Could East-West-Rail be used to divert freight away from Ely?

[DynamicSpirit]

Split from this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...s-not-speculation.99892/page-215#post-7446860

In all the discussion and consultation about EW Rail in the Bedford area, has the idea of a triangular junction with the Midland Main Line been suggested? This would enable freight trains to access the very lightly-used slow lines north of Bedford and avoid Soham and Ely.

That's an interesting idea. If I've understood you right, you're suggesting that once East-West-Rail is built to Cambridge, freight trains from Felixstowe, instead of travelling Ipswich -> Ely -> Peterborough -> etc. would travel Ipswich -> Cambridge -> new-Bedford-avoiding-curve -> slow lines to either Leicester or Oakham -> etc.

That would certainly ease pressure on the junctions at Ely, which would be hugely welcome. You'd probably need to double-track Cambridge-Newmarket to make it feasible, but that's arguably desirable anyway in order to run a decent commuter service. The freight would then need to fit in with EWR paths, but since EWR is unlikely to have more than 3-4 tph on that bit of track that's probably doable. I do wonder about the section through Cambridge -> Cambridge South though, as that's likely to be quite intensively used by passenger services. Could freight paths be found there?

 

[BerkshireRails]

That would certainly ease pressure on the junctions at Ely, which would be hugely welcome. You'd probably need to double-track Cambridge-Newmarket to make it feasible, but that's arguably desirable anyway in order to run a decent commuter service. The freight would then need to fit in with EWR paths, but since EWR is unlikely to have more than 3-4 tph on that bit of track that's probably doable. I do wonder about the section through Cambridge -> Cambridge South though, as that's likely to be quite intensively used by passenger services. Could freight paths be found there?

The plan is 4tph with 100mph line speed.

I would imagine east West Rail would allow for extra freight rather than remove freight from Ely.

 

[CMS1]

Pretty sensible. A Bedford curve would cost a lot less than the Ely mega project, and Cambridge-Newmarket needs upgrading anyway. Plus a curve at Bletchley for DIRFT and Northampton Gateway so EWR can take freight off the GEML, WCML and NLL (also much shorter route).

 

[cle]

Not the topic as such, but it might also enable other passenger services from Cambridge north onto the MML, if that was appealing - eg to Sheffield. I would think the journey time to Leicester would beat the route vs Stamford. And that stretch of EWR would have some capacity.

You could possibly send the Norwich - Nott/Liv that way and remove the reversal at Ely twice an hour. But I expect the P’boro Norwich link would be more missed.

 

[Magdalia]

you're suggesting that once East-West-Rail is built to Cambridge, freight trains from Felixstowe, instead of travelling Ipswich -> Ely -> Peterborough -> etc. would travel Ipswich -> Cambridge -> new-Bedford-avoiding-curve -> slow lines to either Leicester or Oakham -> etc.

East West Rail might be used to divert Felixstowe freight away from Ely, but not like this. The non statutory consultation suggests that, if this happens, then it will be via an east to north curve at Bletchley, not at Bedford. See here from section 14.3.4 in the technical report:

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. In addition to the Bletchley curve and Cambridge upgrades, carrying more freight may require some further upgrades to the MVL from Bletchley to Bedford, although the current EWR proposals in that section, including the double tracking of Fenny Stratford and level crossings work, go some way in supporting higher volumes of freight in future.

The Universal Theme Park would also benefit from an east to north curve at Bletchley but not at Bedford.

The non statutory consultation also included freight loops at Hauxton Junction, Cambourne, Colesden, Stewartby and Claydon/Islip.

That would certainly ease pressure on the junctions at Ely, which would be hugely welcome. You'd probably need to double-track Cambridge-Newmarket to make it feasible, but that's arguably desirable anyway in order to run a decent commuter service. The freight would then need to fit in with EWR paths, but since EWR is unlikely to have more than 3-4 tph on that bit of track that's probably doable. I do wonder about the section through Cambridge -> Cambridge South though, as that's likely to be quite intensively used by passenger services. Could freight paths be found there?

The non statutory consultation also included 4 tracks Cambridge-Shepreth Branch Junction and doubling Coldham Lane Junction-Cherry Hinton.

I travelled the Newmarket line only last week. The tricky bit for doubling is through Cherry Hinton, especially the two busy level crossings. But Fulbourn-Dullingham looked straightforward. And between Fulbourn and Six Mile Bottom looked ideal for lots of houses!

 

[dk1]

Not the topic as such, but it might also enable other passenger services from Cambridge north onto the MML, if that was appealing - eg to Sheffield. I would think the journey time to Leicester would beat the route vs Stamford. And that stretch of EWR would have some capacity.

You could possibly send the Norwich - Nott/Liv that way and remove the reversal at Ely twice an hour. But I expect the P’boro Norwich link would be more missed.

Peterborough accounts for a very large proportion of passengers on Norwich services in its own right but especially for connections to Yorkshire, the NE & Scotland.

 

[CMS1]

You could possibly send the Norwich - Nott/Liv that way and remove the reversal at Ely twice an hour. But I expect the P’boro Norwich link would be more missed.

That link needs to stay, but there was a suggestion the other day to send Nott/Liv to Stansted, and Birmingham XC to Norwich (i.e. switch the destinations) which makes sense given Cambridge-Birmingham traffic will be via EWR

 

[Nottingham59]

That link needs to stay, but there was a suggestion the other day to send Nott/Liv to Stansted, and Birmingham XC to Norwich (i.e. switch the destinations) which makes sense given Cambridge-Birmingham traffic will be via EWR

I'd have thought Cambridge-Birmingham would be faster via London.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

East West Rail might be used to divert Felixstowe freight away from Ely, but not like this. The non statutory consultation suggests that, if this happens, then it will be via an east to north curve at Bletchley, not at Bedford. See here from section 14.3.4 in the technical report:

Interesting. Seems they are already thinking about freight coming that way through Cambridge.

Does anyone know where most of the freight from Felixstowe currently routed through Ely goes to? If it's Birmingham/West Midlands/NW England then I can see that joining the WCML via a new curve at Bletchley would be most sensible. On the other hand if it's heading for the East Midlands/South Yorkshire, then joining the MML slow lines would appear to make more sense.

 

[dk1]

I'd have thought Cambridge-Birmingham would be faster via London.

Not really. It’s just over 2.5hrs direct. Remember youve got to get from Kings Cross (fastest train) to Euston for Avanti. Not a lot in it if you’re fit.

 

[Magdalia]

Does anyone know where most of the freight from Felixstowe currently routed through Ely goes to? If it's Birmingham/West Midlands/NW England then I can see that joining the WCML via a new curve at Bletchley would be most sensible. On the other hand if it's heading for the East Midlands/South Yorkshire, then joining the MML slow lines would appear to make more sense.

It isn't just about Felixstowe traffic that currently goes via Ely, it is also about Felixstowe traffic that currently goes via the North London Line.

Cambridge-Birmingham traffic will be via EWR

When EWR opens the fastest route Cambridge-Birmingham will be via Bletchley, and even more so if there is a Bletchley east to north curve that allows running into Milton Keynes.

 

[Verulamius]

If there is a curve at Bletchley then you probably will need extra lines (2?) and platforms at MK. The existing lines north of MK are likely to be sufficient.

 

[BerkshireRails]

If there is a curve at Bletchley then you probably will need extra lines (2?) and platforms at MK. The existing lines north of MK are likely to be sufficient.

Chiltern is running 2tph to Milton Keynes which needs to be accounted for.

 

[Verulamius]

Chiltern is running 2tph to Milton Keynes which needs to be accounted for.

Yes that fills up the existing capacity I understand so a North to East curve will require extra track to and through MK.

 

[CMS1]

Thats the benefit of the OPs suggestion, using the underused slow MML lines rather than WCML (but misses the 2 railfreight terminals mentioned)

 

[deltic08]

I'd have thought Cambridge-Birmingham would be faster via London.

Not really. It’s just over 2.5hrs direct. Remember youve got to get from Kings Cross (fastest train) to Euston for Avanti. Not a lot in it if you’re fit.

Not as easy for elderly, families with young children and passengers with heavy luggage as being on a through train. Irrespective of time, not only a change of mainline trains in different parts of London, but 1/2 difficult changes on the Underground involving use of escalators. If I was fit and healthy, I know I would choose the hassle free through train.

 

[William3000]

East West Rail might be used to divert Felixstowe freight away from Ely, but not like this. The non statutory consultation suggests that, if this happens, then it will be via an east to north curve at Bletchley, not at Bedford. See here from section 14.3.4 in the technical report:



The Universal Theme Park would also benefit from an east to north curve at Bletchley but not at Bedford.

The non statutory consultation also included freight loops at Hauxton Junction, Cambourne, Colesden, Stewartby and Claydon/Islip.



The non statutory consultation also included 4 tracks Cambridge-Shepreth Branch Junction and doubling Coldham Lane Junction-Cherry Hinton.

I travelled the Newmarket line only last week. The tricky bit for doubling is through Cherry Hinton, especially the two busy level crossings. But Fulbourn-Dullingham looked straightforward. And between Fulbourn and Six Mile Bottom looked ideal for lots of houses!

Doubling through Cherry Hinton isn’t difficult. It was double track until 1982 so there is enough rail land to be redoubled without acquiring any additional land.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 30 Aug 2025 ==

I'd have thought Cambridge-Birmingham would be faster via London.

Cambridge to Birmingham New Street is currently 2hrs 38 mins direct on the Cross Country train. I don’t know many people that would go via London - which is more expensive and takes longer - Birmingham New Street typically 2hrs 45 to 3hrs 30 via London Euston or 3hrs 50 to 4hrs 50 via London Marylebone to Birmingham Moor Street

 

[Magdalia]

Doubling through Cherry Hinton isn’t difficult. It was double track until 1982 so there is enough rail land to be redoubled without acquiring any additional land.

I am old enough to have travelled the line when it was double track. As you say, it was singled over 40 years ago. Just because the line was double track more than 40 years ago doesn't make it easy to reinstate now. In those 40 years a lot has happened in the Cherry Hinton/Fulbourn area. In particular the bypass was constructed, and this crosses the line on a level crossing that was only ever designed for single track. Next to the level crossing is the Tesco supermarket which didn't exist when the line was double track and generates a lot of road and bus traffic.

Between the bypass and the previously existing Fulbourn Old Drift level crossing a new footpath/cycleway was installed next to the south side of the line and, looking last week, I think this may have taken railway land.

The Cherry Hinton High Street level crossing will also be an issue because of the much higher traffic flows there now compared to the 1980s. As with the bypass, the level crossing is now designed for single track.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Doubling through Cherry Hinton isn’t difficult. It was double track until 1982 so there is enough rail land to be redoubled without acquiring any additional land.

I am old enough to have travelled the line when it was double track. As you say, it was singled over 40 years ago. Just because the line was double track more than 40 years ago doesn't make it easy to reinstate now. In those 40 years a lot has happened in the Cherry Hinton/Fulbourn area. In particular the bypass was constructed, and this crosses the line on a level crossing that was only ever designed for single track. Next to the level crossing is the Tesco supermarket which didn't exist when the line was double track and generates a lot of road and bus traffic.

Between the bypass and the previously existing Fulbourn Old Drift level crossing a new footpath/cycleway was installed next to the south side of the line and, looking last week, I think this may have taken railway land.

The Cherry Hinton High Street level crossing will also be an issue because of the much higher traffic flows there now compared to the 1980s. As with the bypass, the level crossing is now designed for single track.

Even if you could dual Cherry Hinton, the Coldham's Road (Laundry Lane) automatically operated level crossing is on a tight single line 10 mph curve with nearby industrial units (albeit none that would be much of a loss if CPO'd and cleared). I'd be interested how the consultation accounts for this.

Dualling a 10 mph curve still gives you a 10 mph curve unless it's extensively remodelled, and a liner travelling west to east on the current alignment would have to take the main Cambridge-Ely line past the Beehive Centre and the TMD, snaking well back into the station as the loco and entire train traverses Coldham Lane junction and crossing at 10 mph to any prospective newly doubled Cherry Hinton, decimating capacity leaving Cambridge towards Ely.

Users unfamiliar (or familiar!) with the route may enjoy this Class 37 cab ride out of Cambridge and through the section. It gets the green at 03:30 and traverses the up, rolls over Coldham's Road at 10 mph before gaining speed. The busy Cherry Hinton LC at 07:26.

 

[dk1]

Even if you could dual Cherry Hinton, the Coldham's Road (Laundry Lane) automatically operated level crossing is on a tight single line 10 mph curve with nearby industrial units (albeit none that would be much of a loss if CPO'd and cleared). I'd be interested how the consultation accounts for this.

Dualling a 10 mph curve still gives you a 10 mph curve unless it's extensively remodelled, and a liner travelling west to east on the current alignment would have to take the main Cambridge-Ely line past the Beehive Centre and the TMD, snaking well back into the station as the loco and entire train traverses Coldham Lane junction and crossing at 10 mph to any prospective newly doubled Cherry Hinton, decimating capacity leaving Cambridge towards Ely.

Users unfamiliar (or familiar!) with the route may enjoy this Class 37 cab ride out of Cambridge and through the section. It gets the green at 03:30 and traverses the up, rolls over Coldham's Road at 10 mph before gaining speed. The busy Cherry Hinton LC at 07:26.

Isn’t the curve 20mph? I was under the impression it was just Laundry Lane ABCL (or AOCL+B) that was 10mph.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Isn’t the curve 20mph? I was under the impression it was just Laundry Lane ABCL (or AOCL+B) that was 10mph.

Indeed, immediately up to 20 but the whole of a long train is going to need to traverse the crossing at 10 before accelerating away.

 

[dk1]

Indeed, immediately up to 20 but the whole of a long train is going to need to traverse the crossing at 10 before accelerating away.

I would imagine that crossing will get upgraded under EWR plans but a sensible idea would be for level crossings to have a permanent ‘A’ immediately after as is now the case with temporary speed restrictions where only sighting is the issue.

Good to see it will be bidi into Cambridge from Coldham Lane later this year.

 

[Nottingham59]

Cambridge to Birmingham New Street is currently 2hrs 38 mins direct on the Cross Country train. I don’t know many people that would go via London - which is more expensive and takes longer - Birmingham New Street typically 2hrs 45 to 3hrs 30 via London Euston or 3hrs 50 to 4hrs 50 via London Marylebone to Birmingham Moor Street

Yes, but my thinking was that HS2 will be open, probably all the way to Euston, before East West Rail gets to Cambridge.

 

[dk1]

Not as easy for elderly, families with young children and passengers with heavy luggage as being on a through train. Irrespective of time, not only a change of mainline trains in different parts of London, but 1/2 difficult changes on the Underground involving use of escalators. If I was fit and healthy, I know I would choose the hassle free through train.

Exactly and why I said fit. Personally I always walk it the back way from Kings Cross via St.Pancras to Euston. Conveniently passing two Wetherspoons on the way

 

[Magdalia]

Even if you could dual Cherry Hinton, the Coldham's Road (Laundry Lane) automatically operated level crossing is on a tight single line 10 mph curve with nearby industrial units (albeit none that would be much of a loss if CPO'd and cleared). I'd be interested how the consultation accounts for this.

Until the last EWR non-statutory consultation I had thought that Laundry Lane was a deal breaker for redoubling.

As a customer of one of the businesses located north of the crossing I don't share your dismissive view of their access requirements.

But the EWR proposed turnback siding at Cambridge East has changed my thinking about what is possible. This is what the non-statutory consultation said about Laundry Lane:

Laundry Lane level crossing is presently an Automatic Barrier Crossing Locally Monitored type crossing (AOCL+B) with trains passing over the crossing at 10mph. This means that local on-track protection equipment would automatically close the level crossing to non railway users to allow trains to pass. With the addition of one new track, the speed increase to 25mph and taking into account the additional trains passing over this crossing to reach the turnback facility to the east, it is proposed to upgrade the crossing to a Manually Controlled Barrier with Obstacle Detector type crossing (MCB-OD) to reduce safety risks.

Isn’t the curve 20mph? I was under the impression it was just Laundry Lane ABCL (or AOCL+B) that was 10mph.

these speed limits are what are in the sectional appendix. The Laundry Lane level crossing is classified AOCL+B.

 

[dk1]

Laundry Lane level crossing is classified AOCL+B.

Thank you. I was sure I recalled passing it as an open crossing a few years back.

 

[Royston Vasey]

As a customer of one of the businesses located north of the crossing I don't share your dismissive view of their access requirements.

Not my intent to offend, I meant architecturally and of course businesses should always be fully compensated to relocate in unavoidable cases. There's also the excellent Centre for Computing History on the south side that would probably be displaced.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2025 ==

But the EWR proposed turnback siding at Cambridge East has changed my thinking about what is possible. This is what the non-statutory consultation said about Laundry Lane:

Very interesting, thank you for quoting. 25 is a big improvement, though with the long conflicting move will still eat capacity both ways to the north of Cambridge station. Do they state how many paths they'd expect this to create, between Shepreth Branch Jn and Coldham Lane Jn? There can't be much spare capacity through CBG as it is! Would they also have to knock down the Arriva TMD for the dualling?



(Always irritated me btw that Coldham Lane Jn refers to the nearby Coldham's Lane, and have always assumed the railway got it wrong when they built it, but given the age of the railway there, wonder if the railway terminology might actually predate a bastardisation of the road itself!)

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Aug 2025 ==

Good to see it will be bidi into Cambridge from Coldham Lane later this year.

Interesting... and would greatly help any kind of freight traffic as it removes the conflicting move across Coldham Lane Jn I mentioned. I wonder if the Ipswich services could then shift to the island platforms to avoid having to cross to 5 and 6? That said, 7 and 8 are not exactly lightly used as it is.

 

[dk1]

Interesting... and would greatly help any kind of freight traffic as it removes the conflicting move across Coldham Lane Jn I mentioned. I wonder if the Ipswich services could then shift to the island platforms to avoid having to cross to 5 and 6? That said, 7 and 8 are not exactly lightly used as it is.

You may see some ad-hoc Ipswich services booked into 7/8 which will no doubt end up with a ‘platform alteration’ but as you say they are not lightly used now and will only get busier in the future. Even from this December XC go hourly back into Stansted.

 

[Magdalia]

Very interesting, thank you for quoting. 25 is a big improvement, though with the long conflicting move will still eat capacity both ways to the north of Cambridge station. Do they state how many paths they'd expect this to create, between Shepreth Branch Jn and Coldham Lane Jn? There can't be much spare capacity through CBG as it is! Would they also have to knock down the Arriva TMD for the dualling?

It is difficult to tell from what was in the non-statutory consultation technical report, but I think the intention is to reinstate 4 running lines between Cambridge station and Coldham Lane Junction, which is what existed before the Coldham Lane Junction-Dullingham singling. It shouldn't affect what is now the Arriva TMD, which was built in the late 1950s, and I still think of as "the diesel shed". But it would mean the loss of some of the north end carriage sidings.

I wonder if the Ipswich services could then shift to the island platforms to avoid having to cross to 5 and 6? That said, 7 and 8 are not exactly lightly used as it is.

The non-statutory consultation proposals for Cambridge station include lengthening the platform 7/8 island and a new platform 9 on what is now the reception roads. But, given what has emerged about Bedford this week, I expect the proposals for Cambridge to change too in an effort to get more speedy construction.

(Always irritated me btw that Coldham Lane Jn refers to the nearby Coldham's Lane, and have always assumed the railway got it wrong when they built it, but given the age of the railway there, wonder if the railway terminology might actually predate a bastardisation of the road itself!)

I regard this as an endearing Great Eastern Railway feature! There are various examples of irregular name spelling all round East Anglia including Fulbourne not far away, though that now has the standard Fulbourn spelling in the sectional appendix.

 

[Brubulus]

It is difficult to tell from what was in the non-statutory consultation technical report, but I think the intention is to reinstate 4 running lines between Cambridge station and Coldham Lane Junction, which is what existed before the Coldham Lane Junction-Dullingham singling. It shouldn't affect what is now the Arriva TMD, which was built in the late 1950s, and I still think of as "the diesel shed". But it would mean the loss of some of the north end carriage sidings.

The non-statutory consultation proposals for Cambridge station include lengthening the platform 7/8 island and a new platform 9 on what is now the reception roads. But, given what has emerged about Bedford this week, I expect the proposals for Cambridge to change too in an effort to get more speedy construction.


I regard this as an endearing Great Eastern Railway feature! There are various examples of irregular name spelling all round East Anglia including Fulbourne not far away, though that now has the standard Fulbourn spelling in the sectional appendix.

Has the plan for 4 tracking been accounted for in the planned Beehive Centre redevelopment?
Or has it been done so it would not encroach on their land?