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

[cle]

I hesitated to mention Winslow but yes it definitely should grow in some way.

And yes 100% to Bicester as a new town, definitely feels like that.

Oxford - I think the Cowley route would be a great thing for development too, as no doubt it would be easier in terms of planning to do out that way, and it's near more regular 'local' services, amenities and architecture.

 

[swt_passenger]

Why would you have separate MKC-Aylesbury and Aylesbury-London trains though? Surely you may as well run them through as one service rather than having two terminating trains meeting head-to-head.

The main reason you don’t get through trains, (which would have been via High Wycombe), is because DfT explicitly ruled them out before the TWA application was submitted…

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main reason you don’t get through trains, (which would have been via High Wycombe), is because DfT explicitly ruled them out before the TWA application was submitted…

It would also pose other issues, e.g. when the WCML flops it'd be full and standing before a single Chiltern passenger got anywhere near it.

 

[Trainbike46]

The main reason you don’t get through trains, (which would have been via High Wycombe), is because DfT explicitly ruled them out before the TWA application was submitted…

Does anyone know why the DfT explicitly ruled them out?

 

[swt_passenger]

Does anyone know why the DfT explicitly ruled them out?

They decided the infrastructure improvements needed on the single line between Princes Risbrough and Aylesbury were unaffordable.

 

[cle]

Is there a platform at Princes Risborough (or HW) - or an old bay to rebuild - that it might run to? For some network benefit. It seems a shame - although I don't know how packed it would be.

 

[Bletchleyite]

They decided the infrastructure improvements needed on the single line between Princes Risbrough and Aylesbury were unaffordable.

Presumably the pathing of it isn't compatible with it being a single line?

 

[BrianW]

There isn't really anywhere, bar the old C&W site which is being done plus a couple of brownfield sites, to develop near Bletchley station. Though I suppose they could close the cement works and develop that - I had heard a suggestion that one option was to build a new multi storey station car park there and build houses on the existing one. Bicester has also gone from a small town to a large one in the time I've lived anywhere near it - quite a transformation really, and a bit New Town esque.

I'd look to build eco-villages centred on Marston Vale stations if it was me.

I also suspect Winslow will grow in a very Bicester like fashion.

The whole East-West Arc is potentially available for development- subject to government 'enthusiasm'/ NIMYism/ food security and projected changes to planning processes!

I can foresee a likelihood as the arc 'takes off' of potential demands for trains from a variety of 'heres' to a number of 'theres'- bearing in mind capacity issues related to London's Thameslink and Manchester's Castlefield Corridor, choices may need to made of priorities. For me the first such decision will need to be how MK is to be served. A frequent tram-train shuttle to Bletchley must be quite a strong contender.

The Oxford end must also be a constraint. There must be continuing and possibly increasing demand for Oxford- Marylebone services, constraining the capacity east of Bicester. North- South services 'snaking' across using EWR for part of the route will similarly restrict paths.

There may a case for something East-West at more like Tube/Metro frequencies with some kind of 'co-ordination' of North- South services (somewhat in the way that I seem to recall was hoped for at Birmingham New Street as the Heart of England when the WCML was electrified?); I can't see it being possible to 'guarantee' any connections.

Still the best to hope at this time is to get trains running (and reliably) somewhere soonest, for the pre-election photo-opportunites.

No. It is a regional service which will be used for many different overlapping local journeys, a bit like EMR's Liverpool to Norwich.

Maybe something like a Bristol or Southampton - Norwich if paths exist south of Oxford?

 

[nw1]

Different needs, in particular train lengths and I suspect DOO-or-not. The one thing that might make sense operationally to attach to the Aylesbury EWR is the daytime Aylesbury to Risborough branch service.

It would still be different operationally to more or less anything equivalent in the London commuter area; presumably MKC could not take a 6-car (?) Marylebone service?

The Aylesbury needs to go to MKC or there's no point doing it at all.

I completely agree, I was just questioning the need to split it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Sep 2022 ==

The main reason you don’t get through trains, (which would have been via High Wycombe), is because DfT explicitly ruled them out before the TWA application was submitted…

OK, thanks. Wasn't aware the suggestion was via High Wycombe, I was anticipating an extension of one train per hour of the direct Marylebone service.

 

[cle]

OK, thanks. Wasn't aware the suggestion was via High Wycombe, I was anticipating an extension of one train per hour of the direct Marylebone service.

75mph tripcock thinking, plus initial High Wycombe connectivity (vs Amersham) - instigated that routing. Now a shuttle, if ever happens, but would be 90mph I think.

 

[zwk500]

I completely agree, I was just questioning the need to split it.

EWR at MKC may need to use 2A, which is limited to 5-Cars. I wouldn't want London-Aylesbury limited to 5-Cars only... Also, you don't want to be transferring delay between the WCML and Chiltern, and it may (not 100% sure) make crew diagramming and route knowledge easier.

 

[mwmbwls]

Expect the opposition from Cambridgeshire residents to be well-organised and substantive. There's a lot of legal process still to go through, and I'd be astonished if there wasn't at least one judicial review that gets heard in full.

Might I suggest you caste an eye over this Institute for Government report concerning His Majesty's Government's stiffening of the bases for Judicial Review
"The Conservative manifesto said that the government would “update” administrative law to ensure a “proper balance” between individual rights, national security and effective government. The manifesto also said that the government would ensure that judicial review “is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.”

Judicial review | Institute for Government

What is judicial review?

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

Prepare to be astonished.

 

[zwk500]

Might I suggest you caste an eye over this Institute for Government report concerning His Majesty's Government's stiffening of the bases for Judicial Review
"The Conservative manifesto said that the government would “update” administrative law to ensure a “proper balance” between individual rights, national security and effective government. The manifesto also said that the government would ensure that judicial review “is not abused to conduct politics by another means or to create needless delays.”

Judicial review | Institute for Government

What is judicial review?

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

Prepare to be astonished.

I will watch with interest. But given this government's record so far, I expect them to cock up the process at least once which will give legitimate grounds for a Judicial Review, regardless of any updates Truss's government may make to the rules around them.

 

[cle]

EWR at MKC may need to use 2A, which is limited to 5-Cars. I wouldn't want London-Aylesbury limited to 5-Cars only... Also, you don't want to be transferring delay between the WCML and Chiltern, and it may (not 100% sure) make crew diagramming and route knowledge easier.

Feels like MKC needs another side platform on the east side (in conjunction with the elusive fifth main line) - as EWR will need 2A as well. I could see things terminating at Bletchley also, especially slow WCML services which might not carry much traffic vs semi/fast ones (which still serve LB and Bletchley for those local flows)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Feels like MKC needs another side platform on the east side (in conjunction with the elusive fifth main line) - as EWR will need 2A as well. I could see things terminating at Bletchley also, especially slow WCML services which might not carry much traffic vs semi/fast ones (which still serve LB and Bletchley for those local flows)

2A is totally unused and will be fine for 3tph (2 Oxfords and an Aylesbury). EWR is being built for 4x24m, doesn't need to be longer for now.

No Bletchley terminators in December other than units "getting up"/"going to bed" as now. Though post HS2 some are proposed.

That said there is enough room for another terminal platform at MKC if one was to be needed, you would move the gateline back and put it on the on-street parking area. There's already a lift though you'd have to add some stairs.

 

[zwk500]

Feels like MKC needs another side platform on the east side (in conjunction with the elusive fifth main line) - as EWR will need 2A as well. I could see things terminating at Bletchley also, especially slow WCML services which might not carry much traffic vs semi/fast ones (which still serve LB and Bletchley for those local flows)

If you could fit in in, yeah. I think EWR using 2A (or 2 when the GTR/Slow WCML isn't in there) will work as it is. The MKC Starting Slow trains seemed to always be reasonable well loaded when I commuted from MKC.

 

[Verulamius]

Further detail provided for the growth plan infrastructure projects

The growth plan 2022: transport infrastructure projects identified for acceleration - GOV.UK

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

92

East West Rail Connection Stages 2&3

Extension of East West Rail services from Oxford to Bedford (Connection Stage 2, upgrade existing Marston Vale Line railway) and provision of a new railway line between Bedford and Cambridge (Connection Stage 3), enabling East West Rail services to run between Oxford and Cambridge as well as towns and cities in between. The project is currently in design.

 

[cle]

upgrade existing Marston Vale Line railway

This must be a mistake... unless it's the station rationalization which was proposed.

 

[BrianW]

Further detail provided for the growth plan infrastructure projects

The growth plan 2022: transport infrastructure projects identified for acceleration - GOV.UK

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk

92

East West Rail Connection Stages 2&3

Extension of East West Rail services from Oxford to Bedford (Connection Stage 2, upgrade existing Marston Vale Line railway) and provision of a new railway line between Bedford and Cambridge (Connection Stage 3), enabling East West Rail services to run between Oxford and Cambridge as well as towns and cities in between. The project is currently in design.

Noting 'between Oxford and Cambridge', 'as well as towns and cities in between'.
No reference to towns and cities beyond.
So a relatively constrained brief, sensibly to my mind, more readily deliverable.
It does seem to commit to design development throughout for upgrading the Marston Vale Line and provision of a new railway line between Bedford and Cambridge.
It appears to be silent on how Bedford is to be served and how Cambridge is to be reached.
That also seems to me to be sensible in leaving those issues open as to how they might be developed and to what programme.
The greatest semblance of commitment for the least actual?

 

[JonathanH]

No reference to towns and cities beyond.
So a relatively constrained brief, sensibly to my mind, more readily deliverable.

Most definitely. It has to be built self contained in the first instance. Anything else brings in questions about who pays for infrastructure work away from the core route.

 

[Trainbike46]

Noting 'between Oxford and Cambridge', 'as well as towns and cities in between'.
No reference to towns and cities beyond.
So a relatively constrained brief, sensibly to my mind, more readily deliverable.
It does seem to commit to design development throughout for upgrading the Marston Vale Line and provision of a new railway line between Bedford and Cambridge.
It appears to be silent on how Bedford is to be served and how Cambridge is to be reached.
That also seems to me to be sensible in leaving those issues open as to how they might be developed and to what programme.
The greatest semblance of commitment for the least actual?

The proposal for extensions beyond cambridge were Ipswich and Norwich, to be achieved by coupling the existing Cambridge-Ipswich/Norwich services to EWR services. As I understood it, that would not require any further major infrastructure investment, so can be considered later in the project

 

[JonathanH]

As I understood it, that would not require any further major infrastructure investment, so can be considered later in the project

No, but it would fix the timetable on EWR given the single track constraints applicable to both routes which might not be desirable. Oxford to Ipswich is arguably too far to run a regional service without a clear approach to how services restart on route if there is disruption.

The Cambridge to Ipswich service is the local service at Needham Market for example. Disruption at Oxford isn't going to down well as a reason for people missing their train into Ipswich.

As for Norwich, surely Stansted Airport is a more useful destination than Oxford, so long as changes at Cambridge are straightforward.

The tail of long-distance through services must not wag the dog of a reliable Oxford to Cambridge link on EWR.

 

[cle]

No, but it would fix the timetable on EWR given the single track constraints applicable to both routes which might not be desirable. Oxford to Ipswich is arguably too far to run a regional service without a clear approach to how services restart on route if there is disruption.

The Cambridge to Ipswich service is the local service at Needham Market for example. Disruption at Oxford isn't going to down well as a reason for people missing their train into Ipswich.

As for Norwich, surely Stansted Airport is a more useful destination than Oxford, so long as changes at Cambridge are straightforward.

The tail of long-distance through services must not wag the dog of a reliable Oxford to Cambridge link on EWR.

I always thought that these EWR Anglisa would be additional services - but so far in the future, that certain infrastructure investments would be made first - for example, additional approach lines from Shepreth into Cambridge, some loops/doubling where possible...which platforms at Cambridge/North, and maybe even Ely!

There has been talk about a second Norwich, and Ipswich also - I would think these would be those.

 

[Bald Rick]

I always thought that these EWR Anglisa would be additional services

No chance!

 

[cle]

Even an Ipswich extra? Norwich I get, because of Ely.

 

[Bald Rick]

Even an Ipswich extra? Norwich I get, because of Ely.

Yes, no chance. Single line sections, Haughley Junction, and lots of freight trains in the way.

 

[JamesT]

Apparently Liz Truss is in favour of EWR, so perhaps a higher chance of it being built.

Liz Truss backs the next phase of East-West Rail project

The prime minister says she will be "laying out the detail in due course".

www.bbc.co.uk

The prime minister has given her backing to a £5bn rail project linking Oxford and Cambridge.
The next phase of the East-West Rail link was put in doubt after the Department of Transport said it was a decision for "the next prime minister".

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though I'm not sure how she'll fund it with those tax cuts. I'm more concerned that if we're going to cut to the bone that we might lose some small regional lines, not build another one.

But then Tories do like trains, unlike buses they're mostly (in the South East at least, which is what Tories care about) a middle class mode of transport.

 

[mwmbwls]

Yes, no chance. Single line sections, Haughley Junction, and lots of freight trains in the way.

You are making an heroic assumption that the existing track layouts cannot/ will not be changed. It should be noted that Soham Station is currently being rebuilt with one platform facing on to a single track but that passive provision has been made for the line to be doubled. There is a major nationwide focus on trackwork improvements that relieve pinch points (e,g, Dore and Totley etc.). One of the key drivers behind this programme is "lots of freight trains in the way" so could you explain why in this instance why the FTN and EWR should be exempt?

 

[Bald Rick]

You are making an heroic assumption that the existing track layouts cannot/ will not be changed.

An assumption that the funding for changing them won’t be forthcoming, yes. Heroic, perhaps not.

It should be noted that Soham Station is currently being rebuilt with one platform facing on to a single track but that passive provision has been made for the line to be doubled.

I hope it’s not being rebuilt. It’s only been open 10 months.

There is a major nationwide focus on trackwork improvements

Your definition of ‘major’ differs from mine!