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

[ac6000cw]

I personally think that the C2-2 is the most logical of routes as it is pretty much through open farm land on the level. I can completely see why people would want the line to go via Cambourne and St. Neots but going that way would require much more engineering and increase the end to end journey times of East - West journeys. Having to create a triangle at Coldhams Lane would also add to the cost and complications of it all and give politicians an excuse to pull the whole scheme. Finding freight paths between Coldhams Lane and north of Waterbeach would be painful too

I agree - and I think the original idea was that E-W rail project would pay for grade-separating Shepreth Branch Junction, four tracking from there into Cambridge - which then unlocks the capacity for a sensible Cambridge South station service.

Also I thought E-W rail was meant to be about running fast inter-urban services - why do people want to keep cluttering it up with stopping trains and stations every 2 miles in an attempt to solve the local transport problems around Cambridge? I think building a modern light rail system from (say) St. Neots to Haverhill (and maybe add Newmarket and St. Ives/Huntingdon later on) would be a much better way of solving that problem - connections between trams, trains and buses at the three Cambridge area stations should tie the system together nicely.

(Off-topic, but I can't help feeling that a park-and ride/parkway station between Waterbeach and Ely, maybe where the A1123 road crosses the railway - "Stretham Parkway" maybe - might be a useful addition to the local rail system, given the amount of commuting traffic on the A10 north of Cambridge).

 

[Tobbes]

Also I thought E-W rail was meant to be about running fast inter-urban services - why do people want to keep cluttering it up with stopping trains and stations every 2 miles in an attempt to solve the local transport problems around Cambridge?

Fast inter-urban services will obviously feature, but a double track mainline is perfectly capable of supporting a clockface timetable of both, surely?

Eg:

xx:00 Cambs - Oxford fast calling at Cambridge North, Bedford and Bletchley HL only (starts from Stansted)
xx:15 Cambs - Oxford calling all stations
xx:30 Cambs - Oxford fast calling at Cambridge North, Bedford and Bletchley HL only (starts from Ipswich)
xx:45 Cambs - Oxford calling all stations

Two of these are essentially local services providing 2 tph throughout and two are inter-regional express services. Now, whether there is the latent demand for such an intensive service, I don't know - but the X5 coach runs half-hourly all day, taking more than three hours to do the Oxford - Cambrige trip - a c. 75 min Cambs - Oxford time will be very attractive indeed (as would be Oxford - Stansted in 100 mins), so you could see substantial passenger growth.

I think building a modern light rail system from (say) St. Neots to Haverhill (and maybe add Newmarket and St. Ives/Huntingdon later on) would be a much better way of solving that problem - connections between trams, trains and buses at the three Cambridge area stations should tie the system together nicely.

I'd much prefer to see Haverhill as heavy rail as a prelude to reconnecting to Sudbury, but a Cambridge tram is a great idea.

 

[sammorris]

Also I thought E-W rail was meant to be about running fast inter-urban services - why do people want to keep cluttering it up with stopping trains and stations every 2 miles in an attempt to solve the local transport problems around Cambridge?

If I recall rightly the reports on viability say that local commuter traffic is what - primarily - would make the line viable. Long distance express services into East Anglia from the west are important, but there won't be the market for such frequent express services that they prevent local traffic, I've have thought.

In favour of the Cambourne route, there's also the very active plan (going with the upgrade of the road) for two new cities the size of Oxford along the A421/A428 corridor between Oxford and Cambridge, one of which I'm guessing could well be Cambourne. If that's really a plan the government are serious about, it would be crazy to send the railway through open countryside miles to the south, especially given there's no viable existing alignment to use that way either, and as others have highlighted it's no saving to join the line going into Cambridge from the south because it would need a major upgrade to take the extra traffic.

 

[Tobbes]

In favour of the Cambourne route, there's also the very active plan (going with the upgrade of the road) for two new cities the size of Oxford along the A421/A428 corridor between Oxford and Cambridge, one of which I'm guessing could well be Cambourne. If that's really a plan the government are serious about, it would be crazy to send the railway through open countryside miles to the south, especially given there's no viable existing alignment to use that way either, and as others have highlighted it's no saving to join the line going into Cambridge from the south because it would need a major upgrade to take the extra traffic.

If the Cambourne routing can be made to work from an engineering perspective at something like a reasonable figure, then all of the advantages you outline come into play, @sammorris. My expectation though is that the four tracking to Sheppreth Junction and a conversion of Sheppreth to a flying juction will happen anyway because of the need to build Cambridge South / Addenbrookes Station - as usual, there will presumably be a tedious and time consuming argument over which project pays for it.

 

[camflyer]

There have been a lot of talk about how to fix transport within the "Greater Cambridge" area but unfortunately the city council are just obsessed with bus lanes and cycling. That may be fine for the local residents but doesn't do much for those commuting in from Newmarket, Cambourne and Haverhill (who, of course, aren't Cambridge City taxpayers). Light rail, similar to that proposed by Cambridge Connect (http://www.cambridge-connect.uk/connect-light-rail/) has to be to be the most sensible solution and one which would integrate well into East-West Rail

Cambridge is one of the wealthiest and fastest growing cities in the country (if not Europe) with some of the best brains in the world. Surely it should be capable of implementing a proper 21st Century transport system.

 

[eastdyke]

There have been a lot of talk about how to fix transport within the "Greater Cambridge" area but unfortunately the city council are just obsessed with bus lanes and cycling. That may be fine for the local residents but doesn't do much for those commuting in from Newmarket, Cambourne and Haverhill (who, of course, aren't Cambridge City taxpayers). Light rail, similar to that proposed by Cambridge Connect (http://www.cambridge-connect.uk/connect-light-rail/) has to be to be the most sensible solution and one which would integrate well into East-West Rail

Cambridge is one of the wealthiest and fastest growing cities in the country (if not Europe) with some of the best brains in the world. Surely it should be capable of implementing a proper 21st Century transport system.

We already have another thread on this somewhere.
Cambridge Connect would seem to be sidelined? No 'News' has been added on their website since May 17.
Cambridge is not big enough to warrant or accommodate a tram system. They picture a lovely tram (in a wide Paris Boulevard), it wouldn't fit most of the Centre streets and tunnels are very expensive (although another report assures that Cambridge sits on ideal tunnelling ground).
A lot of Cambridge is indeed very wealthy, much of the wealth controlled by the very Colleges who would vigourously seek to avoid any tunnels under 'their' land.
Somebody needs to improve and extend the P&R's and then sort out the cars (I note that all Council Car Parks allow blue badge holders 3 hours free parking - to avoid paying they cruise the streets or form long queues). I am happy for blue badge holders to have some priority but free in one of the wealthiest Cities in Europe?
I see that some Council Car parks now charge an extra 50p an hour for cars arriving between 8 and 10am. 50p?
Methinks the Council needs some better Brians (sic).

 

[Tobbes]

We already have another thread on this somewhere.
Cambridge Connect would seem to be sidelined? No 'News' has been added on their website since May 17.
Cambridge is not big enough to warrant or accommodate a tram system. They picture a lovely tram (in a wide Paris Boulevard), it wouldn't fit most of the Centre streets and tunnels are very expensive (although another report assures that Cambridge sits on ideal tunnelling ground).
A lot of Cambridge is indeed very wealthy, much of the wealth controlled by the very Colleges who would vigourously seek to avoid any tunnels under 'their' land.
Somebody needs to improve and extend the P&R's and then sort out the cars (I note that all Council Car Parks allow blue badge holders 3 hours free parking - to avoid paying they cruise the streets or form long queues). I am happy for blue badge holders to have some priority but free in one of the wealthiest Cities in Europe?
I see that some Council Car parks now charge an extra 50p an hour for cars arriving between 8 and 10am. 50p?
Methinks the Council needs some better Brians (sic).

I'm pretty sure the Colleges would be up for the tram on route 1 if the tunnel wouldn't affect buildings at ground level. The Cambs Connet proposal is pretty sensible, but I thought that Cambs council was too wedded to buses (including the ridiculous busways) to be heavily pro-tram.

 

[mr_jrt]

Given the space available and the existing curvature I still don't see how Shepreth branch junction can be grade separated in-situ...best I can see is 4 lines running parallel for a short distance and a single track flyover being built that would have to get the line up and down again before the MGB bridge at Addenbrookes. Is there room for that?

 

[Tobbes]

Given the space available and the existing curvature I still don't see how Shepreth branch junction can be grade separated in-situ...best I can see is 4 lines running parallel for a short distance and a single track flyover being built that would have to get the line up and down again before the MGB bridge at Addenbrookes. Is there room for that?

Dive under on the diverging Royston lines?

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh dear! Yet again we have a situation of a pressing public transport need and the experts telling us that any solution is definitely in the "too difficult" box. Forget the need for congestion and pollution reduction, or decarbonisation of transport, it just can't be done.
We are going to have to learn to box clever (or cleverer than we do now anyway) and get more use out of the network we have. If the Belgians can run multi-portion trains all over their network all day - I know I am exaggerating a bit - we ought to be able to up our game.
So: upgrade the power supply. Lengthen all possible platforms and make all trains 8 or 12 coaches as soon justified.
Start portion working to get the most options out of the network capacity, e.g. Stanstead northbound in this context, which could split at Cambridge (or further north) for Bedford, Brum and Liverpool every hour or alternately. It will take money, but that's a fact of life if we want a decent infrastructure that doesn't strangle or poison us..

I didn’t say it was too difficult. All is said is that it isn’t as simple as saying (and I paraphrase) that we can just put more trains down the existing line. Stuff needs to be done!

Also, the decarbonisation of the transport system, and consequent reduction in pollution, will be happening at a fair rate over the next two decades.

 

[AndrewE]

I didn’t say it was too difficult. All is said is that it isn’t as simple as saying (and I paraphrase) that we can just put more trains down the existing line. Stuff needs to be done!
Also, the decarbonisation of the transport system, and consequent reduction in pollution, will be happening at a fair rate over the next two decades.

Really? Remind me when the NE SW axis will be wired, or the withdrawal date for Voyagers?

And it is by no means the only thing. Even if the tunnel was doubled, there is no space for more trains on the route to London, and as frequently explained elsewhere on this thread and others, there’s no space for more trains on the southern approaches to Cambridge.

sounds quite final to me. Which is why I asked why we can't squeeze a quart into our pint pot, by running longer trains, adopting portion working, using whatever suitable rolling stock is currently available etc.

 

[MarkyT]

Given the space available and the existing curvature I still don't see how Shepreth branch junction can be grade separated in-situ...best I can see is 4 lines running parallel for a short distance and a single track flyover being built that would have to get the line up and down again before the MGB bridge at Addenbrookes. Is there room for that?

I'd go for something like this with two directional islands and four tracks. Up trains heading for Royston could wait as neccessary in the 'right turn lane' while trains to Stansted and Liverpool Street could pass them. In the down direction, trains from Royston and Stansted could arrive simultaneously without conflict.

 

[The Ham]

Also, the decarbonisation of the transport system, and consequent reduction in pollution, will be happening at a fair rate over the next two decades.

Really? Remind me when the NE SW axis will be wired, or the withdrawal date for Voyagers?

I'll start with the easier of the two, at the next two decades the 22x fleet will be pushing 40. Even if all of them haven't been withdrawn there's a fair chance that some of them will have been. However many will be replaced on their current diagrams. If nothing else running them as pairs is more fuel efficiency than running them in their own.

As to when will the NE to SW be electrified that is a much harder question to answer, however after the opening of HS2 there could be a desire to run wires to Exeter or even Plymouth to enable passengers to benefit from HS2 on the Leeds - Birmingham leg when traveling to the SW. Given that the GWR services (at least those run by 80x) are likely to benefit from such wires, the business case could be fairly good.

However, given we only really kind of know what's planned until 2025 we can't be sure about what will happen by 2038. Although we can be fairly sure that there's likely to be more wires and more of the power that generated will be from renewable energy sources (so even if there's no more wires the energy mix powering those trains will be greener).

It should be noted that trains are only part of the transport system and cars are likely to be much greener by 2038, as there's likely to be a lot more electric cars by then.

 

[Tobbes]

To meet the UK's emmissions targets, decarbonising transport is essential, and in order of ease will be rail, road, air; as a result, I'm expecting the electrification programme to be stepped up with only the most rural lines never being electrified. Ideally, this will take the form of a steady-state number of route kilometers done annually, and just carry on until the job is done.

 

[AndrewE]

To meet the UK's emmissions targets, decarbonising transport is essential, and in order of ease will be rail, road, air; as a result, I'm expecting the electrification programme to be stepped up with only the most rural lines never being electrified. Ideally, this will take the form of a steady-state number of route kilometers done annually, and just carry on until the job is done.

That would be nice... do you detect any sign at all that we might be gearing up to do it? Electrification is being scaled back, if I remember correctly.
Road: Trolley buses, trams would be good, even a big programme of new energy-efficient hybrid buses... Heard anything about a fleet renewal scheme yet? How financially secure are the local authorities that might want to push for it?
A transport strategy that addresses congestion and health? Forget it, we're all for "small government" and low taxes. Transport planning is so passe.

 

[Tobbes]

That would be nice... do you detect any sign at all that we might be gearing up to do it? Electrification is being scaled back, if I remember correctly.
Road: Trolley buses, trams would be good, even a big programme of new energy-efficient hybrid buses... Heard anything about a fleet renewal scheme yet? How financially secure are the local authorities that might want to push for it?
A transport strategy that addresses congestion and health? Forget it, we're all for "small government" and low taxes. Transport planning is so passe.

On trolleybuses (or more likely, Euro VI diesel hybrids optionally powered from overhead), keep an eye on the London mayoral race; ditto trams - especially Cross River Tram which I expect to make a comeback when it is clear that no other scheme offers a material uplift in distribution from Euston by 2026 when HS2 Phase 1 opens. Given that London's buses are normally cascaded nationally, Euro VI hybrids will become a defacto national standard by 2025 (and whatever cleaner standard replaces Euro VI).

On mainline electrification, I expect that there will be a rolling programme for late CP6 through CP8/9. It would be interesting to see the point at which diesel islands become inefficent - and what difference the widerspread adoption of bimodes makes to this calculation. But rail will remain one of the cheapest methods of decarbonising transport, so it will continue.

 

[ac6000cw]

Fast inter-urban services will obviously feature, but a double track mainline is perfectly capable of supporting a clockface timetable of both, surely?

Eg:

xx:00 Cambs - Oxford fast calling at Cambridge North, Bedford and Bletchley HL only (starts from Stansted)
xx:15 Cambs - Oxford calling all stations
xx:30 Cambs - Oxford fast calling at Cambridge North, Bedford and Bletchley HL only (starts from Ipswich)
xx:45 Cambs - Oxford calling all stations

Two of these are essentially local services providing 2 tph throughout and two are inter-regional express services. Now, whether there is the latent demand for such an intensive service, I don't know - but the X5 coach runs half-hourly all day, taking more than three hours to do the Oxford - Cambrige trip - a c. 75 min Cambs - Oxford time will be very attractive indeed (as would be Oxford - Stansted in 100 mins), so you could see substantial passenger growth.

I'd much prefer to see Haverhill as heavy rail as a prelude to reconnecting to Sudbury, but a Cambridge tram is a great idea.

If you are going to be serious about providing a 'get people out of their cars' local transport service (particularly between the peaks), in my opinion it has to run at least every 15 minutes i.e. so you don't have to worry to much about the timetable. Otherwise for shorter journeys the prospect of having to wait another 25 minutes - when you've just missed a 2tph service - is a perfect inducement to use their existing car/bike/shared driverless taxi etc. instead of your expensively provided new railway. I suspect you'll need substantial off-peak business to make the financial numbers work.

As Bald Rick suggests, the rail infrastructure in the Cambridge area is getting very close to capacity, so any substantial additions to the flow of trains through it (like 4-6 tph in each direction to/from E-W rail) will effectively have to pay for some v.expensive upgrades in the area (irrespective of where the actual new line joins the existing ones). So the 'A428' EWR routing wouldn't really avoid it having to contribute substantial finance to improving the 'south of Cambridge' situation - and the EWR trains would want to serve Cambridge South station anyway, as that area is becoming a huge employment centre as well as generating lots of non-staff hospital related journeys.

 

[ac6000cw]

We already have another thread on this somewhere.
Cambridge Connect would seem to be sidelined? No 'News' has been added on their website since May 17.
Cambridge is not big enough to warrant or accommodate a tram system. They picture a lovely tram (in a wide Paris Boulevard), it wouldn't fit most of the Centre streets and tunnels are very expensive (although another report assures that Cambridge sits on ideal tunnelling ground).
A lot of Cambridge is indeed very wealthy, much of the wealth controlled by the very Colleges who would vigourously seek to avoid any tunnels under 'their' land.
Somebody needs to improve and extend the P&R's and then sort out the cars (I note that all Council Car Parks allow blue badge holders 3 hours free parking - to avoid paying they cruise the streets or form long queues). I am happy for blue badge holders to have some priority but free in one of the wealthiest Cities in Europe?
I see that some Council Car parks now charge an extra 50p an hour for cars arriving between 8 and 10am. 50p?
Methinks the Council needs some better Brians (sic).

My 'light rail' suggestion was about connecting the 'hinterland' to Cambridge, not so much about providing services within the city - it's very long been the case that a lot of people employed in the immediate Cambridge area have lived in the surrounding villages and towns (mostly because the housing is cheaper). At the current congestion level of the main roads into the 'hinterland', park and ride car parks are much better than doing nothing, but they don't really solve the outlying traffic congestion problem - *much* better local public transport might, be it light rail or dedicated busways. (I'm not a busway denigrator - it's probably the best thing that has happened to *local* public transport in the area in the 38 years I've lived there, despite all the 'it's not steel wheels on steel rails' snobbishness displayed by some people).

 

[mr_jrt]

Dive under on the diverging Royston lines?

I'm not too confident about the ground conditions. Also, you have the (relatively) new build on the triangle between the two lines butting right up against the tracks, meaning you would need something hefty to support their foundations. A diveunder also means the line would have to close for the duration of the construction as there is no room whatsoever to maintain the existing lines - the whole branch would have to dive down.

EDIT: I may be misremembering this - it's been a long time since I commuted that way, and bing maps doesn't seem to show things as close as I remember seeing them from the train!

 

[Tobbes]

I'm not too confident about the ground conditions. Also, you have the (relatively) new build on the triangle between the two lines butting right up against the tracks, meaning you would need something hefty to support their foundations. A diveunder also means the line would have to close for the duration of the construction as there is no room whatsoever to maintain the existing lines - the whole branch would have to dive down.

EDIT: I may be misremembering this - it's been a long time since I commuted that way, and bing maps doesn't seem to show things as close as I remember seeing them from the train!

It's pretty close, and yes there would presumably have to be a blockade - a pain when it happened but the benefits are significant. And some sort of rail service to London could be maintained via Ipswich, but I presume that they'd simply run a bus connection to Royston and and Shelford (unless NR is run by historians with crayons, and someone fancies relaying the Balsham Road - Great Chesterford line - closed 1851, with a West-South curve, allowing Cambridge trains to rejoin WAML at Great Chesterford.....)

 

[ac6000cw]

Just move the 'Shelford' tracks a little bit further east (to make space for 4 tracks, 2 Foxton+2 Shelford) then put the flyover/dive-under in the open land to the north of the junction. If you keep a 'flat' route through the junction for the odd freight train (Hitchin-style), the gradients can be quite steep as only high-performance EMUs/Bi-Modes need to use the 'ramps', reducing the length/cost/land-take.

But someone needs to ensure the land etc. needed to do this is reserved ASAP, otherwise (at the current rate of Cambridge expansion) it'll get built on well before EWR construction gets started...

 

[Tobbes]

But someone needs to ensure the land etc. needed to do this is reserved ASAP, otherwise (at the current rate of Cambridge expansion) it'll get built on well before EWR construction gets started...

Safeguarding is an excellent point.

 

[sammorris]

If you are going to be serious about providing a 'get people out of their cars' local transport service (particularly between the peaks), in my opinion it has to run at least every 15 minutes i.e. so you don't have to worry to much about the timetable. Otherwise for shorter journeys the prospect of having to wait another 25 minutes - when you've just missed a 2tph service - is a perfect inducement to use their existing car/bike/shared driverless taxi etc. instead of your expensively provided new railway. I suspect you'll need substantial off-peak business to make the financial numbers work.

It's a fair point, and in nearly every other situation I'd agree. But you have to bear in mind that Cambridge is very, very inconvenient for drivers anyway. Unlike in a lot of cities, you can't just drive in and park in a nice convenient spot for a couple of pounds and pop to the shops. It's Park and Ride for most people, plus traffic jams getting to the Park and Ride, and traffic jams in the bus on the way in and back out - and that applies as much during school emptying time (2-4pm) as it does during the rush hours. Doing it as a regular commute is hideous.

You'll not find any problem at all, I would predict (having tried to commute from Cottenham into the city for work for a couple of months, a few years ago), in getting people to stop driving to the Park and Ride from that direction or from Cambourne. Whether the resulting custom would pay for an entirely new rail route, to be fair I don't know.

 

[eastdyke]

My 'light rail' suggestion was about connecting the 'hinterland' to Cambridge, not so much about providing services within the city - it's very long been the case that a lot of people employed in the immediate Cambridge area have lived in the surrounding villages and towns (mostly because the housing is cheaper). At the current congestion level of the main roads into the 'hinterland', park and ride car parks are much better than doing nothing, but they don't really solve the outlying traffic congestion problem - *much* better local public transport might, be it light rail or dedicated busways. (I'm not a busway denigrator - it's probably the best thing that has happened to *local* public transport in the area in the 38 years I've lived there, despite all the 'it's not steel wheels on steel rails' snobbishness displayed by some people).

I understand the importance of Cambridge as centre of a much larger 'hinterland' which provides a good chunk of the workforce and also uses some of the services, leisure and of course academia. I used to go there regularly around 20 years ago and had to use Lion Yard CP (I think it's Royal Arcade now) for around £13 per day. Had to arrive around 7am to beat the traffic.
Trouble is you can't do light rail from enough points of the compass and then where does it go? Trams can't provide economic uplift for relatively small numbers (especially off-peak) and cannot get near to enough dwellings. Buses do it so much better.
Some P&R provision needs to be further out, bigger and buses need to go to more places than the pure centre. Bus routes have to be improved and someone needs to pay for better buses and frequency from the 'hinterland', see next.
Then you sort the cars out. Close at least 1 of the City Centre Car Parks (make a statement) and invoke a C charge (make a bigger statement, concentrate the mind and get some money in). Cambridge has had a traffic problem for so long that I am sure that it is only Parish Politics and 'the desire to get re-elected' that has got us to this point. And the new(ish) position of Cambridge/Peterborough Mayor is not helpful, too many conflicts and not enough clout.
E-W Rail can/will certainly help, my scribblings on that tomorrow.

 

[eastdyke]

Following on, I see today that the Chief Exec. of the Peterborough & Cambridge Combined Authority has left post. Reasons unclear but follows 'an absence'. Doesn't sound encouraging.
Cambridge Independent story:
http://www.cambridgeindependent.co....d-authority-chief-executive-departs-1-5672650
Back to rail, I am struggling to come to terms with the enormity of the numbers (of proposed houses) in the plans. Around 1million homes by 2050 in the OxMkCa arc. (Oxford/Milton Keynes/Cambridge).

Help needed please, by explaining how anybody can be putting a line on a map for Bedford - Cambridge without any idea of where developments (that include the possibility of new 'town(s)' for up to 150,000 people) will actually be placed? Surely no one is going to get behind any route on that basis?
The plans want infrastructure for 30 years growth to 2050 that is futureproofed for upgrade after that. All the assumptions seen seem to suggest that beyond a Shepreth Branch Junction improvement and building Cambridge South everything can be made to cope.
This as we know ignores level crossings and the basic two track alignment in and out of Cambridge.

My numbers are coming out suggesting that Cambridge station itself will need to handle trains for double the current passenger numbers for 2050 (up to around 23million pa) pretty sure that could not be made to work, quite apart from the need to handle those numbers City side. (In perspective that's around Edinburgh Waverley numbers).

I conclude that Cambridge will need a new station, probably a terminus (but possibly not) to handle the terminating/starting services for E/W Rail plus some of those from GN/Thameslink.
If placed to the west that would avoid the need to do too much at Shepreth Branch Junction, for which the suggestion of @MarkyT could work well in conjunction with South Station.
The paths freed up by diverting the GN/Thameslink terminators would be used by the E/W through services to the East. This does pre-suppose that E/W will come into Cambridge from the SW, it could be made to also accomodate a light rail route from the A428 corridor.
It's been a while since I visited, but there is I think a possible area inside the M11 for a station. That is, north of Barton Road and to the north of the 100+ha site proposed by an owners consortium for housing and open spaces (it's all green belt right now).

Whether a Gare de l'Ouest is/is not to be part of a futureproofed East/West Rail needs to be determined or discounted pretty soon now. If my numbers are right, I for one would not want to commute in or out of Cambridge in 2050 without it.

The numbers have been driving me even more mad than usual (and it probably shows!). I'll re-work my assumptions and numbers with a bit of detail and follow up after the weekend.
Any comments greatfully received.
Bit more than a couple of 1st gen. Derby Lightweights, yes?

 

[deltic08]

Oh dear! Yet again we have a situation of a pressing public transport need and the experts telling us that any solution is definitely in the "too difficult" box. Forget the need for congestion and pollution reduction, or decarbonisation of transport, it just can't be done.
We are going to have to learn to box clever (or cleverer than we do now anyway) and get more use out of the network we have. If the Belgians can run multi-portion trains all over their network all day - I know I am exaggerating a bit - we ought to be able to up our game.
So: upgrade the power supply. Lengthen all possible platforms and make all trains 8 or 12 coaches as soon justified.
Start portion working to get the most options out of the network capacity, e.g. Stanstead northbound in this context, which could split at Cambridge (or further north) for Bedford, Brum and Liverpool every hour or alternately. It will take money, but that's a fact of life if we want a decent infrastructure that doesn't strangle or poison us..

Well said, someone had to. We give up too easily but it needs doing.

 

[B&I]

Can someone please explain to me why, if the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge axis is the tremendous, self-evident economic success story we are always being told about, it has not generated sufficient funds to re-open a railway line ? Something here does not add up

 

[jimm]

Can someone please explain to me why, if the Oxford-Milton Keynes-Cambridge axis is the tremendous, self-evident economic success story we are always being told about, it has not generated sufficient funds to re-open a railway line ? Something here does not add up

Well we could try the fact that it's not in London (or Wales or Scotland) and that from the 1980s until fairly recently, ministers kept insisting the project was a matter for the multiple local authorities scattered along the route, not that it would give them any money to progress it. Then once the Government had taken an interest, the DfT seems unable to stop sticking its oar in.

In France or Germany, the whole thing would have been driven along by two or three large regional authorities that do not have the central government breathing down their necks all the time and with its hands on the purse strings, as happens in England.

 

[DarloRich]

to be honest: i don't really care about the route from Bedford to Cambridge. I am not sure it will be built.

 

[aylesbury]

This project has been in planning ,talks for over twenty five years and has received knock backs by govt on many occasions but the people concerned have been very tenacious. I agree about Germany this would have been an important project would have been up and running long ago. As to Bedford Cambridge I think that this will take a long time and many arguments before rails are laid .