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

[Julia]

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

To be fair, what the timetable says and what happens in reality are completely unrelated - the A428 (from the A1 to Caxton Gibbet) starts jamming up from about 0630 and remains that way until about 0900, especially in term time. Same again on the descent from Madingley to the M11.

 

[Comstock]

Back in '33 ,when NRES was still based in Derby, I was forever getting calls for these sorts of journies, and I had to explain why they weren't possible, except if you went via London. I developed quite a nice line of patter on the subject!

It's probably too late now, but they should can HS2 and build a medium to high speed line from Southampton to Harwich via Oxford, MK, Bedford, Cambridge and Ipswich. You could call it the southern powerhouse or something

 

[HowardGWR]

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

No, that's not the one I meant. The one I meant was at Bedford and was a compromise whereby instead of bypassing the MML, IIRC, a junction was made with the MML south of Bedford and then left the MML to curve round to St Johns via a chord near the Ouse. The idea was that reversal would be avoided and a new station created..

I've found it (in post #14).


http://www.townend.me/files/EWR-bedford.pdf

Neat, n'est-ce-pas?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On justification, clearly, the BCR has to be achieved for the 'central' section, but with all the local authorities on board, it will be a brave government that itself resists the implementation.

 

[DerekC]

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

So coming up with bright ideas for reducing the cost of a route via the Sandy corridor is not so silly. "20 miles of new alignment" sounds a bit OTT.

 

[Class 170101]

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

And have few Intercity services serving them if any.

 

[whittlesfordok]

The amount of housebuilding already done here plus the proposed housebuilding will mean that the Sandy to Cambridge line should go near these developments.

 

[edwin_m]

The amount of housebuilding already done here plus the proposed housebuilding will mean that the Sandy to Cambridge line should go near these developments.

Have housing locations west of Cambridge been agreed and if so where (excluding the A14 corridor which isn't relevant here)? It would be sensible to plan these around new railway stations rather than to try to insert the railway after the housing has been built.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why these at this time?

Perhaps they intend it to be a normal route for ECS moves at start and end of the day's service? Could just be easier to path a few that way (although I'm not sure of the layout at Aylesbury depot).

 

[yorksrob]

It's been quite amusing reading some of the contortions people will go through to come up with excuses for not linking Oxford/Milton Keynes/Bedford/South West with Cambridge/Stanstead Airport/Norwich/Ipswich/Felixtowe.

"Cambridge is a village" is the best one.

 

[mr_jrt]

No, that's not the one I meant. The one I meant was at Bedford and was a compromise whereby instead of bypassing the MML, IIRC, a junction was made with the MML south of Bedford and then left the MML to curve round to St Johns via a chord near the Ouse. The idea was that reversal would be avoided and a new station created..

I've found it (in post #14).


http://www.townend.me/files/EWR-bedford.pdf

Neat, n'est-ce-pas?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
On justification, clearly, the BCR has to be achieved for the 'central' section, but with all the local authorities on board, it will be a brave government that itself resists the implementation.

That's the same one? Page #3 starts on post #31, which links to.... http://www.townend.me/files/EWR-bedford.pdf



Regardless, I think heading north from Bedford makes more sense. They're adding new platforms for EWR and the route will be essentially new build east of St John's, so you may as well serve the main station and avoid the reversal.

You could still try his connection, but there is merit in keeping EWR segregated from the MML purely from a capacity perspective, and one wonders if there would be any merit in adding a station or two the south side of Bedford where the current line runs as a feeder to the main station.

 

[whittlesfordok]

Cambourne population is around plus they trying for 1200 more houses.
At Bourne airfield which is next to cambourne 3,500house are planned

 

[edwin_m]

Cambourne population is around plus they trying for 1200 more houses.
At Bourne airfield which is next to cambourne 3,500house are planned

Cambourne is about 2 miles north of the old alignment, which is too far for commuting when it is 6 or 7 miles into Cambridge along a dual carriageway. Although Bourn itself is closer to the railway, Bourn Airfield is east of Cambourne, so no nearer the railway than Cambourne but nearer to Cambridge.

What this needs is some joined-up planning to consider all factors in choosing the best alignment including the possibility of extra housing in areas that could be served by new stations and are suitable in all other respects. Then, assuming a route is agreed, designating those adjacent areas for housing in preference to others with less good transport links.

 

[deltic08]

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.

I have my own favourite reinstatement proposal but if this one gets off the ground before mine I would still be happy. There has to be an increase in rail capacity for growth to continue at an average 6% per annum when many routes are already optimised.

 

[ac6000cw]

Cambourne is about 2 miles north of the old alignment, which is too far for commuting when it is 6 or 7 miles into Cambridge along a dual carriageway. Although Bourn itself is closer to the railway, Bourn Airfield is east of Cambourne, so no nearer the railway than Cambourne but nearer to Cambridge.

What this needs is some joined-up planning to consider all factors in choosing the best alignment including the possibility of extra housing in areas that could be served by new stations and are suitable in all other respects. Then, assuming a route is agreed, designating those adjacent areas for housing in preference to others with less good transport links.

The aim of major developments around Cambridge like Cambourne (and Northstowe) is to provide more and affordable housing for the local area. Making them more attractive to London commuters by providing a station with a fast route to London (by interchange at Sandy) starts to defeat the point of them. But I don't think it's likely the final route will go that far north anyway - it would make it more difficult/expensive to connect to the existing system than going via Shepreth/Foxton.

 

[edwin_m]

The aim of major developments around Cambridge like Cambourne (and Northstowe) is to provide more and affordable housing for the local area. Making them more attractive to London commuters by providing a station with a fast route to London (by interchange at Sandy) starts to defeat the point of them. But I don't think it's likely the final route will go that far north anyway - it would make it more difficult/expensive to connect to the existing system than going via Shepreth/Foxton.

I was referring to commuting into Cambridge - sorry if I didn't make this clear. A drive of a couple of miles to a station would be insignificant in the context of commuting to London (indeed I think people would drive a bit further to an ECML station rather than changing trains at Sandy). However if the train journey is only five or six miles then I don't see people driving two miles out of their way to catch it. It really needs housing to be within walk or cycle distance of a station.

 

[ac6000cw]

A drive of a couple of miles to a station would be insignificant in the context of commuting to London (indeed I think people would drive a bit further to an ECML station rather than changing trains at Sandy). However if the train journey is only five or six miles then I don't see people driving two miles out of their way to catch it. It really needs housing to be within walk or cycle distance of a station.

Sorry - I was basically agreeing with you re. Cambourne. My main point was that with the considerable improvements in medium distance rail services to/from London, almost any 'local' transport improvement that makes London commuting easier as a side-effect will have undesirable effects on local property prices. The direct interchange of the Guided Bus system with the railway system at Cambridge North will make places along the Guided Bus route of much more interest to London commuters, for example.

I was looking at the available width of 'railway' land under the two new bridges over it in the Addenbrookes hospital area the other day - it looks like they have allowed space for more tracks to be added between Cambridge station and Shepreth Branch Junction (where the KGX and LST lines diverge), so that's good. Maybe effectively that junction will move much closer to Cambridge station one day?

 

[edwin_m]

I was looking at the available width of 'railway' land under the two new bridges over it in the Addenbrookes hospital area the other day - it looks like they have allowed space for more tracks to be added between Cambridge station and Shepreth Branch Junction (where the KGX and LST lines diverge), so that's good. Maybe effectively that junction will move much closer to Cambridge station one day?

The ideal situation would be four-tracking from Shepreth Branch right through to Cambridge, in which case the EWR trains could run into the south-west bays without conflict. Unfortunately, looking at the aerial mapping, I think the busway has nabbed just enough land to make that impossible for a section near the University Press building.

I haven't been to Cambridge since they built the island platform, but it occurs to me that it could now be operated with through trains using the outermost platforms and some terminating trains using the middle one. I don't know if they actually do this but if they did it would reduce conflict compared with using bays on the west side, and might therefore give a bit more the capacity on the existing double track a bit.

The other thing to consider is that EWR is supposed to continue east of Cambridge, though it's not clear to me exactly where. Thus the west side bays would only be a temporary solution.

All this needs thinking about and deciding before they determine what combination of extra track and grade separation to go for.

 

[mr_jrt]

I commuted into Cambridge during the busway's construction - so got a fairly good view twice a day! The rail corridor under Hills Road through to Shepreth branch junction is fine for four tracks, even under the MGB bridge at Addenbrookes. The Long Road bridge will need rebuilding, but the gap is wide enough (just has a couple of unfortunate supports in the way that probably means a newer deck will be required).

Unfortunately, the WAML and the Shepreth branch could really do with being disentangled themselves, so you would in effect require 6 tracks, which is effectively what you would have if the railway reacquired the southern busway section. The widened Hills Road bridge isn't going to help at all though, so there would still be just 4 lines possible there. Maybe a single-track could diverge to use the newer bridge opening to access the bays, leaving the 4 main lines for the 4 main through platforms? I would imagine the conflicts would be horrendous though.

When I used to go through there I felt it was a shame the lovely station building couldn't be relocated a few metres towards the town during the redevelopment - you would lose the turning circle, but you could link up the bays, giving you more through platforms. Pipe dream I know, but passenger flows back then were such a nightmare after they introduced the ticket gates you used to wonder what they could do to handle them.

 

[ac6000cw]

I can envisage 4 tracks between Shepreth Branch junction and Cambridge, but not 6 - that's serious big-city stuff . If 4 tracks is enough for Birmingham New Street (east end) I think it would more than enough for Cambridge.

Given that the old railway between Bedford and Cambridge was basically a (partly single-track?) secondary/branch line, and a lot of the trackbed has long been sold off/destroyed/built on, the fact that it used to approach the city via what is now Trumpington Park & Ride car park is almost irrelevant to the route a modern double-track 100/125mph railway might take. My guess is that it will take the route of 'least resistance' i.e. the one that minimises the disturbance to housing and communities.

 

[mr_jrt]

I can envisage 4 tracks between Shepreth Branch junction and Cambridge, but not 6 - that's serious big-city stuff . If 4 tracks is enough for Birmingham New Street (east end) I think it would more than enough for Cambridge.

Given that the old railway between Bedford and Cambridge was basically a (partly single-track?) secondary/branch line, and a lot of the trackbed has long been sold off/destroyed/built on, the fact that it used to approach the city via what is now Trumpington Park & Ride car park is almost irrelevant to the route a modern double-track 100/125mph railway might take. My guess is that it will take the route of 'least resistance' i.e. the one that minimises the disturbance to housing and communities.

We shall see. Given the existing level of congestion then doubling the capacity between Cambridge and the junction will go a long way, but once you add in the EWR services (presumably joining at Shepreth if we can't manage Addenbrookes nor Hills Road), then the section of line between Shepreth and Cambridge will once again have some pretty horrible congestion - let alone when you factor in the WAML traffic.

...and grade separation is impossible here as well - your only viable option to improve things is segregation - 2 tracks for the WAML serving the new island platform and 2 serving the Shepreth branch using the old split platform.

 

[Tobbes]

We shall see. Given the existing level of congestion then doubling the capacity between Cambridge and the junction will go a long way, but once you add in the EWR services (presumably joining at Shepreth if we can't manage Addenbrookes nor Hills Road), then the section of line between Shepreth and Cambridge will once again have some pretty horrible congestion - let alone when you factor in the WAML traffic.

This is why I'd look to bring EWR in from the north via Cambourne and Histon along the busway - not only would it remove the conflict at Shepreth and congestion on the GN KX route - but it would provide a high quality service for the growth areas around Cambourne.

 

[HowardGWR]

This is why I'd look to bring EWR in from the north via Cambourne and Histon along the busway - not only would it remove the conflict at Shepreth and congestion on the GN KX route - but it would provide a high quality service for the growth areas around Cambourne.

How do you get through Potton and is there not a motorway M11 to cross too?

Then, also, E-W trains will be facing the wrong way for further eastern destinations?

Perhaps you could give a bit more detail of your suggestion? It does seem a fairly 'great way round'.

 

[Rational Plan]

Cambridge has turned into one of Europes most successful technology clusters. It's reached the stage where it's attracting ever more companies from around the globe to establish bases.

If this was outside Europe, Cambridge would already have doubled in size and in another 20 years would be on the way to be a city of a million people. But planning controls are stifling in England and not enough houses can be built,land prices are soaring on anything that is designated as building land.

It would be in the National interest for massive investment in road and rail around Cambridge and the elimination of it's Greenbelt and allow it to grow into a major city. But that won't happen.

Instead large new estates will be proposed for neighbouring towns and villages (though still grossly inadequate for demand) and everyone will try an fight every proposal, saying the agree in principle that more housing should be built but not near them.

In any case for demand for travel to other successful towns with their own new technological businesses will grow, such as Oxford, Northampton, Bedford (cranfied) and of course one of the few pro growth towns in the South East, Milton Keynes.

All these cities are experiencing high growth rates and improved highish speed rail services would improve commuting and business linkages between them.

Clusters of couple hundred thousand people every 20 to 30 miles is an ideal rail market.

 

[Tobbes]

How do you get through Potton and is there not a motorway M11 to cross too?

Then, also, E-W trains will be facing the wrong way for further eastern destinations?

Perhaps you could give a bit more detail of your suggestion? It does seem a fairly 'great way round'.

I wouldn't go via Potton - I'd NE to Gamlingay to Cambourne (over the A428) over the A14 to Histon and then reclaim the busway under the A14 to the Science Park and into Cambs from the North. The busway can either be moved, or one or the other could be buried in a cut and cover.

 

[edwin_m]

...and grade separation is impossible here as well - your only viable option to improve things is segregation - 2 tracks for the WAML serving the new island platform and 2 serving the Shepreth branch using the old split platform.

There's nearly 1km between Shepreth Branch Jn and Addenbrookes overbridge, which should be enough to provide a flyover unless it's been too hemmed in by development that may not yet be shown on aerial mapping.

 

[a good off]

Long Road bridge is wide enough for 4 tracks, as is the new Addenbrookes bridge. Before the Cambridge resignalling there were four tracks between Cambridge station and Long Road. The formation of the Up Loop could still be used if the OHLE masts were repositioned.

 

[ac6000cw]

Long Road bridge is wide enough for 4 tracks, as is the new Addenbrookes bridge. Before the Cambridge resignalling there were four tracks between Cambridge station and Long Road. The formation of the Up Loop could still be used if the OHLE masts were repositioned.

Widening north of Shepreth Branch Junction to 4 tracks would a) provide more capacity than just grade separating the junction, b) would be much less visually intrusive than a flyover and c) would probably be less expensive than a flyover. 'Cambridge South' station would almost certainly require it anyway (to counteract the loss of capacity caused by stopping trains there - one of the main reasons it doesn't already exist, besides the fact that it would less than 1.5 miles south of the main station).

Given that the Addenbrookes/Bio-Medical Campus site already is served by a considerable number of bus routes (and the Guided Bus), it's growing rapidly, and at the moment there is space available to do it, there is probably a case for moving the main station to there - 'Birmingham Heartlands' style. You could then design a station to layout to suit tomorrow's traffic patterns instead of being constrained by history and urban development around the current site. That could just become a 'pass through' station to primarily serve the local area, and could release very valuable land east and north of it for other development. You then would have transport hubs north and south of the city which are also major employment sites.

 

[OxtedL]

There have been a variety of interesting ideas on this thread, and I too wait attentively for the actual documentation in May.

Before everyone gets too locked up in their own grand schemes, here are my thoughts on what we can realistically expect:

A Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge line would probably join the Hitchin-Cambridge line some distance west of Shepreth Branch Junction. This is because a) this minimises the length of the new line and b) this gives you the best chance at missing all the villages on the approach to Cambridge. A candidate location for a junction might be the Shepreth/Foxton area — there are no more stations east of there, so putting the junction further east is moot capacity wise anyway.

An interchange station with the ECML might well have been judged too difficult/expensive; the business case for the new line will be very dependent on journey time and not demolishing too many houses. We might expect to see a station on the East-West line serving whichever ECML town it passes near (so i.e. Sandy) but not necessarily part of the existing station. Or perhaps a tentative proposal for something crazy like a Worcester Parkway, although the jury will be out on the benefits of that.

There is plenty of capacity on the two track section between Shepreth Branch Junction and Cambridge for the time being. We are not likely to push past 6tph from each of the Hitchin and Audley End directions for many years, and E-W will be proposing maybe 4tph. That ought to fit fine, and we shouldn't expect any intervention to be proposed here unless it is in the context of a Cambridge South station.

The layout at Cambridge copes fine with current traffic but is sub optimal. The possibility of remodelling the station throats, particularly the southern one, might be examined if it is in the remit of the project.

Some weaknesses with the current layout include that there are presently no parallel moves to the island platforms 7 & 8 from either direction, and the bays at both ends are fed off single track connections. Moving northbound trains round trains parked in platforms 1 and 4 via the through line also presently cuts off 7 & 8 at present as well. A few more connections, or short sections of bidirectional signalling on the mains at both ends of the station would give the signallers much more flexibility to keep trains moving through the station. Interventions here will unlock much more capacity and improve reliability to a much greater extent than four tracking south of the station would.

 

[edwin_m]

There have been a variety of interesting ideas on this thread, and I too wait attentively for the actual documentation in May.

Before everyone gets too locked up in their own grand schemes, here are my thoughts on what we can realistically expect:

A Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge line would probably join the Hitchin-Cambridge line some distance west of Shepreth Branch Junction. This is because a) this minimises the length of the new line and b) this gives you the best chance at missing all the villages on the approach to Cambridge. A candidate location for a junction might be the Shepreth/Foxton area — there are no more stations east of there, so putting the junction further east is moot capacity wise anyway.

An interchange station with the ECML might well have been judged too difficult/expensive; the business case for the new line will be very dependent on journey time and not demolishing too many houses. We might expect to see a station on the East-West line serving whichever ECML town it passes near (so i.e. Sandy) but not necessarily part of the existing station. Or perhaps a tentative proposal for something crazy like a Worcester Parkway, although the jury will be out on the benefits of that.

There is plenty of capacity on the two track section between Shepreth Branch Junction and Cambridge for the time being. We are not likely to push past 6tph from each of the Hitchin and Audley End directions for many years, and E-W will be proposing maybe 4tph. That ought to fit fine, and we shouldn't expect any intervention to be proposed here unless it is in the context of a Cambridge South station.

The layout at Cambridge copes fine with current traffic but is sub optimal. The possibility of remodelling the station throats, particularly the southern one, might be examined if it is in the remit of the project.

Some weaknesses with the current layout include that there are presently no parallel moves to the island platforms 7 & 8 from either direction, and the bays at both ends are fed off single track connections. Moving northbound trains round trains parked in platforms 1 and 4 via the through line also presently cuts off 7 & 8 at present as well. A few more connections, or short sections of bidirectional signalling on the mains at both ends of the station would give the signallers much more flexibility to keep trains moving through the station. Interventions here will unlock much more capacity and improve reliability to a much greater extent than four tracking south of the station would.

Thanks for this.

The signalling at Cambridge dates from the early 80s, and presumably some of the above defects result from trying to avoid changing it too much. Do we know when re-signalling is due?

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks for this.

The signalling at Cambridge dates from the early 80s, and presumably some of the above defects result from trying to avoid changing it too much. Do we know when re-signalling is due?

The control panel dates from the 80s. Much of what lies beneath has been replaced in the last few years, including much of the interlocking which is now mostly SSI.