Maximising East West rail

[CMS1]

The A14 heading west/north-west of Cambridge is far busier than the M11 south towards London or indeed east towards Ipswich and the East Coast ports. It shows that there is huge demand for travel west towards the Midlands and north to the North but few are choosing to go by rail. This in stark contrast to Peterborough where large numbers travel north on the ECML because it’s much quicker than travelling by road

Split from the CrossCountry thread, to discuss how to get the most out of EWR including the above.
Its fixing one of the biggest holes in the network, namely that south of Melton Mowbray, there are no cross country rail despite containing major cross country road routes (it's the middle of the country after all!) Its an opportunity to convert significant road travel to rail travel, compared to most existing congested trunk routes which mostly already have parallel rail services.

I would suggest the following:
2tph from Cambridge to Oxford extending hourly to Didcot for GWR connections (e.g. Bedford to Bristol)
1tph from Ipswich to Manchester via Birmingham (joining the existing Ipswich to Cambridge). Necessary since Bletchley isn't a good WMCL interchange, and to compete with the A14 and M1 (e.g. Bedford to Birmingham). This also gives Ipswich an hourly connection to the ECML, saving the need for the Peterborough service to become hourly (possibly allowing it to truncate at Ely)
1tph from Cambridge to Birmingham Moor St via Bicester curve.
Necessary since there is no Bletchley interchange. Connecting the Chilton, Banbury, Warwick and Leamington to EWR and making Cambridge/Bedford etc to Birmingham 2tph

The St Neots bypass is IMO a waste of money and counter productive, given the ECML north of Hitchin has spare capacity and St Neots is a much better interchange than Tempsford. St Neots could become a major interchange and would actually be much better option for Cambridge ECML connections than the slow service to Peterborough.

It has a lot of freight potential, e.g. Felixstowe to DIRFT and Northampton Gateway, which would require the Bletchely curve, a loop on the single Newmarket to Cambridge line and Haughley being sorted, but a lot shorter than via London, and relieving the GER, NLL and WCML.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Split from the CrossCountry thread, to discuss how to get the most out of EWR including the above.
Its fixing one of the biggest holes in the network, namely that south of Melton Mowbray, there are no cross country rail despite containing major cross country road routes (it's the middle of the country after all!) Its an opportunity to convert significant road travel to rail travel, compared to most existing congested trunk routes which mostly already have parallel rail services.

I would suggest the following:
2tph from Cambridge to Oxford extending hourly to Didcot for GWR connections (e.g. Bedford to Bristol)
1tph from Ipswich to Manchester via Birmingham (joining the existing Ipswich to Cambridge). Necessary since Bletchley isn't a good WMCL interchange, and to compete with the A14 and M1 (e.g. Bedford to Birmingham). This also gives Ipswich an hourly connection to the ECML, saving the need for the Peterborough service to become hourly (possibly allowing it to truncate at Ely)
1tph from Cambridge to Birmingham Moor St via Bicester curve.
Necessary since there is no Bletchley interchange. Connecting the Chilton, Banbury, Warwick and Leamington to EWR and making Cambridge/Bedford etc to Birmingham 2tph

The St Neots bypass is IMO a waste of money and counter productive, given the ECML north of Hitchin has spare capacity and St Neots is a much better interchange than Tempsford. St Neots could become a major interchange and would actually be much better option for Cambridge ECML connections than the slow service to Peterborough.

It has a lot of freight potential, e.g. Felixstowe to DIRFT and Northampton Gateway, which would require the Bletchely curve, a loop on the single Newmarket to Cambridge line and Haughley being sorted, but a lot shorter than via London, and relieving the GER, NLL and WCML.

The current "Bicester curve" runs west to south, not east to north.

 

[CMS1]

Sorry I mean a new east-north one

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Sorry I mean a new east-north one

That will cost serious money and the resulting chord will avoid Bicester North Station. It will be far cheaper to require passengers from Bedford and points east to change at Bletchley for Birmingham and at Oxford for Banbury, Leamington Spa etc.

 

[CMS1]

If thats the solution people will just drive. EWR is the biggest rail project after HS2, costing billions and plugging a major whole in the network, yet we're just planning a Cambridge-Oxford commuter service on it. If there were good interchanges at the ECML, WCML and CML then Ipswich to Didcot could be enough, but there's not.

The WMCL service reverses at Bletchley so no curve required. Chiltern direct service is not as key, but I was envisaging a Bicester curve south of the EWR.

 

[bspahh]

1tph from Ipswich to Manchester via Birmingham (joining the existing Ipswich to Cambridge). Necessary since Bletchley isn't a good WMCL interchange, and to compete with the A14 and M1 (e.g. Bedford to Birmingham). This also gives Ipswich an hourly connection to the ECML, saving the need for the Peterborough service to become hourly (possibly allowing it to truncate at Ely)

At the moment it takes 80 minutes from Ipswich to Cambridge, or ~ 100 minutes for Ipswich to Euston with a change onto the Underground. The onward journey will be rather quicker by HS2 than anything with East-West Rail.

What length and speed of train is going to make sense for both Birmingham-Manchester and Stowmarket-Ipswich?

 

[Topological]

If thats the solution people will just drive. EWR is the biggest rail project after HS2, costing billions and plugging a major whole in the network, yet we're just planning a Cambridge-Oxford commuter service on it. If there were good interchanges at the ECML, WCML and CML then Ipswich to Didcot could be enough, but there's not.

The WMCL service reverses at Bletchley so no curve required. Chiltern direct service is not as key, but I was envisaging a Bicester curve south of the EWR.

I think there will be a chord in time. A north facing chord from EWR has been considered and if Universal takes off then direct trains to Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool etc make sense via the chord.

Certainly EWR to Birmingham should run. Post HS2 a Manchester via Birmingham starts to make sense. IF HS2 reaches Manchester, then EWR-Trent Valley services open up as possibilities (cannot run until HS2 extends beyond Handsacre because of the constraints at Colwich)

 

[Verulamius]

There should be a North to East curve at Bletchley to prove a direct Cambridge MK link.

This will provide additional freight routes as well as passenger benefits.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

If thats the solution people will just drive. EWR is the biggest rail project after HS2, costing billions and plugging a major whole in the network, yet we're just planning a Cambridge-Oxford commuter service on it. If there were good interchanges at the ECML, WCML and CML then Ipswich to Didcot could be enough, but there's not.

The WMCL service reverses at Bletchley so no curve required. Chiltern direct service is not as key, but I was envisaging a Bicester curve south of the EWR.

Some people will drive whatever rail service is provided. Experience shows that a new service of reasonable quality always generates new patronage and it's extremely probable that East-West Rail will do so too. The only question is by how much.

 

[The Planner]

That will cost serious money and the resulting chord will avoid Bicester North Station. It will be far cheaper to require passengers from Bedford and points east to change at Bletchley for Birmingham and at Oxford for Banbury, Leamington Spa etc.

Don't see why it would miss Bicester North, you could put a relatively slow speed chord in the triangle of land to the south east of the Bletchley line. Not sure that I can see the merits of doing so though.

 

[Topological]

Don't see why it would miss Bicester North, you could put a relatively slow speed chord in the triangle of land to the south east of the Bletchley line. Not sure that I can see the merits of doing so though.

That does look tight, and might upset a few animals.

North of EWR looks possible with a little bit of demolition on the industrial estate.

I would still expect any Birmingham service to be via a chord at Bletchley.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I would still expect any Birmingham service to be via a chord at Bletchley.

Given Cambridge to Bicester V will probably be about 1h 20 and Bicester N to Moor Street is also about 1h 20, then the journey time would be similar to today's XC service. Beneficiary from this curve is more likely to be Banbury -MK

Might be better to spend what money we have on the existing XC route? eg Cambridge-Pboro being only 1tph direct seems like a surprisingly poor service given Cambridge 's economic powerhouse status.

 

[Topological]

Given Cambridge to Bicester V will probably be about 1h 20 and Bicester N to Moor Street is also about 1h 20, then the journey time would be similar to today's XC service. Beneficiary from this curve is more likely to be Banbury -MK

Might be better to spend what money we have on the existing XC route? eg Cambridge-Pboro being only 1tph direct seems like a surprisingly poor service given Cambridge 's economic powerhouse status.

Ely would be much better value for money than a chord at Bicester (I assume, I do not have numbers)

I checked Banbury to MK to see what the bus time was and Google routes via Bicester and the X5 bus. Presumably that is how low demand from Banbury to MK is.

 

[CMS1]

At the moment it takes 80 minutes from Ipswich to Cambridge, or ~ 100 minutes for Ipswich to Euston with a change onto the Underground. The onward journey will be rather quicker by HS2 than anything with East-West Rail.

A direct Ipswich to Birmingham EWR service will be around 3hrs 30 vs 3hrs 15 via London, not enough saving to make people use multiple trains, plus its expensive (and feels like you're going a very long way round which does play into peoples decisions) - hence people rarely do it currently - they just use the A14.

 

[brad465]

Longer trains for the existing proposed services. I really cannot see how a handful of 2-car 196s will be sufficient for a route connecting 2 major settlements (Oxford and Milton Keynes), combined with recent re-openings having form for exceeding expectations.

 

[zwk500]

I would suggest the following:
2tph from Cambridge to Oxford extending hourly to Didcot for GWR connections (e.g. Bedford to Bristol)

Sensible

1tph from Ipswich to Manchester via Birmingham (joining the existing Ipswich to Cambridge). Necessary since Bletchley isn't a good WMCL interchange, and to compete with the A14 and M1 (e.g. Bedford to Birmingham). This also gives Ipswich an hourly connection to the ECML, saving the need for the Peterborough service to become hourly (possibly allowing it to truncate at Ely)

Insane. Not just journey length but operationally it'll be an ICBM to performance.

1tph from Cambridge to Birmingham Moor St via Bicester curve.
Necessary since there is no Bletchley interchange. Connecting the Chilton, Banbury, Warwick and Leamington to EWR and making Cambridge/Bedford etc to Birmingham 2tph

Makes sense from a demand POV but possibly operationally too far a stretch.

If you want to maximise EWR, keep the services as contained as possible without being useless and run long, frequent trains. Didcot would probably be the limit of services on the west, definitely Cambridge in the east.

 

[Magdalia]

Any speculation on EWR services needs to start with what was in the 2024/25 non-statutory consultation.

For passengers:

• 2 tph Oxford-Cambridge
• 2 tph Oxford-Milton Keynes
• 2 tph Cambridge-Stewartby
• 1 tph Bletchley-Bedford stopper

If the consolidated stations option goes through in Marston Vale then the stopper goes and one of the Stewartbys runs through to/from Bletchley.

The non-statutory consultation did not include anything beyond Cambridge-Oxford.

2tph from Cambridge to Oxford extending hourly to Didcot for GWR connections

If you want to maximise EWR, keep the services as contained as possible without being useless and run long, frequent trains. Didcot would probably be the limit of services on the west, definitely Cambridge in the east.

If anything should go beyond Cambridge-Oxford then this is it, though I think there is an argument for going to Swindon not Didcot.

Getting from EWR to Bath, Bristol and Cardiff with only 1 change would be a significant gain.

Going beyond Cambridge carries too much performance risk.

1tph from Ipswich to Manchester via Birmingham

Insane. Not just journey length but operationally it'll be an ICBM to performance.

I agree this would be insane.

The St Neots bypass is IMO a waste of money and counter productive, given the ECML north of Hitchin has spare capacity and St Neots is a much better interchange than Tempsford.

It may look that way now, but EWR isn't being built for now.

In less than 20 years time I expect Tempsford to be bigger than St Neots. EWR is being built for when that happens.

St Neots could become a major interchange and would actually be much better option for Cambridge ECML connections than the slow service to Peterborough.

Might be better to spend what money we have on the existing XC route? eg Cambridge-Pboro being only 1tph direct seems like a surprisingly poor service given Cambridge 's economic powerhouse status.

ECML trains are not going to be stopping at St Neots or Tempsford. Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough can be fine if it only runs to Peterborough or Nottingham, and even more so if it could be 2 tph. From the Cambridge perspective, Peterborough is the top priority for increased capacity on the existing routes.

It has a lot of freight potential, e.g. Felixstowe to DIRFT and Northampton Gateway, which would require the Bletchely curve, a loop on the single Newmarket to Cambridge line and Haughley being sorted

The non-statutory consultation had some interesting provisions for freight, including passing loops at Hauxton, Cambourne, Colesden, Stewartby/Ridgmont and Claydon/Islip. This is what the technical report says about Felixstowe-golden Triangle freight:

A greater opportunity for rerouting trains from Felixstowe would be generated with a direct connection from Cambridge onto the WCML. Such a connection could create demand for additional freight services, but would require an additional east to north curve, or chord, at Bletchley, to be in place. Supporting higher volumes of freight services would also require additional significant investment and infrastructure to support, including on the national network, particularly between Felixstowe and Cambridge. The EWR proposals in the Cambridge area will provide a building block for some of the enhancements required in this section, particularly through the proposed doubling of track on the Newmarket line to Cherry Hinton.

I think there will be a chord in time. A north facing chord from EWR has been considered and if Universal takes off then direct trains to Birmingham/Manchester/Liverpool etc make sense via the chord.

If, in 10 years time, UK consumers are still buying container loads of stuff from China, and the UK can get back to economic growth, then that will be the time for a Bletchley chord. But it will need other improvements, including double track Cambridge-Newmarket. It is going to be freight that will justify a Bletchley chord, not passengers.

I look at all of those EWR freight loops, and the lack of action on Ely, and try hard not to put two and two together!

 

[158756]

If anything should go beyond Cambridge-Oxford then this is it, though I think there is an argument for going to Swindon not Didcot.

Getting from EWR to Bath, Bristol and Cardiff with only 1 change would be a significant gain.

Going beyond Cambridge carries too much performance risk.

Separately to this there is the on-off aspiration for direct trains between Oxford and Bristol. If it ever happens that would give a one change option to EWR without needing to extend any of the EWR trains. Personally I think Bristol-MK could be useful, but EWR won't want the performance risk.

It may look that way now, but EWR isn't being built for now.

In less than 20 years time I expect Tempsford to be bigger than St Neots. EWR is being built for when that happens.

You have a lot more confidence in this country's ability to build houses than I do. The plans for Tempsford are extremely vague and a long way off getting spades in the ground. If anything is built in the next decade I'll be surprised. Talk of it being the size of Milton Keynes so far seems to be just talk. There are real obstacles with infrastructure, flood risk etc that will delay and limit development, and that's before you consider NIMBYs and the likelihood a future government will abandon the new towns policy. Tempsford is a gamble for EWR, but is the subtext that the eastern leg is not viable without that gamble?

 

[CMS1]

The non-statutory consultation did not include anything beyond Cambridge-Oxford.

That is completely naive to where the road traffic volumes are. And its also stupid - its like saying HS2 can only be used for London to Birmingham services, after spending billions on it.

Tempsford could still have a station, but there's no need to build a new line parallell to the ECML.

I stand that St Neots could replace Peterborough as the major ECML station for Cambridge and East Anglia (if EWR services run to Ipswich), it will be faster and is more accessible by road, e.g. a lot of Cambridge/Bedford travellers to Edinburgh will just drive to St Neots on the dualled A421.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Aug 2025 ==

But it will need other improvements, including double track Cambridge-Newmarket. It is going to be freight that will justify a Bletchley chord, not passengers.

Agree, although a central dynamic loop or passing loops will be sufficient (it's not going to be as busy as Felixstowe which manages on loops) as doubling at Newmarket would be major bucks. Reversing passenger services at Bletchley is not a deal breaker

 

[MarkyT]

If anything should go beyond Cambridge-Oxford then this is it, though I think there is an argument for going to Swindon not Didcot.

Could help with battery trains, giving them a long run under GWML wires for charging. Much better long distance connections at Swindon, where almost everything stops.

The non-statutory consultation had some interesting provisions for freight, including passing loops at Hauxton, Cambourne, Colesden, Stewartby/Ridgmont and Claydon/Islip. This is what the technical report says about Felixstowe-golden Triangle freight:

If, in 10 years time, UK consumers are still buying container loads of stuff from China, and the UK can get back to economic growth, then that will be the time for a Bletchley chord. But it will need other improvements, including double track Cambridge-Newmarket. It is going to be freight that will justify a Bletchley chord, not passengers.

I look at all of those EWR freight loops, and the lack of action on Ely, and try hard not to put two and two together!

This could allow traffic to be split, with ECML traffic going via Soham and Midlands/WCML via Newmarket, thereby taking some of the pressure off the Ely area. There might be level crossing issues with increasing rail traffic (no worse than Queen Adelaide clearly!). Most importantly, assuming the line was all doubled apart from the tunnel, there would be a single line block section of about one mile that way, allowing for junctions, overlaps etc, compared to five miles via Soham.

 

[bspahh]

Could help with battery trains, giving them a long run under GWML wires for charging. Much better long distance connections at Swindon, where almost everything stops.

For commuting traffic, particularly for science and technology, Didcot would be better than Swindon.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

For commuting traffic, particularly for science and technology, Didcot would be better than Swindon.

Would it? I mean, Didcot already has a reasonable service to Oxford, so all that running EWR to Didcot would achieve is increasing the frequency, plus avoiding changing for the small number of passengers who want to travel Bicester-Didcot. Swindon on the other hand has no direct service to Oxford, and no means to get to places like Milton Keynes that doesn't involve going through London, so running EWR to Swindon would be a game-changer.

 

[Magdalia]

That is completely naive to where the road traffic volumes are.

East West Rail is not about where the existing road traffic is. If it was, it wouldn't have made it to the drawing board. East West Rail is about economic growth in the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, including people working in jobs that don't exist yet and living in houses that haven't been built yet.

Tempsford could still have a station, but there's no need to build a new line parallell to the ECML.

There will be a new line parallel to the ECML whatever. EWR would not be able to run on the existing ECML tracks, which would require two big grade separated junctions instead of a simple bridge at the end of the river viaduct.

The plans for Tempsford are extremely vague and a long way off getting spades in the ground. If anything is built in the next decade I'll be surprised. Talk of it being the size of Milton Keynes so far seems to be just talk. There are real obstacles with infrastructure, flood risk etc that will delay and limit development, and that's before you consider NIMBYs and the likelihood a future government will abandon the new towns policy. Tempsford is a gamble for EWR, but is the subtext that the eastern leg is not viable without that gamble?

Tempsford, or something like it, will happen. When the New Towns Taskforce reports, I will be very surprised if Tempsford is not at or near the top of their list. Tempsford and the eastern leg of East West Rail will advance together. There is plenty of land east of the ECML, that does not have flood risk, enough to build a new town bigger than St Neots, though not as big as Milton Keynes. East of the ECML there are very few houses between Everton and Abbotsley, just a few farms and a golf club. The people in Tempsford village will make a bit of a fuss, but they are west of the ECML and won't be affected very much. Tempsford New Town will grow, it will take time but will reach a stage when East West Rail need more trains.

You have a lot more confidence in this country's ability to build houses than I do.

Watching what has been happening in and around Cambridge in the last 10 years, I know it can be done, though there are still a lot of things we need to to better, and quicker.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

(Referring to an E-N chord at Bicester)

Sorry I mean a new east-north one

I think the number of passengers who would benefit from that is pretty small. You're providing a rather indirect route between Bletchley and Birmingham that serves almost no major centres of population, when Milton Keynes already has fast trains that go via a much more direct route to Birmingham - the only problem being that the fast trains don't stop at Bletchley. For what you're trying to achieve, I'd suggest a more useful option would be to run the Bletchley-Bedford stopper through to Milton Keynes. so it can connect with the Avanti fasts (that has the added bonus of making that stopper a lot more useful to local commuters). For Bedford itself, you basically need to recast the EMR timetable so Bedford can get regular direct trains to Leicester for connections to Birmingham (that really ought to be done anyway, though I think it requires some platform work at Bedford).

 

[MarkyT]

For commuting traffic, particularly for science and technology, Didcot would be better than Swindon.

Would it? I mean, Didcot already has a reasonable service to Oxford, so all that running EWR to Didcot would achieve is increasing the frequency, plus avoiding changing for the small number of passengers who want to travel Bicester-Didcot. Swindon on the other hand has no direct service to Oxford, and no means to get to places like Milton Keynes that doesn't involve going through London, so running EWR to Swindon would be a game-changer.

The service could call at both, reversing at Didcot, assuming at some future point the relief platforms are no longer full of terminating Thames Valley local electrics and their connecting diesel shuttles to Oxford. Late-running EWRs might be short-turned at Didcot when expedient.

 

[CMS1]

Don't see why it would miss Bicester North, you could put a relatively slow speed chord in the triangle of land to the south east of the Bletchley line. Not sure that I can see the merits of doing so though.

A direct EWR to Chiltern service wouldn't be necessary if there way of interchanging at Bicester (as long as there is a direct Birmingham service via WCML), any ideas how this could be achieved?

Insane. Not just journey length but operationally it'll be an ICBM to performance.

I assume you're referring to the Manchester leg, which I admit is pushing the boat out. Birmingham is the biggest city in the wider EWR zone (and indeed the whole of the UK) after London, yet places like Bedford have no direct service, and Cambridge a v poor one.

East West Rail is not about where the existing road traffic is.

It can be about this too, and should be. Its new revenue for the railway (compared to other projects like HS2 which you could argue are just transferring existing revenue). A lot of the road traffic in the area will be people who use rail into London but not cross country as the options are so slow or don't exist. E.g. in East Anglia it's generally London by rail, other towns you have to drive.

 

[zwk500]

I assume you're referring to the Manchester leg, which I admit is pushing the boat out. Birmingham is the biggest city in the wider EWR zone (and indeed the whole of the UK) after London, yet places like Bedford have no direct service, and Cambridge a v poor one.

And the Ipswich-Cambridge leg, and the Banbury-Birmingham Leg. If you want a Cambridge-Birmingham service I'd suggest it'd still be faster via Peterborough and Leicester, otherwise the proposed 4tph Cambridge-Oxford will interchange with 2tph Euston-Birmingham at Bletchley, although annoyingly it is a second change at MK for the faster services.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A direct EWR to Chiltern service wouldn't be necessary if there way of interchanging at Bicester (as long as there is a direct Birmingham service via WCML), any ideas how this could be achieved?

Difficult. I guess you could build a new station where the EWR and Chiltern lines cross, but the Marylebone - Oxford services would probably end up unable to call there, plus you'd slow down everything if trains have to call at two stations in Bicester.

Bicester and Bicester North are only about 1km apart as the crow flies - so theoretically, about 10 minutes walk , but as far as I can make out from Google maps, the only walking routes are extremely indirect. Maybe the best bet would be to build a well signposted and more direct footpath. Not ideal, but would at least make interchange doable for some people. But realistically, you're not looking at large numbers of people. Anyone around Bletchley wanting to head North will just find their way to Avanti's services anyway.

 

[CMS1]

And the Ipswich-Cambridge leg, and the Banbury-Birmingham Leg. If you want a Cambridge-Birmingham service I'd suggest it'd still be faster via Peterborough and Leicester, otherwise the proposed 4tph Cambridge-Oxford will interchange with 2tph Euston-Birmingham at Bletchley, although annoyingly it is a second change at MK for the faster services.

A direct Cambridge to Birmingham via EWR will be at least half an hr quicker than via Leicester. And v importantly, it connects Birmingham International for the NEC and airport. Joining with the Ipswich to Cambridge will convert a lot of A14 traffic to EWR.

Not ideal, but would at least make interchange doable for some people. But realistically, you're not looking at large numbers of people.

Agree, the Chiltern connection is for traffic such as Banbury to Cambridge but not large volume.

 

[zwk500]

A direct Cambridge to Birmingham via EWR will be at least half an hr quicker than via Leicester.

If that's relying on your direct Bicester North chord, that's a rather heroic piece of infrastructure to assume.

And v importantly, it connects Birmingham International for the NEC and airport. Joining with the Ipswich to Cambridge will convert a lot of A14 traffic to EWR.

It won't convert the lorries, and it won't convert people not going to Birmingham.