What would the ideal Oxbridge Arc look like?

[PTR 444]

Based on the similarly titled GWML and ECML threads, although this is more focused on development of the Oxbridge Arc as a whole rather than just railway related. Of course, East West Rail plays a massive part in growth along the corridor, but how that growth is manifested is another question, whether that be new towns, employment hubs or tourist destinations.

So imagine you’re developing the Oxbridge Arc to grow the UK economy, SimCity style, how would you like it to look?

 

[CMS1]

Another option to add is a service extending to Newmarket/Bury St Edmunds/Ipswich

 

[The Planner]

There is going to be 2tph Oxford to MK anyway?

 

[Magdalia]

this is more focused on development of the Oxbridge Arc

Mentions of the arc remind me of a scene from Airplane II:

We'd better get to the arc
We have no arc, minister
No arc?
Just a corridor, minister

From the Cambridge end of the corridor the immediate priorities are water, houses and transport. Getting Bedford-Cambridge and Tempsford New Town built are key parts of that, as is the Chatteris reservoir.

I'm not expecting EWR to be much different from what was in the non-statutory consultation. Key outstanding questions are the Marston Vale stations (I'm expecting a variant of the consolidated stations option), powering the trains (I'm expecting discontinuous electrification and battery bimode trains) and what to do for Universal (I don't know enough to speculate). In particular I'm not expecting any through running EWR<->beyond Cambridge.

In this timescale I don't see electricity supply as a key constraint, except maybe the grid. We have lots of solar, wind and nuclear nearby.

Assuming that Bedford-Cambridge and Universal get built, my speculation on what would then become priorities include:

Expanding Cambridge eastwards, but staying within the M11/A11/A14 triangle, and new stations on a redoubled Newmarket line
The Gogs and the river valleys would be protected, especially the chalk streams
Hobsons Park extended all the way to Shepreth Branch Junction
Addenbrookes 3 especially a new A+E
A local transport strategy much more like what has recently been published by Oxfordshire County Council, not light rail and bus franchising rabbit holes
This would include Kings Cross-Ely stoppers and Liverpool Street-Newmarket stoppers forming a Cambridge Metro, with multimode ticketing
Lots of development in and around Bedford and Milton Keynes, especially for growing businesses spinning out from Cambridge or Oxford, but also the impact of Universal
At this stage we might get a north curve at Bletchley and continuous electrification on EWR

 

[Topological]

A large number of these are desirable social features, rather than specific to the arc.

For the arc to develop I think it is essential to loop in Bristol and Birmingham. Hence of the 4tph Oxford to Cambridge, at least one should be to Bristol. For the 2tph Cambridge to Milton Keynes, at least one should be to Birmingham.

The line between Oxford and Bicester will get very busy though. So maybe something will have to give from the 2tph London, 2tph Milton Keynes and 4tph Cambridge.

 

[Magdalia]

The line between Oxford and Bicester will get very busy though. So maybe something will have to give from the 2tph London, 2tph Milton Keynes and 4tph Cambridge.

The proposed service in the non-statutory consultation is:

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

If the consolidated stations option is chosen then the stopper gets dropped and one of Cambridge-Stewartby trains runs through to/from Bletchley.

For the 2tph Cambridge to Milton Keynes,

In the absence of a north curve at Bletchley, there are no Cambridge-Milton Keynes direct trains.

For the arc to develop I think it is essential to loop in Bristol and Birmingham.

Bristol and Birmingham are not in the corridor, and they weren't in the arc. They are not essential for developing the corridor.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In the absence of a north curve at Bletchley, there are no Cambridge-Milton Keynes direct trains.

This to me would be of major benefit. Indeed it's quite poor that it's not part of the plan. Bedford-MK demand is significant and presently mostly by car.

 

[Topological]

The proposed service in the non-statutory consultation is:

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

If the consolidated stations option is chosen then the stopper gets dropped and one of Cambridge-Stewartby trains runs through to/from Bletchley.


In the absence of a north curve at Bletchley, there are no Cambridge-Milton Keynes direct trains.


Bristol and Birmingham are not in the corridor, and they weren't in the arc. They are not essential for developing the corridor.

All true, but my post is based on the options in the OP

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 14 Sep 2025 ==

This to me would be of major benefit. Indeed it's quite poor that it's not part of the plan. Bedford-MK demand is significant and presently mostly by car.

Indeed. Really surprises me that it is not in the formal consultation. However, the curve would presumably have a huge benefit ratio when the time comes.

Is it possible that they want to see what the post HS2 timetable looks like before adding trains to the WCML.

 

[PTR 444]

The proposed service in the non-statutory consultation is:

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

If the consolidated stations option is chosen then the stopper gets dropped and one of Cambridge-Stewartby trains runs through to/from Bletchley.


In the absence of a north curve at Bletchley, there are no Cambridge-Milton Keynes direct trains.


Bristol and Birmingham are not in the corridor, and they weren't in the arc. They are not essential for developing the corridor.

Is Stewartby proposed to be the official EWR station for Universal?

 

[Magdalia]

Is Stewartby proposed to be the official EWR station for Universal?

The non-statutory consultation predates Universal. The turnback at Stewartby is for three reasons: it avoids needing a turnback at Bedford, it enables the trains to serve Bedford hospital, and it provides 4tph Stewartby-Cambridge on the basis that Stewartby is within commuting range to Cambridge.

This is one aspect where the statutory consultation could be quite different, to take account of Universal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Is it possible that they want to see what the post HS2 timetable looks like before adding trains to the WCML.

That is one issue with the idea, though it should be possible to get an extra pair of tracks between Bletchley and MKC, and another one or two platforms at MKC, without significant demolition. That would of course push the cost up somewhat. But I think there's enough demand from the east to MKC to cover a fair whack of that cost - the Marston Vale is only a basket case because it goes to Bletchley which is not where most want to go. If it went to MKC I think it would be a very typical provincial DMU commuter service - sure, not 12 car trains, but the 2 car ones wouldn't give everyone 4 or 6 seats each.

 

[Magdalia]

Indeed. Really surprises me that it is not in the formal consultation. However, the curve would presumably have a huge benefit ratio when the time comes.

The non-statutory consultation was originally devised to be launched in May 2024, but was pulled when the General Election was called. That was in the shadow of the cancellation of the northern leg of HS2. Given the political climate at the time it didn't surprise me a bit that it didn't include a Bletchley north curve.

I will be surprised if it gets added into the statutory consultation because of the risks of it delaying the whole project.

 

[Brubulus]

This to me would be of major benefit. Indeed it's quite poor that it's not part of the plan. Bedford-MK demand is significant and presently mostly by car.

Absolutely agree. Another thing - a North Curve near St Neots so trains can reach the ECML from EWR, enabling a direct Cambridge-Huntingdon rail service. Given this is Speculative Discussion, building a short spur to a terminus at Alconbury Weald and running the GN services to London from there all day + Cambridge-Huntingdon. I wouldn't reroute Cambridge-Birmingham via MK, instead simply run 1tph Cambridge-MK, as an extension of the proposed Stewartby service, alongside 1 to Bletchley/MK via all consolidated stations. MK services should reverse at Bletchley instead of requiring a north curve there.

I would like to see an OOC to MKC service, via Aylesbury. Initially it can be 1tph, but as demand develops it could potentially move to 2tph, provided there are speed improvements between Aylesbury and Princes Risborough. Secondly, I do think there should be a long distance regional express service from Bristol to Norwich, due to the various transport opportunities it creates.

Tempsford must not be another Cambourne or Northstowe. The government needs to ensure that it is a high density community, with at least 60,000 residents, and London rates of car ownership. When designing a site by scratch, it is much easier to create a high density community that is not car dependent,

 

[Magdalia]

a North Curve near St Neots so trains can reach the ECML from EWR, enabling a direct Cambridge-Huntingdon rail service.

This is fantasy, especially as it would require grade separation in the flood plain to join the northbound ECML somewhere in the Paxton/Offord area.

Given this is Speculative Discussion, building a short spur to a terminus at Alconbury Weald and running the GN services to London from there all day

This isn't going to happen because the carriage sidings and the traincrew are at Peterborough. But a station on the ECML near the eastern end of the old airfield runway could be feasible.

MK services should reverse at Bletchley instead of requiring a north curve there.

My understanding is that there is insufficient track capacity between Bletchley and Milton Keynes for this.

I do think there should be a long distance regional express service from Bristol to Norwich, due to the various transport opportunities it creates.

Absolutely not. Lots of performance risk for tiny reward. EWR is for moving lots of people along the Oxford-Cambridge corridor, not creating long distance journeys only made by a few people.

 

[Snow1964]

Quite a scattering of results.

At current time, nothing 70% or more, just 3 between 60% and 69.99%, and 4 having 50% to 59.99% votes.

All the rest below 50%.
So not really any dominant or highly preferred options

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tempsford must not be another Cambourne or Northstowe. The government needs to ensure that it is a high density community, with at least 60,000 residents, and London rates of car ownership. When designing a site by scratch, it is much easier to create a high density community that is not car dependent

It's not because people won't live there. Cars are a necessity in rural areas and banning or restricting them will just result in it being a giant sink estate.

It needs to be a 15 minute town, but you can't get rid of the cars.

What you COULD consider doing is making it a zero emissions zone from day one, though?

 

[Technologist]

It's not because people won't live there. Cars are a necessity in rural areas and banning or restricting them will just result in it being a giant sink estate.

It needs to be a 15 minute town, but you can't get rid of the cars.

What you COULD consider doing is making it a zero emissions zone from day one, though?

If you look at the town designs in the Netherlands, Belgium or Denmark the typical layout for a new town would be that there would be adequate parking for the residents to have plenty of cars, they drive at least as much as we do. The point would be how the roads are arranged with poor inter connectivity between districts but relatively short distanced to get to a ring road or external trunk route.

If you want to go local, active or public transport is quick and people use it, if you want to drive you generally go adequately fast as most of the journey is on a grade separated road. In many of the dense or historic towns they also have quite substantial underground carparks in the town centres, street or drive parking is quite space inefficient.

The bit we miss in the UK is that we go for the LTNs and the traffic restriction but we don't have the carrot of good trunk roads and bypasses. The two aren't mutually exclusive and the general climate based objection to new roads isn't really a thing for the lifetime of a road planned today.

 

[Brubulus]

It's not because people won't live there. Cars are a necessity in rural areas and banning or restricting them will just result in it being a giant sink estate.

It needs to be a 15 minute town, but you can't get rid of the cars.

What you COULD consider doing is making it a zero emissions zone from day one, though?

I was effectively thinking of using communal parking, with enough spaces for 1 car per household on average. The city should be large/dense enough with a substantial enough population of non car users that public transport becomes viable. Secondly when planning a new town, you can put car sharing and similar facilities even closer than private cars. Were it to be a 10,000 resident low density community, I would entirely understand aversity to reducing the number of cars and by no means should trunk road links be poor, but it should be set up to incentive public transport in a way most UK new towns fail to do and that it should be a truly urban settlement instead of just some massive suburban estate. A system of communal car parks that are directly linked to trunk roads is a good idea, which then would enable most of the community to be car-free while still preserving access to private cars.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was effectively thinking of using communal parking, with enough spaces for 1 car per household on average. The city should be large/dense enough with a substantial enough population of non car users that public transport becomes viable. Secondly when planning a new town, you can put car sharing and similar facilities even closer than private cars. Were it to be a 10,000 resident low density community, I would entirely understand aversity to reducing the number of cars and by no means should trunk road links be poor, but it should be set up to incentive public transport in a way most UK new towns fail to do and that it should be a truly urban settlement instead of just some massive suburban estate. A system of communal car parks that are directly linked to trunk roads is a good idea, which then would enable most of the community to be car-free while still preserving access to private cars.

Which is all very well, but you are making the same big mistake as the designers of Skelmersdale and initially Milton Keynes - the idea that local travel within the town is all people will do.

Tempsford is in the middle of a field. A car is a necessity if you want to go anywhere other than London or Cambridge (demand for travel to Bedford, MK or Oxford is likely to be low), and I bet plenty would drive to St Neots for the former.

 

[Brubulus]

Which is all very well, but you are making the same big mistake as the designers of Skelmersdale and initially Milton Keynes - the idea that local travel within the town is all people will do.

Tempsford is in the middle of a field. A car is a necessity if you want to go anywhere other than London or Cambridge (demand for travel to Bedford, MK or Oxford is likely to be low), and I bet plenty would drive to St Neots for the former.

If anything Tempsford should get better railway service than St Neots. I'm only saying this if Tempsford becomes a high density community, as I believe it should be at least 50 dwellings per hectare in residential areas. Were it to be like Skelmersdale or MK, with much lower densities, the argument for allowing more car ownership is stronger.

I'm sure it's going to end up just like Northstowe, as a low quality dormitory village with maybe 10,000 homes at most.

 

[Farnborough]

For the arc to develop I think it is essential to loop in Bristol and Birmingham. Hence of the 4tph Oxford to Cambridge, at least one should be to Bristol. For the 2tph Cambridge to Milton Keynes, at least one should be to Birmingham.

Let's focus on getting a reliable 4tph between Oxford and Cambridge

Expending to cover the rest of the country (as seems to be the desire for the Elizabeth Line, too) should wait

 

[Magdalia]

If anything Tempsford should get better railway service than St Neots.

I'm sure it's going to end up just like Northstowe, as a low quality dormitory village with maybe 10,000 homes at most.

These two statements are completely contradictory.

The 2021 census built up area population of St Neots is 33k. It will take time, but I'm expecting Tempsford to grow to be bigger than St Neots. If it is also denser then it could eventually get up to 50-60k population.

There is no point building Tempsford, and much less point in building East West Rail, if Tempsford is only going to be like Northstowe.

Tempsford is in the middle of a field. A car is a necessity if you want to go anywhere other than London or Cambridge (demand for travel to Bedford, MK or Oxford is likely to be low), and I bet plenty would drive to St Neots for the former.

Tempsford won't be in the middle of a field, it will have a railway station on the ECML and EWR, and is next to the A1 and the A421. It is this connectivity that gets it at are near the top of nearly everyone's list of potential new town locations.

The station will start with 2tph Thameslink service on the ECML, the same as St Neots, 4tph on EWR to Cambridge and, going the other way, 2tph to Oxford plus another 2tph to Bedford and Stewartby.

Yes, the main rail flows from Tempsford will be to Cambridge and London, but there will be traffic going in other directions too. St Neots has 58k one way journeys to Huntingdon and 39k one way journeys to Peterborough. I'd expect Tempsford-Bedford to be bigger than either of those, and with a lot of growth potential. The Bedford of 15-20 years time is likely to be quite different from now if it gets EWR and Universal.

If the planners get the road network and the public transport right then there will be no attraction for Tempsford rail travellers to drive to St Neots instead of using their own station. If anything it will be the other way round, especially people using Tempsford as a parkway station for Cambridge.

 

[William3000]

Which is all very well, but you are making the same big mistake as the designers of Skelmersdale and initially Milton Keynes - the idea that local travel within the town is all people will do.

Tempsford is in the middle of a field. A car is a necessity if you want to go anywhere other than London or Cambridge (demand for travel to Bedford, MK or Oxford is likely to be low), and I bet plenty would drive to St Neots for the former.

What about those of us who don’t have cars. 40% don’t and are entirely reliant on public transport. People often say we will use our cars but what if we don’t have one

 

[bspahh]

From the Cambridge end of the corridor the immediate priorities are water, houses and transport. Getting Bedford-Cambridge and Tempsford New Town built are key parts of that, as is the Chatteris reservoir.

There is a Design Refinement Report for the Chatteris Reservoir

Page 78 says:

7.3.20 Option A: Whitemoor Yard – Whitemoor Yard is an existing facility located approximately 9km from the reservoir site, accessible via trunk roads commonly used by HGVs. We do not anticipate needing land beyond the yard’s current boundaries, which is owned and operated by Network Rail.

7.3.21 Option B: Stonea–Manea Sidings – This option involves constructing new sidings specifically to support the reservoir build. Materials would be transported from the sidings to the site via a temporary haul road across open fields, as shown in Figure 7.2.

7.3.22 We do not expect the Stonea–Manea facility to provide long-term benefits after construction. Therefore, we anticipate decommissioning it once construction is complete, unless Network Rail chooses to retain it as a permanent asset. This will be confirmed during project development.

7.3.23 This option would require land acquisition for the new rail sidings and the haul road. Most of the land needed is expected to be temporary. We are currently investigating the environmental impacts of this option, as well as the potential benefits of diverting construction traffic away from the main highway network.

7.3.24 Both rail facilities, Whitemoor Yard and Stonea-Manea sidings, connect to the national rail network which links to northern UK regions and various ports. Given the likelihood of sourcing materials from across the UK or overseas, these railhead options offer a strong opportunity to support sustainable transport in line with national planning policy.

7.3.25 We expect to rely heavily on the chosen railhead option for six to eight years. During this period, material movement is likely to be relatively consistent. Initial studies suggest we may need to operate up to four trains per day during the first one to two years to meet peak demand, with reduced frequency in later stages.

7.3.26 Our current investigations show both railhead options can accommodate the required material volumes, including space for stockpiling materials to ensure uniform HGV movement throughout the day. However, during certain months, aggregate demand may exceed rail capacity, requiring supplemental road transport from source to site.

7.3.27 At a peak of four trains per day – delivering approximately 5,800 tonnes of material – we estimate up to 350 to 400 HGV movements per day between the railhead (either option) and the site. On a typical weekday, with a 10-hour delivery window, this equates to less than one HGV movement per minute. In addition to this, deliveries via rail to the main reservoir site would be supplemented by deliveries by road up to approximately 200 - 250 HGV movements per day.

7.3.28 If the Stonea-Manea sidings option is selected, all material imported via this route would be transferred to the site along a haul road using HGVs. This would minimise construction traffic on the public road network, however the haul route would cross Manea Road.

7.3.29 We are currently assessing the impact of this traffic on affected roads to determine the feasibility of the Whitemoor Yard option. This includes evaluating whether junction improvements may be necessary to accommodate increased traffic flows during the construction period. We are also exploring mitigation design opportunities.

This is figure 7.2

1 HGV per minute for 10 hours a day seems to me like a lot of extra traffic for the A141.

 

[RT4038]

What about those of us who don’t have cars. 40% don’t and are entirely reliant on public transport. People often say we will use our cars but what if we don’t have one

The reality is that many of those 40% are children or infirm elderly and/or have access to a car. Which, outside of the big urban areas, leaves only a small proportion, for whom bus service(s) will cater for.

 

[Magdalia]

There is a Design Refinement Report for the Chatteris Reservoir

There is an ongoing public consultation on the Chatteris reservoir see here:

About the consultation - Anglian Water - Fens Reservoir

Our phase three consultation is open from 15 October to 10 December.

fensreservoir.co.uk

Phase three consultation​

Our phase three consultation is open from 15 October to 10 December.​

We’re presenting our latest proposals for a proposed new reservoir in the Fens, as well as its connecting infrastructure. This is our third phase of consultation in a multi-phase approach, and once again we’re welcoming feedback from the public and other stakeholders.

I'm hoping to attend one of the consultation events which are listed here:

Events and information - Anglian Water - Fens Reservoir

In your community

fensreservoir.co.uk

We’re hosting a series of in person events in those communities closest to our proposals.

Community events
Location	Date	Time
St Wendreda’s Church Hall, March, PE15 9PY	Monday 3 Nov	3pm-8pm
Wimblington Parish Hall, PE15 0QT	Friday 7 Nov	1pm-6pm
Bar Hill Village Hall, CB23 8SU	Saturday 8 Nov	10am-3pm
Queen Street Church, Whittlesey, PE7 1AY	Monday 10 Nov	3pm-8pm
Bluntisham Village Hall, PE28 3LR	Tuesday 11 Nov	11am-4pm
Downham Market Town Hall, PE38 9DW	Thursday 13 Nov	3pm-8pm
Doddington Village Hall, PE15 0TG	Friday 14 Nov	1pm-6pm
The Bricstan Hall, Chatteris, PE16 6BE	Saturday 15 Nov	10am-3pm
Manea Village Hall, PE15 0JN	Tuesday 18 Nov	3pm-8pm
Swavesey Memorial Hall, CB24 4QU	Friday 21 Nov	1pm-6pm

 

[VItraveller]

A large number of these are desirable social features, rather than specific to the arc.

For the arc to develop I think it is essential to loop in Bristol and Birmingham. Hence of the 4tph Oxford to Cambridge, at least one should be to Bristol. For the 2tph Cambridge to Milton Keynes, at least one should be to Birmingham.

The line between Oxford and Bicester will get very busy though. So maybe something will have to give from the 2tph London, 2tph Milton Keynes and 4tph Cambridge.”

Why stop at Bristol, we might as well start from Cardiff and continue on to Cambridge.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

Re-routing the Bournemouth to Manchester services via MK is an interesting idea but don't think will be very useful.

 

[Zomboid]

Re-routing the Bournemouth to Manchester services via MK is an interesting idea but don't think will be very useful.

No, they provide the service between Reading/ Oxford and Birmingham. I don't know if that's a suggestion to go MK to Manchester via the Trent Valley or via Birmingham, but neither would actually improve matters for people who want to travel that way.

 

[Sad Sprinter]

No, they provide the service between Reading/ Oxford and Birmingham. I don't know if that's a suggestion to go MK to Manchester via the Trent Valley or via Birmingham, but neither would actually improve matters for people who want to travel that way.

I think post-HS2 rerouting the Bournemouth service to Paddington would be more useful to provide a link with OOC from Dorset/Hampshire.