East-West Rail (EWR) Cambridge - Bletchley - Oxford speculative thread

[ac6000cw]

There's an ideal triangular pocket of scrubby undeveloped land between the current alignment and Coldham's Lane, which would be perfect for a Cambridge East station, a car park and a west-facing fan of carriage sidings. It is also currently well separated from any housing and would remain so even when the airport is fully developed.

Where they've put the EWR blob is on top of a small housing estate, a Sainsbury's and a cement works...

...but the actual likely site would have to be more like here, a little southeast of the blob:

https://www.google.com/maps/@52.1973124,0.1615225,1437m/data=!3m1!1e3?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MTExNi4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw==

If all they they really need a glorified eastern carriage sidings and turnback, it's an ideal site. I am pleased they are looking to make it somewhat useful to an underserved and soon-growing community.

The:

ideal triangular pocket of scrubby undeveloped land between the current alignment and Coldham's Lane

...is actually the top of an old refuse landfill site, which was originally a clay/chalk pit for the Cherry Hinton cement works (which was situated where the Holiday Inn and David Lloyd buildings are now). The areas of water to the west and south of it on the other side of the railway are flooded ex-clay/chalk pits. The undeveloped areas to the east and north east of the David Lloyd buildings are also old landfill sites. The industrial units to the north of David Lloyd are actually in the bottom of the only pit that wasn't either flooded or landfilled.

I assume the landfill issues (e.g. contaminated land and methane production) are why those areas have remained undeveloped to date.

In its later years before it closed in the mid-1980s, IIRC the cement works drying ovens were powered by methane gas produced by the decaying refuse in the covered-over landfill pits.

History of the cement works - https://capturingcambridge.org/barnwell/coldhams-lane/norman-cement-works/

 

[Royston Vasey]

The south end bays at Cambridge are currently used by the GN Kings Cross stoppers, plus a few 5 car Liverpool Street services that don't go through to Cambridge North. The GN Kings Cross stoppers are currently 2tph at peak times, with long turnrounds, and I suspect that they will go 2tph all day once Cambridge South is established.

I have travelled the Newmarket line recently, most of the route still has room for 2 tracks, apart possibly for near Fulbourn Old Drift, though there is equipment that would need to be moved at the 2 Cherry Hinton level crossings.

This is definitely speculation but the outcome I would like to see is:

• 4 tracks paired by use Shepreth Branch-Coldhams Lane
• EWR use the south end bays 2 and 3 at Cambridge
• GN stoppers run through to/from Cambridge North (or Ely?), same for the fasts to/from the Fens
• Liverpool Street trains run through to/from Cambridge East (or Newmarket?)
• the only conflicting movements would be the Stansted-Norwich/Peterborough trains, plus the 2tph Brighton trains, if they need to go to the Cambridge East turnback, and the Ipswich trains, if they still need to use the north end bays.

I think we spoke on here about some of these topics recently, particularly the 10mph Laundry Lane curve/crossing which is used to access the Newmarket Line. I see in that thread your quote on the proposal to dual it and increase the speed to 25 mph from the EWR consultation.

Electrified, that would allow two track access to this area south of the airport here:

(Construction is already ongoing at the patch of land by King's Meadow on the airfield, you can see the prepared land on the satellite image there ).

Ideally relocating Heidelberg Cement (give them the concrete contract as an incentive!) you've got a triangle of land at least 250m long and 200m wide, even without knocking down the Booker warehouse. Enough for a through platform, and a decent array of bay platforms and storage roads for 10-car 720s or even potentially 12-car 700s. Hardly any neighbours, although I am sure anyone moving to the new houses on the airport would object vigorously!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2025 ==

The:

...is actually the top of an old refuse landfill site, which was originally a clay/chalk pit for the Cherry Hinton cement works (which was situated where the Holiday Inn and David Lloyd buildings are now). The areas of water to the west and south of it on the other side of the railway are flooded ex-clay/chalk pits. The undeveloped areas to the east and north east of the David Lloyd buildings are also old landfill sites. The industrial units to the north of David Lloyd are actually in the bottom of the only pit that wasn't either flooded or landfilled.

I assume the landfill issues (e.g. contaminated land and methane production) are why those areas have remained undeveloped to date.

In its later years before it closed in the mid-1980s, IIRC the cement works drying ovens were powered by methane gas produced by the decaying refuse in the covered-over landfill pits.

History of the cement works - https://capturingcambridge.org/barnwell/coldhams-lane/norman-cement-works/

Thanks for this. I would have thought a rail yard would be a reasonable way to reuse that sort of land, if it can be made stable? By that time they could fill it with spoil from HS2b or HS3!

I should also add that the land was also approved for a science park and residential development last year which was very controversial, not least due to that land contamination.

https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/major-new-science-park-built-29976581

 

[ac6000cw]

deally relocating Heidelberg Cement (give them the concrete contract as an incentive!) you've got a triangle of land at least 250m long and 200m wide, even without knocking down the Booker warehouse. Enough for a through platform, and a decent array of bay platforms and storage roads for 10-car 720s or even potentially 12-car 700s. Hardly any neighbours, although I am sure anyone moving to the new houses on the airport would object vigorously!

One of the planning application docs relating to the science park development is here - https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/...ts+pack+19th-Sep-2024+10.00+Planning.pdf?T=10 - the 'triangle of land' - Parcel B in the doc, see pages 12-14 - is currently 'protected open space', and isn't being developed as part of the science park.

 

[The Pelican]

The south end bays at Cambridge are currently used by the GN Kings Cross stoppers, plus a few 5 car Liverpool Street services that don't go through to Cambridge North. The GN Kings Cross stoppers are currently 2tph at peak times, with long turnrounds, and I suspect that they will go 2tph all day once Cambridge South is established.

I have travelled the Newmarket line recently, most of the route still has room for 2 tracks, apart possibly for near Fulbourn Old Drift, though there is equipment that would need to be moved at the 2 Cherry Hinton level crossings.

This is definitely speculation but the outcome I would like to see is:

• 4 tracks paired by use Shepreth Branch-Coldhams Lane
• EWR use the south end bays 2 and 3 at Cambridge
• GN stoppers run through to/from Cambridge North (or Ely?), same for the fasts to/from the Fens
• Liverpool Street trains run through to/from Cambridge East (or Newmarket?)
• the only conflicting movements would be the Stansted-Norwich/Peterborough trains, plus the 2tph Brighton trains, if they need to go to the Cambridge East turnback, and the Ipswich trains, if they still need to use the north end bays.

I can see that this would seperate the routes through Cambridge into seperate pairs of tracks. But mightn't it be better to build a flyover, and use it to group the routes in the way that would be most useful? That means working out which pairings between the three lines south of Cambrige (from Hitchin, from Liverpool Street, from Bedford) and which North of Cambridge would be the best, where a flyover or diveunder would go in Cambridge and how it would interact with work being done in Ely. The perfect flyover might, like the Reading one, include single track chords for moves that happen at low frequencies.

 

[Royston Vasey]

One of the planning application docs relating to the science park development is here - https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/...ts+pack+19th-Sep-2024+10.00+Planning.pdf?T=10 - the 'triangle of land' - Parcel B in the doc, see pages 12-14 - is currently 'protected open space', and isn't being developed as part of the science park.

Interesting, thanks for this. Quite surprised it's "protected" but I imagine any of the aggressive developers around here tend to put such things in plans as a sop/requirement to get past planning. And of course, they are presented as "protected land" by the developer but might equally be in the bucket of "too much remediation to make it financially worthwhile to build on anyway" and conveniently presented as the requisite green space!

It's not exactly an SSSI. There's quite a bit of green space around there and the airport site itself could easily accommodate a central parkland if planned properly.

We are speculating here of course, but an infrastructure project of regional and national importance would be rather preferable to yet another science park and development of those ugly identikit blocks that have sprung up all over Cambridge!

 

[quantinghome]

Do we really think that Cambridge and Oxford will be limits of the EWR service in the future?

I can see there's no desire on the part of the EWR company to extend the current proposals, which is perfectly sensible from their perspective - they have a brief to deliver, so stick to it. But this feels a bit like when Crossrail was planned to stop at Maidenhead and not extend to Reading - deliver the core and let the network move to a logical conclusion in due course.

EWR will be the only East-West route in the country south of Birmingham and North of London. It would seem remarkable for its scope to be limited in this way, especially as there are services which can be spliced into it relatively easily. Most other East-West lines in the country run far longer routes - Birmingham-Cambridge, Liverpool-Norwich, Liverpool-Cleethorpes, Liverpool-Newcastle/Scarborough. Running EWR only between Oxford to Cambridge would be like running Transpennine only between Manchester and York.

 

[quantinghome]

Is Tempsford station being designed only with platforms on the ECML slow lines? Will any intercity trains stop?

 

[Magdalia]

But mightn't it be better to build a flyover, and use it to group the routes in the way that would be most useful?

I doubt there will be a flyover as there isn't anywhere to put it. That's before considering what it would cost and the disruption of construction. A different grouping of routes is going to need to be very much more useful to justify the extra cost and disruption.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2025 ==

Do we really think that Cambridge and Oxford will be limits of the EWR service in the future?

Yes. East West Rail is being built to deliver economic growth in Cambridge and Oxford. It isn't being built for long distance cross country connectivity.

Most other East-West lines in the country run far longer routes - Birmingham-Cambridge, Liverpool-Norwich, Liverpool-Cleethorpes, Liverpool-Newcastle/Scarborough. Running EWR only between Oxford to Cambridge would be like running Transpennine only between Manchester and York.

Just because that's what existing east-west routes do doesn't mean that it should be replicated. I'd go further and say that other east-west routes would offer a better service to most of their customers if they were curtailed to improve reliability. What Cambridge needs is a good reliable Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough service, operated locally, not a long winded through service to Birmingham, operated from a long way away, with train cancellations every time there is an infrastructure failure in Leicester.

Running a reliable Manchester-Leeds-York service would be good for those places, and the people travelling between them.

A good example of where this is already done, though north-south rather than east-west, is Birmingham-Liverpool. Running Birmingham-Manchester the same way would be a good start.

 

[JamesT]

Is Tempsford station being designed only with platforms on the ECML slow lines? Will any intercity trains stop?

My recollection of the image of a potential Tempsford station was that it only had platforms to the sides of the ECML, no islands. Which implies only the slow lines.

 

[The Pelican]

It seems like Cambridge East, and eventually the Ipswich line, might be a good place to send East West Rail trains, in that it would offer direct rides from more parts of suburban Cambridge to the lines' new stations. These trains might eventually run as far as Newmarket, or a new three platform station somewhere east of where the Cambridge-ipswich and Ely-ipswich lines join, and with a short section of multiple tracking between that junction and the station, to enable trains to terminate without getting in the way of the Ely-ipswich route.

 

[cle]

What Cambridge needs is a good reliable Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough service, operated locally, not a long winded through service to Birmingham, operated from a long way away, with train cancellations every time there is an infrastructure failure in Leicester.

I agree with this, this service should be truncated at Peterborough. Run 2tph P'boro-Cambridge-Stansted, and then 2tph to Birmingham separately. Especially once EWR gives service to the ECML, MML and WCML. Maybe a faster Birmingham service could call at Bletchley one day.

I don't agree on the longer distance potential. EWR as an operator, yes. But I think there might be incursions onto the route itself (e.g Bristol-Oxford might extend one way, or up the MML on day).

The only other question mark is the existing Ipswich service.

 

[Magdalia]

It seems like Cambridge East, and eventually the Ipswich line, might be a good place to send East West Rail trains

This maximises conflicting movements through Cambridge.

or a new three platform station somewhere east of where the Cambridge-ipswich and Ely-ipswich lines join, and with a short section of multiple tracking between that junction and the station, to enable trains to terminate without getting in the way of the Ely-ipswich route.

This isn't going to happen because Warren Hill Tunnel is single track. Also the land around Chippenham Junction is horse gallops and stud farms, almost certainly with Middle Eastern oil sheikh racehorse owners.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2025 ==

The only other question mark is the existing Ipswich service.

The single line through Warren Hill tunnel is a very good reason for keeping the Cambridge-Ipswich service self contained, especially if there also needs to be paths for Intermodals to/from Felixstowe.

 

[Topological]

Another high-conflict, but not completely without merit, idea is Stansted Airport. Access to the airport from Oxford, Bristol and the South West is via Paddington, Elizabeth Line and the Stansted Express. Not the worst, but a via EWR would offer far greater convenience.

Although it is a step into the unknown, it would feel like EWR would be a better use of paths than the present Peterborough CrossCountry. The latter could simply terminate in Cambridge. In that way severing at Peterborough would not be necessary.

 

[Magdalia]

Although it is a step into the unknown, it would feel like EWR would be a better use of paths than the present Peterborough CrossCountry. The latter could simply terminate in Cambridge.

Peterborough is 5th biggest flow at Stansted Airport, behind only Liverpool Street, Tottenham Hale, Cambridge and Bishops Stortford. There are also flows from/to ECML stations that need Stansted-Peterborough in order to provide journeys to/from Stansted with only one change.

Peterborough has a very diverse population by ethnicity. More than 10% were born in Poland, Lithuania and other states that joined the EU after 2001. Lots of them do a lot of flying, much of it to and from Stansted.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Yes. East West Rail is being built to deliver economic growth in Cambridge and Oxford. It isn't being built for long distance cross country connectivity.

EWR are starting to wobble on this a bit, but completely agree this is not to enable Great Yarmouth to Fishguard Harbour, as you say it's about "economic growth in Cambridge and Oxford" (and Milton Keynes).

• We’re exploring opportunities to extend services from the wider rail network onto EWR to minimise the need for additional EWR trains, depots and stabling, as well as to deliver additional connectivity across the UK.

I think there are 4 meaningful "tests" about whether something is viable.
1- Would extending from the core genuinely improve connectivity for a large enough number of people?
2- Does it help get trains to and from depots or stabling that may not be on the EWR core?
(Today's publication doesn't say anything meaningful about depots)
3- Does do this release capacity (e.g. platforms) or consume it (crossings at junctions)?
4- Does it reduce the number of new trains required by EWR.

My speculative example might be to extend Oxford-MK to Northampton or even Rugby. This would not be because I think there is huge pent-up demand for Rugby to Bicester, it's actually all about improving frequency and connectivity into MK.

And ditto extending EWR trains beyond Cambridge (East) to Ipswich or Peterborough or wherever is again about improving frequency or capacity from these places into Cambridge. Merging EWR Stewartby-Cambridge with Anglia services could change two terminating trains into a single through train, and if that frees up capacity then great, go for it
If, for instance, Anglia is considered to have more 755 than it needs, perhaps using 755 for Ipswich-Stewartby helps with "minimise need for additional EWR trains".

 

[Farigiraf]

Cambridge East
Surprising that they've chosen a location so close to the main station, but it does make sense when you factor in the redevelopment of the airport. It's quite disappointing to see no plan for a station in Cherry Hinton as it could really improve an increasingly deprived area.

The turnback siding is also completely understandable, though if there was the money for it, dual-tracking to Newmarket with a turnback siding there would be preferable since 1tph on the Cambridge-Newmarket flow is rather low. There's usually decent amounts boarding/alighting at Newmarket on the train, and there are express bus routes to Newmarket which show there is the demand for better public transport.

Marston Vale
While closing the smaller stations to make space for longer-distance trains on a 2-track railway is certainly logical, some alternative transport provision should definitely be put in place for the villages with to-be-closed stations as driving or cycling quite a long distance to the nearest station will be a backwards step and would likely result in less people from Aspley Guise, Millbrook, Kempston etc using the train.

Achievable but not ideal solution: cycle path along the railway connecting villages with the nearest station and/or a decent bus service timed to connect with trains.

Money no object: Build a branch of an MK mass transit system (tram/guided bus, preferably the former) paralleling the railway, as a feeder route for EWR, serving everywhere along the line without eating away at capacity on the heavy rail line.

 

[cle]

Peterborough is 5th biggest flow at Stansted Airport, behind only Liverpool Street, Tottenham Hale, Cambridge and Bishops Stortford. There are also flows from/to ECML stations that need Stansted-Peterborough in order to provide journeys to/from Stansted with only one change.

Peterborough has a very diverse population by ethnicity. More than 10% were born in Poland, Lithuania and other states that joined the EU after 2001. Lots of them do a lot of flying, much of it to and from Stansted.

If workable, a 2tph Stansted-Peterborough service would be very helpful. If needs be, cut Norwich back to Cambridge - or per above, send it to Stewartby!

And then 2tph P'boro-Leicester-Brum to compensate.

My speculative example might be to extend Oxford-MK to Northampton or even Rugby. This would not be because I think there is huge pent-up demand for Rugby to Bicester, it's actually all about improving frequency and connectivity into MK.

Northampton - Oxford (and Bicester) might be well used. Northampton is a big old place with very poor non-London links. Rugby - fine as there is a platform there.

I also thought the same about Corby. Not that Corby and Oxford are kindred places especially, but it might add some more useful connections for Kettering and Wellingborough, west-bound, overall. WCML connections north and south at Bletchley...and Bicester is a big draw. Could run slow lines north of Bedford. Especially before Cambridge comes online.

 

[Bletchleyite]

While closing the smaller stations to make space for longer-distance trains on a 2-track railway is certainly logical, some alternative transport provision should definitely be put in place for the to-be-closed villages as driving or cycling quite a long distance to the nearest station will be a backwards step and would likely result in less people from Aspley Guise, Millbrook, Kempston etc using the train.

Achievable but not ideal solution: cycle path along the railway connecting villages with the nearest station and/or a decent bus service timed to connect with trains.

I certainly think that's the right approach for Aspley Guise. The present walking route is rather long and not great in winter. The station is barely used, though, so I don't think it justifies hugely more.

Kempston Hardwick is in the middle of a field (which will become a big theme park, but Stewartby and Wixams will be the stations for that). It isn't near Kempston. You do see people using it at the moment, but looking at a map there's a very high chance they have got there from Wixams, which will have its own station in due course which they'll use instead. *Possibly* also from Wootton, but they could use relocated Stewartby which will be no further away from there.

Millbrook isn't really a place (just a tiny, dispersed hamlet over a mile from the station). It is closer to Marston Moretaine than Lidlington presently is (indeed I'm not quite sure why the station isn't called Marston Moretaine), but if they move that to the road just outside the village (as I believe is the plan) there will be almost nothing in it. The one thing that loses is a decent connection to the country park, but given that the main purpose of going there is to go for a walk if due consideration is given to footpath provision to reach it from new Lidlington then that may not be too much of a loss either.

Fenny - well, I know someone here doesn't like that closing, but realistically it sees relatively little use, and I suspect a fair bit of the use it does see is by fare dodgers avoiding the Bletchley gateline. It's about 1km from Bletchley via the road route. An eastern entrance to Bletchley would probably compensate reasonably well for this, indeed perhaps be better for some users as it will allow direct access to the London service without walking round.

To me, it's closing Bow Brickhill without replacement that is a particularly bad plan, particularly given that said closure is in favour of a station just 600m (as the crow flies) from Bedford Midland. It's not heavily used now, but that's because the service is awful - with 3tph I reckon you'd get plenty of commuters to Tilbrook and the new warehouse development plus users from Old Farm Park etc.

The other one I don't like is relocating Ridgmont, which will move it from right next to the Amazon warehouse (good for commuters) to a fairly decent and not overly pleasant walk from it. I think that will kill usage, and it won't move it close enough to Apsley Guise or any of the other villages around there to make anyone reach it by anything other than car. EWR mention an effect on neighbouring business, but realistically the neighbouring business that's close enough to be affected is a scrapyard and trailer yard, both of which would be easy and cheap to relocate to allow expansion on the present site which would be far more convenient for all users and likely potential users.

 

[dk1]

It seems like Cambridge East, and eventually the Ipswich line, might be a good place to send East West Rail trains, in that it would offer direct rides from more parts of suburban Cambridge to the lines' new stations. These trains might eventually run as far as Newmarket, or a new three platform station somewhere east of where the Cambridge-ipswich and Ely-ipswich lines join, and with a short section of multiple tracking between that junction and the station, to enable trains to terminate without getting in the way of the Ely-ipswich route.

BBC Look East this evening got things slightly wrong by saying connections would be available for Norwich at the East station. That’ll only happen with a change of trains at Stowmarket.

 

[weeklycommuter]

I am not sure if the following sentence in this November 2025 update from East West Rail is intentional or a slip of the pen. It implies that Bedford Station will have direct trains to Milton Keynes. This could surely only happen if the proposed east to north chord is built at Bletchley to enable trains approaching Bletchley from the East to continue North to Milton Keynes and beyond on the West Coast Mainline. I cannot find any specific reference to this proposed chord in the update.

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/you-said-we-did/you-said-we-did-report

How we’ve updated our design proposals
The redevelopment of Bedford station would provide Bedford with a state-of-the-art transport hub that would connect direct trains to Oxford, Milton Keynes and Cambridge.

 

[778]

I certainly think that's the right approach for Aspley Guise. The present walking route is rather long and not great in winter. The station is barely used, though, so I don't think it justifies hugely more.

Kempston Hardwick is in the middle of a field (which will become a big theme park, but Stewartby and Wixams will be the stations for that). It isn't near Kempston. You do see people using it at the moment, but looking at a map there's a very high chance they have got there from Wixams, which will have its own station in due course which they'll use instead. *Possibly* also from Wootton, but they could use relocated Stewartby which will be no further away from there.

Millbrook isn't really a place (just a tiny, dispersed hamlet over a mile from the station). It is closer to Marston Moretaine than Lidlington presently is (indeed I'm not quite sure why the station isn't called Marston Moretaine), but if they move that to the road just outside the village (as I believe is the plan) there will be almost nothing in it. The one thing that loses is a decent connection to the country park, but given that the main purpose of going there is to go for a walk if due consideration is given to footpath provision to reach it from new Lidlington then that may not be too much of a loss either.

Fenny - well, I know someone here doesn't like that closing, but realistically it sees relatively little use, and I suspect a fair bit of the use it does see is by fare dodgers avoiding the Bletchley gateline. It's about 1km from Bletchley via the road route. An eastern entrance to Bletchley would probably compensate reasonably well for this, indeed perhaps be better for some users as it will allow direct access to the London service without walking round.

To me, it's closing Bow Brickhill without replacement that is a particularly bad plan, particularly given that said closure is in favour of a station just 600m (as the crow flies) from Bedford Midland. It's not heavily used now, but that's because the service is awful - with 3tph I reckon you'd get plenty of commuters to Tilbrook and the new warehouse development plus users from Old Farm Park etc.

The other one I don't like is relocating Ridgmont, which will move it from right next to the Amazon warehouse (good for commuters) to a fairly decent and not overly pleasant walk from it. I think that will kill usage, and it won't move it close enough to Apsley Guise or any of the other villages around there to make anyone reach it by anything other than car. EWR mention an effect on neighbouring business, but realistically the neighbouring business that's close enough to be affected is a scrapyard and trailer yard, both of which would be easy and cheap to relocate to allow expansion on the present site which would be far more convenient for all users and likely potential users.

Are they any actual plans to close any of the intermediate station between Bletchley and Bedford or is it just specualtion for now? The 150s will also need replacing at some point.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are they any actual plans to close any of the intermediate station between Bletchley and Bedford or is it just specualtion for now?

I'd have a read of the full report. In short, yes, that's their proposed option: https://eastwestrail.co.uk/you-said-we-did/you-said-we-did-report

In short:

Supporting communities affected by station closures​

We understand that, despite these issues, Fenny Stratford, Bow Brickhill, Aspley Guise, Millbrook and Kempston Hardwick stations are valued by local residents, businesses and services, and form part of the area’s heritage.

The 150s will also need replacing at some point.

Not if that option is chosen.

 

[RT4038]

I am not sure if the following sentence in this November 2025 update from East West Rail is intentional or a slip of the pen. It implies that Bedford Station will have direct trains to Milton Keynes. This could surely only happen if the proposed east to north chord is built at Bletchley to enable trains approaching Bletchley from the East to continue North to Milton Keynes and beyond on the West Coast Mainline. I cannot find any specific reference to this proposed chord in the update.

Bletchley is a commercial centre and railway junction within the City of Milton Keynes. The statement is therefore correct. EW rail will not have a link from Cambridge to Milton Keynes Central Station, but then the statement doesn't actually say that.

 

[williamn]

Hi guys,

It was recently reported that the East-West Rail link between Oxford and MK has been delayed by 2 years from 2017 until 2019. Does anyone have any idea why?

I happened to see the first post in this forum. So just the 8 years late then...still with no opening date set. You'd have thought there would have been plenty of time to work out who'd operate the trains and on what basis (DOO or not)...

 

[LLivery]

Cambridge East
Surprising that they've chosen a location so close to the main station, but it does make sense when you factor in the redevelopment of the airport. It's quite disappointing to see no plan for a station in Cherry Hinton as it could really improve an increasingly deprived area.

The turnback siding is also completely understandable, though if there was the money for it, quad-tracking to Newmarket would be preferable since 1tph on the Cambridge-Newmarket flow is rather low. There's usually decent amounts boarding/alighting at Newmarket on the train, and there are express bus routes to Newmarket which show there is the demand for better public transport.

I'm surprised by this proposed location too. I did read earlier this year, I think it was in the Local Transport Plan for Cambridge, that the combined authority wanted a Cambridge East station in the future. Looking at a map, I assumed they'd want it at Cherry Hinton High Street, but I didn't realise they were to redevelop the airport. I do wonder if that's where the third party funding comes from (as well as private developers).

 

[Magdalia]

quad-tracking to Newmarket would be preferable

This is just fantasy: 4 tracks at Laundry Lane crossing? 4 tracks through Cherry Hinton?

It is also unusable capacity because of constraints at Cambridge and through the single line Warren Hill tunnel.

There's usually decent amounts boarding/alighting at Newmarket on the train

For a 1tph service. I can see Cambridge-Newmarket with more than 1tph in future, depending on what the Cambridge Growth Company propose, but not beyond Newmarket. Best use of capacity through Cambridge is for any through running beyond Cambridge to be to/from the Liverpool Street line.

If workable, a 2tph Stansted-Peterborough service would be very helpful. If needs be, cut Norwich back to Cambridge - or per above, send it to Stewartby!

At Stansted, Norwich is 6th biggest station pair, just behind Peterborough. Capacity at Stansted means that the service to/from Cambridge is only going to be 2tph, with one each Peterborough and Norwich. There won't be be through trains between Stansted and East West Rail, or more than 1tph to Peterborough or Norwich.

2tph Cambridge-Peterborough would be good but difficult to see how it can be achieved with the current capacity constraints at Ely. Same applies for 2tph Cambridge-Norwich, though that is lower priority than Peterborough. Both should use the north end bays at Cambridge, and shouldn't be linked to East West Rail.

If, for instance, Anglia is considered to have more 755 than it needs, perhaps using 755 for Ipswich-Stewartby helps with "minimise need for additional EWR trains".

First priority for any spare class 755s should be Stansted-Cambridge-Peterborough, not East West Rail.

 

[The Pelican]

This maximises conflicting movements through Cambridge.


This isn't going to happen because Warren Hill Tunnel is single track. Also the land around Chippenham Junction is horse gallops and stud farms, almost certainly with Middle Eastern oil sheikh racehorse owners.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 19 Nov 2025 ==


The single line through Warren Hill tunnel is a very good reason for keeping the Cambridge-Ipswich service self contained, especially if there also needs to be paths for Intermodals to/from Felixstowe.

I think things like Warren Hill tunnel will have to be dealt with eventually, but double tracking is probably a small expense compared to the cost of East West Rail- in particular, through services to and from Bury St Edmunds or Ipswich might make it even more useful as a commuter route from Blechley and Bedford. Although some pairs of tracks are grouped in a direction optimised for geographical layout, plenty of others use flyovers to ensure that trains are grouped in the way that optimises ridership, or some other economic measure. In Oxford, trains from Bicester (Milton Keynes and Marylebone) heading for Cowley makes sense, but in Cambridge an arrangement other than the geographic one might lead to more ridership for EWR. It seems right to link the Ely lines to the Kings Cross trains, but more difficult to tell if the Newmarket tracks should head for East West rail or for Liverpool Street.

 

[Magdalia]

Still going for discontinuous electrification then. In my opinion, a decision that will turn out to be a mistake in the future. It will make it harder for freight to transition away from diesel and make rolling stock and operating costs higher than they could be.

I support discontinuous electrification. It will get the line built and open more quickly, and at lower initial cost, because it will be the most difficult and expensive bits of electrification that won't be done. That way the economic benefits come on stream more quickly, which can then be used to fill in the missing bits, if that's still thought to be beneficial.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, a lot of the East Anglian electrification schemes were done in a similar way, getting the electric service started with minimum number of new feeder stations, then adding more later as demand required. Batteries mean that approach can now be done not just with feeder stations but with overhead line too.

 

[Magdalia]

I think things like Warren Hill tunnel will have to be dealt with eventually

Nothing will happen at Warren Hill. You fail to appreciate how powerful the horse racing interests are in Newmarket, and their friends in high places.

more difficult to tell if the Newmarket tracks should head for East West rail or for Liverpool Street.

That means there is no case for linking Newmarket with East West Rail, which would be much more expensive and operationally difficult, but for no identifiable benefit.

 

[Bald Rick]

Batteries mean that approach can now be done not just with feeder stations but with overhead line too.

And structural clearances