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

[TheKnightWho]

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.

Connecting the GWML, WCML, MML and ECML at their southern (London) ends whilst avoiding London is "of little use", is it?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

It's pretty obvious you have no idea what you are talking about. Modal freight is the way forward, and Felixstowe is Britain's primary port to the rest of the world. Do you think our imports all just arrive at their destination via teleportation? Are you proposing we put it all on the roads? Britain's imports are consistently going up in absolute terms, and our exports are doing the same. This idea that industrial decline in some industries is the death of rail freight is, frankly, a joke. It's shifting in what it's transporting, but it isn't declining.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

Your assessment of things from years with your rose-tinted spectacles do not stand up to modern assessment. Your gut-feeling that Cambridge doesn't need this line when, as it has been explained many times, it is not only about Cambridge, and there are considerable other advantages that you clearly don't understand, is not informed.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

No, it needs to be relieved. Easier access to Cambridge will reduce house prices there (and the project will do the same for Oxford, which is the only city apart from St Albans and London which is even more expensive). The idea that the economy has tilted towards the south east and East Anglia is also ridiculous; London certainly, but East Anglia has some extremely deprived areas, and Cambridge and its surrounding area has some severe problems. I also have no idea why you're trying to get a cheap Eurosceptic point either: it's just not born up by reality. Heavy industry would have collapsed or had to be subsidised, and was given the former fate by a government who were Eurosceptic (in its real, non-euphemistic sense). That would have happened regardless of membership of the EU.

 

[daodao]

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).

Well put.

In addition, Eastern England has a relatively low population density. Passenger rail development should be focussed on high volume intercity transport and urban/suburban routes around major conurbations to reduce road congestion. Given the site of Cambridge railway station and the size of Cambridge, rail is of minimal value in providing local public transport in the Cambridge area.

Container traffic to places in Southern England and South Wales is better routed via English South Coast and Bristol Channel ports, rather than conveying it by rail from Felixstowe, so I don't see the need for a rail freight route from Bedford to Cambridge. Bedford-Oxford may be useful as a part of a route north from Southampton.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well put.

In addition, Eastern England has a relatively low population density. Passenger rail development should be focussed on high volume intercity transport and urban/suburban routes around major conurbations to reduce road congestion. Given the site of Cambridge railway station and the size of Cambridge, rail is of minimal value in providing local public transport in the Cambridge area.

Container traffic to places in Southern England and South Wales is better routed via English South Coast and Bristol Channel ports, rather than conveying it by rail from Felixstowe, so I don't see the need for a rail freight route from Bedford to Cambridge. Bedford-Oxford may be useful as a part of a route north from Southampton.

Are you proposing a massive deepwater port at Southampton then, to allow it to take all of the capacity of Felixstowe? Going to stump up the cash? It'd be a lot more than E-W rail link, that's for sure! There's a reason they're building a second container port in the Thames Estuary in Essex (London Gateway), and not expanding existing ports or building new ones on the south coast.

You clearly have no idea how freight logistics works.

 

[daodao]

Connecting the GWML, WCML, MML and ECML at their southern (London) ends whilst avoiding London is "of little use", is it?

The first 3 main lines can be linked by reopening the disused line from Bicester to Bletchley (currently in progress), which I support. A link to the ECML can be provided via Corby and a short link near Manton to the route to Peterborough via Stamford, if the BCR stacks up.

There's a reason they're building a second container port in the Thames Estuary in Essex (London Gateway), and not expanding existing ports or building new ones on the south coast.

And how does a line from Bedford to Cambridge help with providing rail access to this new port?

Nearly all the freight traffic from Felixstowe goes to the Midlands and North of England (see RTT). There is just one daily freightliner train to Bristol. A better return on investment for freight traffic would be to improve the Felixstowe branch and redouble the existing single line between Ely and Kennett via Soham, to reduce the need for some of the trains to go via North London.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The first 3 main lines can be linked by reopening the disused line from Bicester to Bletchley (currently in progress), which I support. A link to the ECML can be provided via Corby and a short link near Manton to the route to Peterborough via Stamford, if the BCR stacks up.

The reason they are building this is because the current links are deemed inadequate. The BCR stacks up for E-W rail already - why are you insisting we do something else on gut feeling? When, as you say, you don't even know if it would be economical. If that was an adequate corridor for freight, they'd be using it already. As it stands it isn't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And how does a line from Bedford to Cambridge help with providing rail access to this new port?

Have you actually looked at a map? Plus the point is that your proposal for a huge port on the south coast is not deemed best value for money: unfortunately for you, Felixstowe is only growing also.

 

[ac6000cw]

Easier access to Cambridge will reduce house prices there

I doubt it - one of the major factors driving up property prices in Cambridge is good rail services to London (just look at all the modern apartment blocks that now surround the station area - the sales pitch for them was extolling the ease of commuting to London...). I can't see how providing better transport links is going to make it a less attractive place to live...

 

[TheKnightWho]

Nearly all the freight traffic from Felixstowe goes to the Midlands and North of England (see RTT). There is just one daily freightliner train to Bristol. A better return on investment for freight traffic would be to improve the Felixstowe branch and redouble the existing single line between Ely and Kennett via Soham, to reduce the need for some of the trains to go via North London.

You're completely forgetting road haulage. Where capacity doesn't exist it fills the gap.

East-West provides multiple benefits: no single advantage justifies it alone. But your hodge-podge of alternatives that each only address a single issue without actually being coherent or holistic is a planning strategy we (thankfully) dumped in the 1970s.

 

[daodao]

Plus the point is that your proposal for a huge port on the south coast is not deemed best value for money: unfortunately for you, Felixstowe is only growing also.

Southampton is already a major container port, although Felixstowe is bigger. There is a clear need to improve rail access to Felixstowe, but a new line from Cambridge to Bedford is not the most cost-effective way to do this. The Birmingham-March-Ipswich corridor needs more investment, in particular removal of the single line bottlenecks east of Ely. There is also a need to ensure adequate routes north from Southampton, for which the Bedford-Bletchley-Oxford line has a role.

With respect to the London Gateway Port, Network Rail are planning enhancements on the route from Stratford (London) to Ely via Cambridge to link with the route to Peterborough and beyond.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I doubt it - one of the major factors driving up property prices in Cambridge is good rail services to London (just look at all the modern apartment blocks that now surround the station area - the sales pitch for them was extolling the ease of commuting to London...). I can't see how providing better transport links is going to make it a less attractive place to live...

It doesn't make it less attractive to live there, but it does make it easier to work there without actually living there. Cambridge has a booming tech industry with a rather low average age: that means that a disproportionate amount of them won't or can't drive for many journeys. Plus, car use is a pain there anyway.

Southampton is already a major container port, although Felixstowe is bigger. There is a clear need to improve rail access to Felixstowe, but a new line from Cambridge to Bedford is not the most cost-effective way to do this. The Birmingham-March-Ipswich corridor needs more investment, in particular removal of the single line bottlenecks east of Ely. There is also a need to ensure adequate routes north from Southampton, for which the Bedford-Bletchley-Oxford line has a role.

Southampton is considerably smaller than Felixstowe. I am asking if you're willing for the government to stump up the cash to transfer most traffic from Felixstowe there, because that would cost an awful lot more than E-W rail. The route north of Southampton has already been upgraded for W10 traffic anyway. Are you proposing we build an entirely new line there..?

On what grounds is it not cost effective? Can you provide evidence for this? As I say above - you seem to be going off gut instinct from knowledge of a Cambridge that no longer exists. Your hodge-podge solution also doesn't solve the issue of passenger traffic either. A roundabout route via Corby and Peterborough wouldn't either: it would take far too long, and would use up valuable capacity on the southern MML and ECML.

There are multiple reasons for E-W rail, and your solutions aren't solving them.

 

[daodao]

I am asking if you're willing for the government to stump up the cash to transfer most traffic from Felixstowe there, because that would cost an awful lot more than E-W rail.

The solution to improved rail access to Felixstowe is development (and maybe eventual electrification) of the existing Felixstowe-Peterborough-Birmingham axis, not a brand new line from Cambridge to Bedford.

 

[TheKnightWho]

The solution to improved rail access to Felixstowe is development (and maybe eventual electrification) of the existing Felixstowe-Peterborough-Birmingham axis, not a brand new line from Cambridge to Bedford.

Can you provide evidence for this please? You're also ignoring the passenger aspect.

Almost as though you've made up your mind and then looked for justification...

 

[daodao]

Can you provide evidence for this please? You're also ignoring the passenger aspect.

Almost as though you've made up your mind and then looked for justification...

The current Network Rail freight strategy is available at:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Developing_rail_freight_in_Control_Period_5.aspx

 

[TheKnightWho]

The current Network Rail freight strategy is available at:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Developing_rail_freight_in_Control_Period_5.aspx

I am aware of that, and have read it. That doesn't actually provide any support for your opinion, unfortunately. I'm not saying that we should do nothing with the Peterborough-Nuneaton corridor: I'm saying it isn't an adequate replacement for E-W rail, for the various reasons I've already stated that you haven't even tried to address.

 

[richieb1971]

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.

Please re-iterate the MARKYT plan Howard. I missed it.

Agreed, people arguing about what is already decided is pointless. Besides that, I do not think its a good idea to have a railway line link only half the country and not the other half. Regardless of people population. Its only going to go up anyway.

 

[coppercapped]

Daodao's arguments rest on several very questionable assumptions. One of these is that change can be mandated from above - Cambridge's growth should be choked off, investment should be directed where it is needed, container traffic to southern England should go through southern ports and so on and so forth.

Absolute rubbish - centrally planned economies have never worked. If it wasn't so far off topic I would be quite prepared to go into detail - but I won't to keep the admins happy.

Container ships will call at ports which the ships' owners decide - not as some traffic planner in Britain would like. Trains will have to service the business as they find it - not as someone would like it to be.

If Cambridge is successful in high tech business it should be encouraged - these are the jobs of the future. I suggest that the contents of this article be understood and absorbed.

This is not to say that people in, say, Port Talbot should not be helped - but essentially jobs cannot be created or industries maintained - by central fiat. The experience of Inmos, a company started with £50 million of Government money with a factory built in Newport, an area with no history of electronics, should be an awful warning.

In addition, the Oxford - Cambridge line never really connected Oxford to Cambridge - that is also a misapprehension. It was always operated more as two long branches which started from Bletchley giving the LNWR and LMS access to areas they could not otherwise reach. The current re-opening, or re-building, proposal is to permit longer distance services to operate and to give a swath of central southern England an effective cross-country rail service it has previously never enjoyed. Based of the experience of re-opened (Borders, Ebbw Vale, Bathgate) or re-energised train services (such as the Swindon - Melksham - Westbury corridor) it will not struggle for traffic.

 

[aylesbury]

Reading the comment that Cambridge was easy to travel around in the past I registered amazent.I have been visiting the town since the early sixties and have always deaded the experience due to the awful poad layout and very heavy traffic.The poster also seems to have not visited the east lately as it is a rapidly expanding area and worthy of excellent travel links to the rest of the UK.Norwich in 90 ,East West will bring new homes new businesses and importantly more people.Lets not forget the numerous ports on the east coast that are generating traffic for rail and road that could be routed onto the East West and please no more comments about no market for new services.

 

[swt_passenger]

In addition, the Oxford - Cambridge line never really connected Oxford to Cambridge - that is also a misapprehension. It was always operated more as two long branches which started from Bletchley giving the LNWR and LMS access to areas they could not otherwise reach.

It would be good if people stuck with the term East West Rail, and didn't use the archaic term 'Varsity line' which implies some sort of academic purpose...

 

[TheKnightWho]

It would be good if people stuck with the term East West Rail, and didn't use the archaic term 'Varsity line' which implies some sort of academic purpose...

Well, it's more that neither Oxford nor Cambridge are the principle start and end points of the route, which would be Reading and East Anglia. It just happens to be that Oxford and Cambridge are the parts that need connecting to make the entire route possible.

 

[DerekC]

In addition, the Oxford - Cambridge line never really connected Oxford to Cambridge - that is also a misapprehension. It was always operated more as two long branches which started from Bletchley giving the LNWR and LMS access to areas they could not otherwise reach.

Not sure what happened in LNWR and LMS days but in 1962 there were six services each way per day of which four ran through from Oxford to Cambridge and two required a change at Bletchley, which is a bit more of a connected route than you suggest. However there were some very long gaps between trains in the middle of the day and it took minimum 2 hours (usually 2.5) so not surprising it didn't keep much traffic once cars arrived. I do recall that closure in 1967, the same year that Milton Keynes was announced, seemed at the time to be totally bonkers. Anyway, enough rambling - back to the job of the new route. A modern railway with a decent service and trains running through at both ends would be a very different animal.

 

[coppercapped]

Not sure what happened in LNWR and LMS days but in 1962 there were six services each way per day of which four ran through from Oxford to Cambridge and two required a change at Bletchley, which is a bit more of a connected route than you suggest. However there were some very long gaps between trains in the middle of the day and it took minimum 2 hours (usually 2.5) so not surprising it didn't keep much traffic once cars arrived. I do recall that closure in 1967, the same year that Milton Keynes was announced, seemed at the time to be totally bonkers. Anyway, enough rambling - back to the job of the new route. A modern railway with a decent service and trains running through at both ends would be a very different animal.

I travelled the length from Cambridge to Oxford just before closure in a 2-car Cravens unit. It was awful, it was noisy, it rattled and it was painfully slow. I, and a fellow 'enthusiast', were the only passengers for quite a lot of the journey. As I understood it, the through trains were mostly an introduction of dieselisation - but I am quite happy to be corrected. Previously Oxford and Cambridge had little to do with each other but, rumour has it, that one of the reasons Bletchley was selected as the site for the wartime de-coding was that both Oxford and Cambridge as well as London could be reached from it. But, as you say, a modern railway would be completely different.

 

[daodao]

I travelled the length from Cambridge to Oxford just before closure in a 2-car Cravens unit. It was awful, it was noisy, it rattled and it was painfully slow. I, and a fellow 'enthusiast', were the only passengers for quite a lot of the journey. As I understood it, the through trains were mostly an introduction of dieselisation - but I am quite happy to be corrected. Previously Oxford and Cambridge had little to do with each other but, rumour has it, that one of the reasons Bletchley was selected as the site for the wartime de-coding was that both Oxford and Cambridge as well as London could be reached from it. But, as you say, a modern railway would be completely different.

There were 3 through trains daily form Oxford to Cambridge in April 1910 according to the Bradshaw reprint that I have, together with 3 other daily trains to Cambridge. However, the routes east and west of Bletchley had separate tables. The service was better west of Bedford.

 

[HowardGWR]

As this E-W route has been decided, what is the point of this continued discussion of its merits?

There is a naval expression for the foregoing discussion, which involves urination and the windward side of a ship.

 

[richieb1971]

Howard, what was Markyt's idea about Bedford you mentioned earlier?

 

[daodao]

As this E-W route has been decided, what is the point of this continued discussion of its merits?

There is a naval expression for the foregoing discussion, which involves urination and the windward side of a ship.

The E-W Rail website states that "The Government has confirmed its commitment to delivering the East West Rail links from Oxford to Bedford and Milton Keynes via Bletchley, and Milton Keynes to London Marylebone via Aylesbury."

There is no such government commitment to build the central section, only preferred options from Bedford to Cambridge via Sandy or Hitchin, which are being developed by the E-W Rail consortium. It may never be built if the business case is poor, given the dire state of the UK's public finances.

 

[Philip Phlopp]

It may never be built if the business case is poor, given the dire state of the UK's public finances.

The public finances are going to be slow to improve if we keep refusing to build new infrastructure, dealing with road congestion, rail overcrowding and pollution issues.

 

[Haydn1971]

The public finances are going to be slow to improve if we keep refusing to build new infrastructure, dealing with road congestion, rail overcrowding and pollution issues.

Absolutely well said !

It is often forgotten that new infrastructure is not a cost, but an investment to improve the general economy. Running it becomes a cost though

 

[mr_jrt]

This is MarkyT's Bedford proposal, presumably?
http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=110606&page=3

 

[D869]

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.

As this E-W route has been decided, what is the point of this continued discussion of its merits?

No, the route has not been decided. NR has chosen a "Bedford-Sandy corridor" and will tell us why it chose this corridor in May. An actual route will come later, although we have waited long enough already.

What is meant by a "Bedford-Sandy corridor"? How wide is it? Five miles? Or maybe ten? We don't know and yet some have assumed that Sandy station would be an interchange again, which is not going to happen in my view. The only safe thing to conclude is that NR has rejected the southern route involving Luton to Stevenage and the northern route via Corby and Peterborough was never a serious option.

It will be interesting to know NR's thoughts as the "East West Rail Central Section" report by Steer Davies Gleave from 2009 said that:

Consideration was also given to a direct route from Bedford generally routeing via Sandy and across country to Cambridge. This route would require an additional 20 miles of new alignment east of Sandy. The additional cost of this would very high, more than doubling the cost and deliverability challenges of any other route. Although the direct journey time to Cambridge would be the shortest, the passenger interchange opportunities with the East Coast Main Line corridor would be significantly reduced, effecting the overall demand and viability of the business case. In addition, this route would just duplicate the existing Hitchin – Cambridge line some 8-10 miles to the south. This route was not pursued further as it was considered undeliverable predominantly on cost grounds.

I think the importance of passenger interchange has been greatly exaggerated, with the ECML especially, as East West Rail is not an old-style secondary cross-country connecting line. The above paragraph does highlight the biggest problem with Oxford/MK to Cambridge via Bedford, though.

 

[richieb1971]

Nuneaton, Bletchley, Tamworth are all interchange stations and not the biggest of places.

 

[midlandred]

There's been at least two runs this week from Aylesbury to Oxford Parkway via Calvert using the Chiltern green bubble car. Route refresher runs for the handful of Chiltern drivers who sign that route.

Why these at this time?