowdon, £460k in Hale and £380k in Altrincham.

 

[jimm]

I have to say that I lean towards 'daodao's view on this. Yes, people will use it if it is built, but I'm far from from convinced that it's going to be worth the very considerable cost of building a new line from Bedford to Cambridge, versus spending the money on other deserving projects.

The re-building of Ely North junction (for more capacity) and double-tracking of Ely-Soham keep being pushed back due to rising costs, and rural bus services are being decimated (some large villages only a few miles from Cambridge now have no evening buses, which actually makes it more difficult/expensive to use rail services if you live in them).

Rail passenger traffic flows at Cambridge are heavily London orientated, and I think have got more so over the 35 years I've lived here - just look at the frequency and train lengths of services to London versus anywhere north and east of there. Off-peak, heavily loaded 8/12 car non-stop trains to KGX every 30 mins (+ others to LST), versus 2/3 car hourly to Peterborough, Norwich and Ipswich. Peterborough-Ipswich is 2 car every two hours.

Something doesn't add up in the transport priorities to me, if we are apparently struggling to fund improvements to fix rail bottlenecks on an existing east-west route (and as for the saga of improving the A14 between Cambridge and the A1, a nationally important route...)

What has the state of rural bus services in Cambridgeshire (which is no different from what's happening elsewhere in the UK) got to do with reinstating a strategic railway? Are you going to tell us that Borders Rail was not a good use of money, despite traffic already far exceeding the forecasts?

So rail passenger flows from Cambridge are London-centric. You can say the same about vast swathes of southern England. But that doesn't mean that people don't need or want to travel elsewhere, does it?

You haven't been able to get a train west from Cambridge for almost 50 years now but that doesn't mean that no one would do it if the opportunity was there. Rail travel between Cambridge and Norwich was only possible by changing at Ely for a very long time - but look at the custom now that there is an hourly direct service.

And, I'll repeat yet again, what has the route via March and Peterborough got to do with connecting East Anglia with Bedfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Oxfordshire and points beyond, such as Reading? The March route does nothing at all for those areas, so can people please stop bringing it up here. And if Cambridge had better rail connections in all directions, then the roads, A14 included, might just be a bit less congested.

 

[ac6000cw]

As for property prices, here is a headline from the Cambridge News website yesterday

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Dep...revealed-new/story-29027320-detail/story.html

More than twice the UK average, which is £200,000 according to the Nationwide yesterday.

Traffic congestion in Cambridge is bad (but not ridiculous), but to alleviate that needs serious money spent to provide much better public transport between it and the surrounding small towns and villages. The (successful) guided busway system is a good start, but it needs extending to more places (being seriously looked at) and a way found to get the buses through the city centre in a timely fashion. Rail might help with that for the Science Park (north) and Addenbrookes (south) areas - if 'Cambridge South' station is built - but then line capacity between Cambridge 'North' and 'South' would become a real problem (part of the reason 'Cambridge South' hasn't happened yet - it would sit on the busiest stretch of railway in the area, with 7 tph in each direction off-peak currently).

 

[jimm]

Currently, the average house price in Cambridge is about £360k, compared to nearly £600k in Bowdon, £460k in Hale and £380k in Altrincham.

Was it too much like hard work to look at my post above, where the average for Cambridge, based on a bang-up-to-date local report showing prices in the city rose by 19 per cent over the past year, is given as £500,000.

And how you have the nerve to compare house prices in a village of about 2,000 people in the Manchester commuter belt with a city the size of Cambridge escapes me. If you want to play that game, then I could point out that houses in the even smaller village of Grantchester average something like £925,000 a throw, according to rightmove.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Traffic congestion in Cambridge is bad (but not ridiculous), but to alleviate that needs serious money spent to provide much better public transport between it and the surrounding small towns and villages. The (successful) guided busway system is a good start, but it needs extending to more places (being seriously looked at) and a way found to get the buses through the city centre in a timely fashion. Rail might help with that for the Science Park (north) and Addenbrookes (south) areas - if 'Cambridge South' station is built - but then line capacity between Cambridge 'North' and 'South' would become a real problem (part of the reason 'Cambridge South' hasn't happened yet - it would sit on the busiest stretch of railway in the area, with 7 tph in each direction off-peak currently).

That's as maybe - and you could say much the same sort of things about Oxford and all sorts of other places - but what does any of it have to do with providing a strategic rail link to other parts of England?

This thread is about East West rail, not local transport around Cambridge. Local transport that would most certainly benefit if there was a rail link to points west, which would likely encourage implementation of improvements on routes further into East Anglia to allow East West services to continue to/from Ipswich and Norwich.

 

[daodao]

This thread is about East West rail, not local transport around Cambridge. Local transport that would most certainly benefit if there was a rail link to points west, which would likely encourage implementation of improvements on routes further into East Anglia to allow East West services to continue to/from Ipswich and Norwich.

If the Cambridge economy is overheating as you describe, then it needs to be choked off, rather than spending money trying to improve accessibility. It has a relatively small population, and there are far more deprived areas in the UK meriting investment, e.g. South Wales which will be devastated if steel-making ceases there.

Joining the EU has led to a disastrous tilting of the economy towards the SE/East Anglia over the last 40+ years, as I had expected in the 1970s.

 

[ac6000cw]

I'm not against the E-W rail idea in principle, I just wonder about the 'economic value for money' aspect of it versus spending the same amount on other transport infrastructure improvements (not just locally, but all over the country, some of which is in far greater need of an 'economic boost' than e.g. the Bedford-Cambridge area).

 

[Philip Phlopp]

I'm not against the E-W rail idea in principle, I just wonder about the 'economic value for money' aspect of it versus spending the same amount on other transport infrastructure improvements (not just locally, but all over the country, some of which is in far greater need of an 'economic boost' than e.g. the Bedford-Cambridge area).

The investment in transport infrastructure needs to be balanced, one city should not be denied investment just so another city can be prioritised for whatever reason.

It's also important to try to keep creating capacity, both passenger and freight, because bottlenecks can occur on the network and have unintended consequences hundreds of miles away.

EWR extending from Oxford to Cambridge provides a route that avoids London, that will release capacity, whether in the form of seats or train paths, along lines in and out of London, which benefits other cities and towns. It will also create new journey opportunities and that can be beneficial to other areas.