East West Rail: Bedford - Cambridge will it ever get built?

[zwk500]

I understood this line was planned to support new housing. It was supported because that was desirable, and it was cancelled because that was undesirable. The old priorities will return.

The line is required to support new housing, hence the Cambourne routing. It's not yet been cancelled (it was never finally approved, for one thing), but Shapps has suggested it is shelved.

Maybe the people opposing the line have a vested interest in opposing the housing.

I suspect that the people opposing the line have a vested interest in opposing the housing being proposed near them, e.g. Bedford residents aren't at all worried about development of Cambourne. They'd be perfectly happy with the line as long as they feel the benefit but all the nasty negative effects are felt by other people.

 

[SynthD]

Maybe the people opposing the line have a vested interest in opposing the housing.

Regular NIMBYs, rich NIMBYs (Spencer-owned Althorpe?), suddenly marginal MPs or worthwhile opposing issues like flooding concerns?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I still think around Kempston Hardwick is ripe for an eco town.

 

[A0]

I still think around Kempston Hardwick is ripe for an eco town.

I'd prefer it if they built it around Bletchley.

 

[D365]

Maybe the people opposing the line have a vested interest in opposing the housing.

Ironically, in St Neots the line is facing local opposition, apparently because of noise concerns on behalf of 10,000 houses that aren’t even built yet!

 

[richieb1971]

I still think around Kempston Hardwick is ripe for an eco town.

Kempston hardwick and Stewartby are ripe for rail distribution hubs. Lots of flat land, it is surrounded by or had historic industrial use. For the life of me I don't know why anyone would want to live next door to an incinerator.

A better selling point for EWR is to actually put some freight use on it. Currently it has only through freight on it, but no actual usage for the line itself for large parts of it. All people talk about is homes for this line, but if you think a bit harder you see its near the M1. Isn't there a distribution hub going in at junction 15A on the M1? Green fields gone, when you have brown land and sidings down the road with East West North and South possibilities for freight. Northampton is not an ideal place as it doesn't have east and west possibilities. If we want freight off the roads, why not put a freight hub next to an incinerator, where waste can be fed by train? And goods be be brought very close to the centre of England in Bedfordshire where it can provide jobs without wasting 10 tracks of sidings at Forders?

 

[Magdalia]

The Bio Med campus is a pull, but is it *really* that much of a pull from Bedford / St Neots?

Yes. The Biomedical Campus already employs more than 20000 people, and is expected to exceed 30000. It has very poor road access and limited parking with most travel either by public transport or active travel, particularly cycling.

The Biomedical Campus will eventually include 5 hospitals, 3 of which will be regional not local. Addenbrookes, the Rosie and Royal Papworth are already up and running, the regional cancer and children's hospitals are going through planning. At the same time, the biomedical laboratories are continuing to expand.

St Neots is a population of 30k, so not a traffic destination.

Cambourne is population 8000 + it needs to double or even treble in size to become a viable traffic point.

EWR will make both Cambourne and St Neots dormitories for the Biomedical Campus, in particular affordable housing (of which there is very little in Cambridge) for the workers who care, cook and clean in those 5 hospitals. It won't be possible to staff those hospitals if the workers have nowhere to live and no way to get to and from work.

Cambourne and St Neots will be sources of commuter and hospital traffic into Cambridge. Look at the huge amount of commuter traffic into Cambridge that already exists on the Fen Line, particularly from Ely. EWR will be the same.

But EWR will also give people a direct link to those 3 regional hospitals, for outpatient appointments and visiting their relatives who are inpatients. That also includes Bedford.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The one question in my mind is whether there is any intrinsic value in having a link between the MML and ECML south of Leicester - if there really is the demand to support that, then would North - East curves at Manton address that (which at about 2 miles would be infinitely cheaper than building Bedford - Cambridge) ?

My bet, which I posted on this forum some years ago - is that this is what will happen*.

Cambridge will be ditched, at least temporarily (for 15 years or so) and the advantages of a connection to Peterboro and the ECML stressed not just for Oxford, Bletchley and Bedford, but for Wellingboro, Kettering and Corby. It is such a cheap (relatively) back-stop solution to assuage many supporters of the original Cambridge plan, and it does have genuine benefits.

* I assume, but don't know, that Manton to Peterborough has the capacity for another 1 tph, if not 2 tph, and Peterboro' has the capacity to turn such trains.

And it will need the goods lines north of Bedford to be upgraded to at least 75 mph, of course. But compared to building a new line from Bedford to Cambridge, via whichever route, the costs will be miniscule by comparison. As will any Nimby and other objections.

 

[JonathanH]

It is such a cheap (relatively) back-stop solution to assuage many supporters of the original Cambridge plan, and it does have genuine benefits.

It is also a ridiculous detour such that hardly anyone would use it.

There is no more than an hourly train service between Leicester and Peterborough using three coach trains over a route which is much longer than a straight line. Bedford (and Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby) to Peterborough and Cambridge would be even worse. There is a good reason why such a 'cheap' plan has never happened.

 

[TheBigD]

* I assume, but don't know, that Manton to Peterborough has the capacity for another 1 tph, if not 2 tph, and Peterboro' has the capacity to turn such trains.

Very much doubt that it will happen but on the above point...

That section has some longish signal sections, eg Uffington to Ketton, around 8 minutes for a freight and 9 for a passenger that stops at Stamford.

Line sped is generally 75mph, with some SP90, 55mph through Stamford, and a few sections lower for freight, eg Bainton on the down line.

 

[The Planner]

Kempston hardwick and Stewartby are ripe for rail distribution hubs. Lots of flat land, it is surrounded by or had historic industrial use. For the life of me I don't know why anyone would want to live next door to an incinerator.

A better selling point for EWR is to actually put some freight use on it. Currently it has only through freight on it, but no actual usage for the line itself for large parts of it. All people talk about is homes for this line, but if you think a bit harder you see its near the M1. Isn't there a distribution hub going in at junction 15A on the M1? Green fields gone, when you have brown land and sidings down the road with East West North and South possibilities for freight. Northampton is not an ideal place as it doesn't have east and west possibilities. If we want freight off the roads, why not put a freight hub next to an incinerator, where waste can be fed by train? And goods be be brought very close to the centre of England in Bedfordshire where it can provide jobs without wasting 10 tracks of sidings at Forders?

Northampton Gateway at J15A, will be rail connected to the Northampton loop.

 

[richieb1971]

Northampton Gateway at J15A, will be rail connected to the Northampton loop.

I know. But its currently green fields. Stewartby Forders Sidings has 10-15 tracks already there in a mothballed state.



All these tracks are connected to disused brown land which is ultra flat next to an incinerator. The EWR railway in its final state will have East West North and South capability bang in the centre of the EWR railway. What does the Northampton loop offer? Direct connectivity to the M1 (as does Stewartby by a few miles). I can't remember but I believe you cannot go east at Nuneaton and if freight went MML then west it couldn't go south. But you can go east via Peterborough via Leicester without unhooking the loco and reversing. So I think if this was put in place at Stewartby you would have more options. Putting it at Junction 15A isn't too bad if you could turn East at Nuneaton. As it stands freight on the EWR is rather limited by connection, but if you put a distribution rail linked hub in the middle of EWR you're talking a whole different ball game. Jobs for Bedford that were once in this area but now there is nothing of note. I mean look at the size of this brown land in the pic, its huge.. doing nothing. Nothing has happened with these sidings since the end of the Easi-disposal era early 2000's. Does that not seem like a waste to anyone? Last I heard the land is going towards homes, but I don't think that is the best use of the land at all. Its near an incinerator and local people feel that unless hospitals, dentists, schools and other public services are built in this area all those homes will be provided these services in an already congested network. Some school classes have 40 kids in them and dentists and hospitals are already at max capacity. There are no doctors available most of the time. If you look at the width of the 2 branch line tracks its tiny compared to the sidings. I don't know how many tracks are there but its a lot. Then if you look up a bit you actually have the easi-disposal site from the 2000's which has even more sidings with a crane already in place on the left and concrete loading and unloading area. Again, just wasting away. But lets build a new Northampton distribution hub on green land.. That makes sense.... Seems to me we are wasting a resource and building a new one.



What Forders Sidings does offer already is a loop. Currently Forders sidings can hold freight services to allow Marston Vale trains to pass. Something that is not provisioned anywhere else on the line outside of a station. That is important as well.

 

[The Planner]

I know. But its currently green fields. Stewartby Forders Sidings has 10-15 tracks already there in a mothballed state.

View attachment 119982

All these tracks are connected to disused brown land which is ultra flat next to an incinerator. The EWR railway in its final state will have East West North and South capability bang in the centre of the EWR railway. What does the Northampton loop offer? Direct connectivity to the M1 (as does Stewartby by a few miles). I can't remember but I believe you cannot go east at Nuneaton and if freight went MML then west it couldn't go south. But you can go east via Peterborough via Leicester without unhooking the loco and reversing. So I think if this was put in place at Stewartby you would have more options. Putting it at Junction 15A isn't too bad if you could turn East at Nuneaton. As it stands freight on the EWR is rather limited by connection, but if you put a distribution rail linked hub in the middle of EWR you're talking a whole different ball game. Jobs for Bedford that were once in this area but now there is nothing of note. I mean look at the size of this brown land in the pic, its huge.. doing nothing. Nothing has happened with these sidings since the end of the Easi-disposal era early 2000's. Does that not seem like a waste to anyone? Last I heard the land is going towards homes, but I don't think that is the best use of the land at all. Its near an incinerator and local people feel that unless hospitals, dentists, schools and other public services are built in this area all those homes will be provided these services in an already congested network. Some school classes have 40 kids in them and dentists and hospitals are already at max capacity. There are no doctors available most of the time. If you look at the width of the 2 branch line tracks its tiny compared to the sidings. I don't know how many tracks are there but its a lot. Then if you look up a bit you actually have the easi-disposal site from the 2000's which has even more sidings with a crane already in place on the left and concrete loading and unloading area. Again, just wasting away. But lets build a new Northampton distribution hub on green land.. That makes sense.... Seems to me we are wasting a resource and building a new one.

View attachment 119983

What Forders Sidings does offer already is a loop. Currently Forders sidings can hold freight services to allow Marston Vale trains to pass. Something that is not provisioned anywhere else on the line outside of a station. That is important as well.

Consider where the freight (95% intermodal in these cases) needs/wants to go and the fact it needs gauge clearance. The MML is of no use. Stewartby would need the north facing chord built at Bletchley. If a third party wanted to build one there, they would be all over it by now. Without checking, does the infrastructure allow a 775m train in the loops?

Unless you have got good access to W10 the case weakens, hence Four Ashes, Northampton Gateway and I believe one at Hinckley. Ardley south of Banbury is the only outlier as if you want to go south you are restricted to W8 unless you run round at Banbury.

 

[zwk500]

Without checking, does the infrastructure allow a 775m train in the loops?

The reception loop is 537m between the toes of the points according to Google maps, the connection to the sidings is facing Bedford and the headhsunt only gives 260m to shunt clear of the main line. So every train would need to set back off the Down line, over a level crossing.

 

[The Planner]

The reception loop is 537m between the toes of the points according to Google maps, the connection to the sidings is facing Bedford and the headhsunt only gives 260m to shunt clear of the main line. So every train would need to set back off the Down line, over a level crossing.

Having a look at the sectional appendix, gap between the the two arrivals and departures is 27 chains so 543m, so you were pretty much bang on. You are going to need to find another 300m from somewhere, so you would likely have to extend the loop back towards Stewartby to not hit Broadmead Road.

 

[zwk500]

Having a look at the sectional appendix, gap between the the two arrivals and departures is 27 chains so 543m, so you were pretty much bang on. You are going to need to find another 300m from somewhere, so you would likely have to extend the loop back towards Stewartby to not hit Broadmead Road.

It's going to be more involved than just 300m as well, because you'll need to rework the access to the sidings, which are currently all dead ends with access from the Bedford direction only.

As you've previously said, there's a reason people are building rail terminals near here but not on that site.

 

[richieb1971]

Surely north of Bedford most of it is fit for w10. How many bridges and tunnels still restrict w8?

The loop at Stewartby is still a benefit. Last I saw network rail trains in there. Its a shame Forders cannot find a purpose. One wonders what the sidings were for in the 1st pic, bricks? I've never seen them used in my lifetime. Shame about the loop not being 775m, but extending it is still better than building a whole new site unless absolutely necessary.

I find it amazing that the varsity line had so much on it years ago. Lots of it gone now. There were masses of sidings at quite a few stations.

 

[zwk500]

Surely north of Bedford most of it is fit for w10. How many bridges and tunnels still restrict w8?

I think north of Bedford the electrification is steadily clearing it, traffic from Felixstowe would need to run via Leicester to get there and paths via Market Harborough are in high demand

The loop at Stewartby is still a benefit. Last I saw network rail trains in there. Its a shame Forders cannot find a purpose.

Yes it's helpful but only for trains up to 450-500m long.

One wonders what the sidings were for in the 1st pic, bricks? I've never seen them used in my lifetime.

Yes, and I think also receiving waste (landfill or ash, not sure) to backfill the pits once the works closed.

Shame about the loop not being 775m, but extending it is still better than building a whole new site unless absolutely necessary.

The distance between the two level crossings is 1.45km. The connections onto the loop will occupy approximately 150m each, so we're down to 1.1km*, then you need 180m overlaps at each end, leaving 850m possible standage, but we haven't considered Stewartby station yet. Assuming the station remains (as would be sensible given the proximity of the village) and the platforms are extended to 6x23m = 198m, leaves 650m possible standage. So to get a 775m loop without rebuilding Stewartby station you'd need to put a road bridge in. Raising either road sufficiently for 3 tracks is going to be fairly dear.

* - the crossovers between Down and UP lines could, in theory move beyond each level crossing and therefore save 80m each, giving a final total standage of 830m but at the cost of much longer junction margins.

I find it amazing that the varsity line had so much on it years ago. Lots of it gone now. There were masses of sidings at quite a few stations.

There's a lot of the network like that. It's the natural cycle of extractive industries - when they run out, the customers move on and only a tiny residual operation is left over. Add into the mix the UK's general geography being massively favourable to trucks and the area generally having very good road links, it's difficult to see what else would have happened.

 

[Bald Rick]

Kempston hardwick and Stewartby are ripe for rail distribution hubs

I’m afraid they are not.

Northampton / Rugby / Tamworth is known as the ‘Golden Triangle’ in logistics circles for good reason: it is ideally located for all directions of the road network, and bang on the WCML with W10 gauge clearance. Also convenient for East Mids airport and it’s international logistics capabilities. a substantial proportion of the U.K. ’next day’ logistics operation is based here.

having a major rail served logistics hub at, say, Kempston Hardwick would suffer from being too close to the Golden Triangle such that logistics companies would always serve the latter due to scale; it would also suffer from being outside the triangle and thus not able to attract the big warehouses and hubs.

But most importantly, it would suffer from being only able to have trains serve it from the WCML to the south, and already being quite southerly, this significantly reduces the advantage over road competitors.

(it’s the same arguments as to why Radlett will never be a major rail intermodal terminal.

 

[richieb1971]

I’m afraid they are not.

Northampton / Rugby / Tamworth is known as the ‘Golden Triangle’ in logistics circles for good reason: it is ideally located for all directions of the road network, and bang on the WCML with W10 gauge clearance. Also convenient for East Mids airport and it’s international logistics capabilities. a substantial proportion of the U.K. ’next day’ logistics operation is based here.

having a major rail served logistics hub at, say, Kempston Hardwick would suffer from being too close to the Golden Triangle such that logistics companies would always serve the latter due to scale; it would also suffer from being outside the triangle and thus not able to attract the big warehouses and hubs.

But most importantly, it would suffer from being only able to have trains serve it from the WCML to the south, and already being quite southerly, this significantly reduces the advantage over road competitors.

(it’s the same arguments as to why Radlett will never be a major rail intermodal terminal.

They are ripe that they are already brown land and have a railway next to it. All the stuff you said I agree. But it's a waste right now. Northampton maybe in a triangle (i love triangles) but it doesn't connect well to the east.

 

[Bald Rick]

but it doesn't connect well to the east.

That’s what the A14 is for.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Aug 2022 ==

They are ripe that they are already brown land and have a railway next to it

There’s a lot of places with brown land and a railway next to it. That is not the only determining factor of what makes a site suitable for a rail logistics terminal.

 

[camflyer]

Reports of the "Great Wall of Cambridge" embankment being reconsidered.

East West Rail embankment plans could be abandoned

An embankment dubbed the ‘Great Wall’ could be scrapped after a huge backlash from campaigners, residents and politicians.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

 

[mwmbwls]

I understood this line was planned to support new housing. It was supported because that was desirable, and it was cancelled because that was undesirable. The old priorities will return.

Maybe the people opposing the line have a vested interest in opposing the housing.

Spot on Gentlemen

It important to understand the core objective of the Oxford Cambridge Arc which was an attempt to create new or enlarged communities in the Oxford Cambridge corridor, and improved rail links (EWR) berween the two cities. A popualtion increase of one million people and the merger of local plans was proposed. This horrified local communities from High Wycombe to Cambridge and hence their elected representatives = especially the Conservatives. Political emotive terms were common - "London Overspill"etc. EWR was proposed as a key part of the facilitation process. It began by improving the existing lines and as such was not seen by the locals as part of a cunning plan to fuel explosive growth of theur communities. The Biscester Chord increased choice for Oxford residents and the opening of Biscester Village Station and the promise of a new station at Oxford Parkway at the A34/M40 Junction have been widely welcomed.

THe difficulty lies with the section from Bedford to Cambridge whose residents have not had a railway but see it a a catalyst to a "massive" extension of their villages - or put it another way " anorher HS2" . This challenges the paradigm of home ownership in a village community. It brings into sharp prespective two paradigms that they are comfortable with - You cannot pick your neighbours and you do not own the view. Local MPs are merely reflecting the concern of their constituents.

However there is already a problem in that all along the route there is a question of affordability which means people cannot move into the area or buy homes close to their relatives.

Add in a sprinkling of experts/imtellectuals in the community who do not build railways for living but are prepared to second guess those who do - and hey presto.

What we are seeing is a present day example of the danger of innovation as described by Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince

We must bear in mind, then, that there is nothing more difficult and dangerous, or more doubtful of success, than an attempt to introduce a new order of things in any state. For the innovator has for enemies all those who derived advantages from the old order of things, whilst those who expect to be benefited by the new institutions will be but lukewarm defenders.

Niccolo Machiavelli

 

[BrianW]

I understood this line was planned to support new housing. It was supported because that was desirable, and it was cancelled because that was undesirable. The old priorities will return.

They won't- not any time soon anyway.
We don't have a 'government' able to act in our best interest, the common good; politicians have to be seen to jump to our populist tune to even stand a chance of getting elected.
People are able to vote for more housing for their offspring- they don't. They don't want neighbours at all; they prefer a Leylandii hedge to speak to and a view to enjoy. They (we!) want to be able to extend, but not for neighbours to be allowed to. We have our property value to protect too- none of that so-called 'affordable housing' thank you.

Hard to see the case for heavy rail being advanced any time soon either- too expensive, too long to get done, not what is wanted, however much we may think it's needed. How about this vision of the future?-

Individual starship-ish Electric or hydrogen vehicles on call, just input the destination 'just three words' and click 'exit' on arrival and 'Big AI Sibling' does the rest, including routing and servicing as optimised and charged to your account. Speed optimised as per variable motorway speed, maybe with variable charges as per changing demand. The tech exists. Door to door. No parking spaces needed. Maybe on rails, maybe tarmac, concrete, ... 3rd dimension when needed 'down the line' in the fullness of time? I dare say there are folk in the Oxford, Cambridge arc, MK already on the case. Branson, Musk, Truss, Bellway...? Come in Avanti? Let's go ...

 

[mwmbwls]

It is no coincidence that Grant Shapps has abandoned the new road proposals in the west of the M1 area; where rail connections already exist and the reverse in the area east of the M1 where he has approved upgrades to the roads.

 

[richieb1971]

I find it laughable that EWR is relying on new housing. Bedford has expanded massively in the past 20 years already.

Wixams and Kempston hardwick have 100's if not 1000's of new homes.
Stewartby has 1000's of homes that were not there when I was a kid.
Kempston has expanded into Great Denham which is still expanding
Bromham on my way to work has homes being built right now.
Sharnbrook has homes being built as I type.

So I guess, EWR is relying on homes that are not yet built yet. Like a metropolis belt of homes all the way along the proposed route.

Route E suddenly looks like a route that can support homes. Because the other choices went along big A roads where people probably wouldn't be able to build in the masses that Route E can. Route E goes through hilly terrain and such (not ideal for a railway), but it is a terrain which can be bought by home developers because currently there isn't much there that can block homes being built. I see the picture now. The railway must go where homes can be built. So building 6 tracks north of Bedford might lose 10-15 homes, but you can make 10000 more elsewhere along the route. It has nothing to do with route E going through Bedford station, that is just a political allied justification for the real reason. If I am right, its quite deceiving and distgusting that the arguments haven't come out sooner. I've watched many consultations on EWR and none of them talk about homes along the route. They just talk about the best alignment for the railway, which on its own doesn't add up.

I can see the logic. Thanks for opening my eyes.

 

[zwk500]

I find it laughable that EWR is relying on new housing. Bedford has expanded massively in the past 20 years already.

Why is it laughable that a public transport link is being built for a large local population increase?

So I guess, EWR is relying on homes that are not yet built yet. Like a metropolis belt of homes all the way along the proposed route.

It's the other way round: the homes are relying on EWR being built.

 

[SynthD]

So I guess, EWR is relying on homes that are not yet built yet.

Yes. Barking Riverside was required for planning permission for the second half of homes in that area.

 

[richieb1971]

Why is it laughable that a public transport link is being built for a large local population increase?

It's the other way round: the homes are relying on EWR being built.

Its laughable because homes are already being built in huge numbers.

If homes are pencilled in along the route, especially near the Bedford area. I guess Bedford Midland is the catchment station for all these new homes? lol. At this rate Bedford Midland will need a car park fit for Disney world.

 

[RT4038]

I find it laughable that EWR is relying on new housing. Bedford has expanded massively in the past 20 years already.

Wixams and Kempston hardwick have 100's if not 1000's of new homes.
Stewartby has 1000's of homes that were not there when I was a kid.
Kempston has expanded into Great Denham which is still expanding
Bromham on my way to work has homes being built right now.
Sharnbrook has homes being built as I type.

So I guess, EWR is relying on homes that are not yet built yet. Like a metropolis belt of homes all the way along the proposed route.

Route E suddenly looks like a route that can support homes. Because the other choices went along big A roads where people probably wouldn't be able to build in the masses that Route E can. Route E goes through hilly terrain and such (not ideal for a railway), but it is a terrain which can be bought by home developers because currently there isn't much there that can block homes being built. I see the picture now. The railway must go where homes can be built. So building 6 tracks north of Bedford might lose 10-15 homes, but you can make 10000 more elsewhere along the route. It has nothing to do with route E going through Bedford station, that is just a political allied justification for the real reason. If I am right, its quite deceiving and distgusting that the arguments haven't come out sooner. I've watched many consultations on EWR and none of them talk about homes along the route. They just talk about the best alignment for the railway, which on its own doesn't add up.

I can see the logic. Thanks for opening my eyes.

My goodness - only realised this now?

Why deceiving and disgusting - a new railway is not going to be built to emulate the bucolic branch line of old. EWR are not doing the house building. There is not going to be enough trade just from Oxford, Bedford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge to justify spending the hundreds of millions on a new line . This is major house building across this arc, or no railway.