• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

The Pelican

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2025
Messages
392
Location
London
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.


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.
I think East West rail suggesting Cambridge East at this stage in the consultation is because they see it as a sensible place to send trains from the Bedford direction. Once they have reached Cambridge East, Newmarket wouldn't need any more alterations in the main Cambridge area.

My guess is that they are thinking of having East West Rail trains share tracks with the Liverpool Street trains in from Cambridge South to Cambridge Central, leaving the other two tracks for Kings Cross trains.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

RUK

Member
Joined
5 Aug 2009
Messages
409
Location
East of England
Where will the structural clearance issues be on (presumably the existing infrastructure parts of) East West Rail?
 

William3000

Member
Joined
24 May 2011
Messages
596
Location
Cambridgeshire
Cambridge East is getting quite a lot of attention in the local news and rail user groups. It would serve a community at the airport site that doesn't really exist yet, and yet doesn’t serve Cherry Hinton or Fulbourn. There are also good local bus routes through that area, although not directly Fulbourn or Cherry Hinton down Coldhams Lane past the airport to Cambridge, but it doesnt mean there can't be if the houses were built. It seems like a probably better solved by a Stagecoach bus if enough houses do get built there. The community there needs more connectivity to Cambridge, rather than Newmarket Bury Ipswich. And that's not really an EWR problem, is it?

The lack of a station between Cambridge and Newmarket is a big gap though. Ideally you'd reopen Cherry Hinton, but that's probably impossible now due to sell off of buildings and residential developments on the site.

Has the airport actually been earmarked for closure? I know Marshalls seem to be downsizing all over their business, the civil refit business is gone and the airport's military maintenance and refit activity is not what it was.

Does EWR even have a remit to make proposals for Cambridge to Ipswich service? Are they claiming some great untapped market for Oxford to Ipswich? Or a great demand for the Harwich boat train from Milton Keynes?
The logical place would be next to Tesco at Yarrow Rd close to Capital Park and Peterhouse Research Park. Cherry Hinton High Street is very constrained and there are more jobs located further east.
 

stuu

Established Member
Joined
2 Sep 2011
Messages
3,763
I assume all the structures between Bedford and Cambridge will be built large enough for electrification clearance, so any discontinuous electrification on that section is for aesthetic reasons as mentioned in the report. How many over bridges are there between Bedford and Bletchley?
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
112,984
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I assume all the structures between Bedford and Cambridge will be built large enough for electrification clearance, so any discontinuous electrification on that section is for aesthetic reasons as mentioned in the report. How many over bridges are there between Bedford and Bletchley?

10 in total from a quick look at an OS map. But most of them are quite high, e.g. one is the flyover.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,323
Location
The Fens
I assume all the structures between Bedford and Cambridge will be built large enough for electrification clearance, so any discontinuous electrification on that section is for aesthetic reasons as mentioned in the report.
Cost reasons too. A limited amount of electrification can be fed from existing supplies at either end. Continuous electrification requires an expensive new feeder station which would be located at Little Barford near Tempsford.
 

Farigiraf

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2023
Messages
1,142
Location
Bridge on the River Cam
This is just fantasy: 4 tracks at Laundry Lane crossing? 4 tracks through Cherry Hinton?
My mistake - I meant 2-tracking in the relevant sections (Warren Hill tunnel). Basically all the works that are needed to accommodate at least 1tph Cambridge-Ipswich and 1tph terminating at Newmarket.

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.
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.
There have also been proposals to reinstate the curve between Newmarket and Soham to allow direct trains, which would mean extending to Ely. Would be useful for Newmarket-Ely/Peterborough and Soham-Cambridge journeys but unlikely to justify the cost of reinstating the curve, especially since the line through Soham is a busy freight corridor.

Even if there's no need for direct EWR services to Newmarket/Cambridge East, it would allow for a shuffle of endpoints allowing for capacity at Cambridge as currently only the GN stoppers use platforms 2 and 3:
GN Cambridge could terminate at Cambridge North, GA Liverpool Street could terminate at Newmarket/Cambridge East, and Thameslink trains never use platforms 2 and 3 anyway, so between the two platforms there should be enough capacity to allow for 4tph terminating there. Though the funding for any such works around Newmarket/Cherry Hinton is on the basis that it'd be for EWR, so if it was marketed as a place to extend London services instead, there's a chance it would be placed into the 'would be nice but too expensive' category alongside Ely North Junction upgrades.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
18,407
Location
Northampton
I assume all the structures between Bedford and Cambridge will be built large enough for electrification clearance, so any discontinuous electrification on that section is for aesthetic reasons as mentioned in the report. How many over bridges are there between Bedford and Bletchley?
Bletchley Flyover, Watling Street, A5, M1, A507, a farm access, A421, Midland Main Line, A5141, a footbridge, another footbridge, Ampthill Road (at Bedford St John's), Cauldwell Street, and one last footbridge that already has wires under it.

Of these I'd suggest that the Watling St, MML, and Ampthill Road bridges are the ones that would cause most concern for both the clearances and how difficult/disruptive they'd be to rebuild. I don't know if there's anything publicly available about which bridges are currently foul of W12/electrification.
The other big concern for electrification will be the number of level crossings, especially those close to bridges.
 
Last edited:

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,323
Location
The Fens
I think East West rail suggesting Cambridge East at this stage in the consultation is because they see it as a sensible place to send trains from the Bedford direction. Once they have reached Cambridge East, Newmarket wouldn't need any more alterations in the main Cambridge area.

My guess is that they are thinking of having East West Rail trains share tracks with the Liverpool Street trains in from Cambridge South to Cambridge Central, leaving the other two tracks for Kings Cross trains.
There is nothing in the consultation technical report, or the you said we did document, that says that it will be EWR trains going to the turnback siding or a Cambridge East station. This is what was in the technical report:

To reduce platform occupation time at Cambridge station, it would be necessary to allow empty trains to turn back outside the station. Therefore, a new train turnback facility is proposed on the existing Newmarket Line, to the west of Cherry Hinton High Street level crossing, at Cambridge East. The use of a turnback has been identified as the most efficient solution to reduce impacts in and around Cambridge station.

There is nothing there to say that it is referring to EWR trains in particular, not terminating trains in general.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

Though the funding for any such works around Newmarket/Cherry Hinton is on the basis that it'd be for EWR
Cambridge East will only come with third party funding, mainly from the development of the Marshalls Airport site. You said we did has this on Cambridge East:

At this stage, the design of this station is still in its early, feasibility phase. We’re aware of challenges around the site and we’ll continue working with third-party funders to explore how this opportunity could be realised to support economic and housing growth in the area. If third-party funding is not secured the station will be removed from our plans.

There have also been proposals to reinstate the curve between Newmarket and Soham to allow direct trains,
But have any of those proposals taken proper account of capacity constraints at Warren Hill?
 
Last edited:

td97

Established Member
Joined
26 Jul 2017
Messages
1,556
so any discontinuous electrification on that section is for aesthetic reasons as mentioned in the report.
Aetsthetic reasons is not a key driver of the electrification strategy. Power supply constraints, freight loop locations and cost are.
Cost reasons too. A limited amount of electrification can be fed from existing supplies at either end. Continuous electrification requires an expensive new feeder station which would be located at Little Barford near Tempsford.
A Feeder Station fed from Little Barford is part of the scheme.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,601
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
But have any of those proposals taken proper account of capacity constraints at Warren Hill?
Warren Hill tunnel is east of Newmarket station, so why would capacity constraints there obstruct an increase in passenger train frequency between Cambridge and Newmarket, e.g. to half-hourly Mon-Fri 0700-1900 and Sat 0800-1800?
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,842
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.
The demand from these stations is tiny though - they each see a few thousand passengers annually. There is no fixed link public transport investment that could be justified for that low level of demand - it's just the wrong solution for public transport provision to these settlements. Alternative provision already exists in the form of buses, which are often more convenient than the poorly located stations.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
112,984
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The demand from these stations is tiny though - they each see a few thousand passengers annually. There is no fixed link public transport investment that could be justified for that low level of demand - it's just the wrong solution for public transport provision to these settlements. Alternative provision already exists in the form of buses, which are often more convenient than the poorly located stations.

...writes someone who has clearly never used the line and doesn't know much about its context :)

If you consider the stations as serving the places they're named after, perhaps that's right, but that isn't what they serve in practice. For instance Bow Brickhill would probably be better named Caldecotte & Tilbrook, Millbrook instead Marston Moretaine, Ridgmont instead Brogborough etc.

Demand is certainly low, I don't disagree, but buses are irrelevant as there basically aren't any. Indeed, the line survives, if I recall, because it was too awkward to properly serve by bus and so United Counties refused to do it. We do need to bear in mind why usage is overall low, though - a combination of the lack of a service to Milton Keynes Central and the extremely poor service offered which has been the case for years. There is no reason a station like Bow Brickhill right next to a residential area and large amount of industry should have a very low usage as such - if it was on Merseyrail, for instance, it would clearly be fairly well used. That's why I'm concentrating on that one as being the station that the consolidated plan does, but shouldn't, leave out.

The rest of the consolidation plan largely makes sense, though I think they are making the wrong decision relocating Ridgmont and using that one as the answer to Apsley Guise. Really, Apsley Guise should get a footpath and cycleway alongside the line to much nearer Woburn Sands and leave Ridgmont where it is, where it has a large potential for inbound commuting (and already carries a fair bit). The only way moving Ridgmont into the middle of a field the wrong side of the motorway actually makes sense is if an eco village was to be centred on it, but I've seen no such plan. And their statement about disrupting business really makes very little sense - the only business it would disrupt is a scrapyard and trailer yard which as I note above would be easy and cheap to relocate, the only buildings are Portakabins and the likes.

If we lived in some sort of alternate reality where the line between Woburn Sands and Bedford had closed, but the stump remained with a half hourly Mon-Sun Woburn Sands to Newport Pagnell via Milton Keynes Central service and development concentrated around Woburn Sands and Bow Brickhill I reckon it'd be as well used as any random DMU suburban service around any other medium sized city (perhaps comparable with say the Exeter local services). That isn't where we are, but in considering whether the stations are useless we need to also consider hat they wouldn't be if they had a service geared towards where locals want to go. But equally, like say Wedgwood and Barlaston (which were low-used but weren't useless either), they are effectively being closed for the greater good of pathing a better longer distance service.

On the other hand, Millbrook and Kempston Hardwick basically don't serve a purpose (the latter is getting some increased usage seemingly from people living in the new bits of Wixams, but they'll move to Wixams station when that opens), and closing those (as is effectively happening) is hard to oppose, though again I think cycle/footpath provision needs to be ensured between Lidlington and the Marston Vale Country Park as while the line isn't particularly well used for that purpose it does have the potential to be with the planned improved service. Again in the parallel world of EWR not happening and a more local-geared service through to MKC, I'd have put an ecovillage centred on each of them, but of course the theme park will now step into that role centred on the new Stewartby station basically between the two with its own internal walking and transport routes.
 
Last edited:

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,323
Location
The Fens
A Feeder Station fed from Little Barford is part of the scheme.
The Little Barford feeder station is only an option. The 2024 technical report says this:

A number of potential substation compound locations are being considered in either Quainton/Steeple Claydon, Millbrook and Little Barford (optionality is present for some of these).

Discontinuous electrification would allow the line to be opened without needing to build Little Barford first.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,323
Location
The Fens
Warren Hill tunnel is east of Newmarket station, so why would capacity constraints there obstruct an increase in passenger train frequency between Cambridge and Newmarket, e.g. to half-hourly Mon-Fri 0700-1900 and Sat 0800-1800?
It wouldn't, which is why I think that more trains to/from Newmarket is a realistic objective.

But I was referring to proposals to reinstate the curve so that trains could run Newmarket-Soham, which is not a realistic objective.
 

CMS1

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2025
Messages
245
Location
uk
The logical option is to join EWR and the Cambridge-Ipswich service. This resolves the issue of doubling frequency on the Cambridge - Newmarket line, opens up EWR to East Anglia, and gives commuters from Newmarket/Bury St Edmunds (and developments to the east of Cambridge) a connection to Cambridge South.
 

jfowkes

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
1,266
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.
Yeah I get that and if we had a rolling electrification program I think I'd be okay with a "do it as required" approach.

But I think once built with discontinuous, it's very likely just to stay that way forever, regardless of need.
 

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,323
Location
The Fens
The logical option is to join EWR and the Cambridge-Ipswich service. This resolves the issue of doubling frequency on the Cambridge - Newmarket line, opens up EWR to East Anglia, and gives commuters from Newmarket/Bury St Edmunds (and developments to the east of Cambridge) a connection to Cambridge South.
It isn't logical, because it creates a lot of conflicting movements in the congested Cambridge area.

More trains Cambridge/Newmarket and through trains to Cambridge South can both be achieved in other ways, neither need to be EWR.
 

The Pelican

Member
Joined
3 Oct 2025
Messages
392
Location
London
The biggest problem for now seems to be that the Cambridge-Ipswich service has to share a route with intermodal trains etc- so a plan which can terminate EWR trains somewhere between Cambridge east and their first interaction with the intermodal freights would improve the resulting service's reliability. This could be Newmarket, a new station near Chippenham Junction, or three tracking some of the way towards Bury St Edmunds.
 

CMS1

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2025
Messages
245
Location
uk
It isn't logical, because it creates a lot of conflicting movements in the congested Cambridge area.

More trains Cambridge/Newmarket and through trains to Cambridge South can both be achieved in other ways, neither need to be EWR.
It create less conflicting movements than running EWR onto the Cambridge-Ipswich line and then separate Ipswich-Cambridge and Newmarket-Cambridge South services. It combines the 3 into 1.
The biggest problem for now seems to be that the Cambridge-Ipswich service has to share a route with intermodal trains etc- so a plan which can terminate EWR trains somewhere between Cambridge east and their first interaction with the intermodal freights would improve the resulting service's reliability. This could be Newmarket, a new station near Chippenham Junction, or three tracking some of the way towards Bury St Edmunds.
If Cambridge-Ipswich was improved (currently averages 33mph!) then Ipswich-Peterborough could be scrapped to relieve this section and also Ely
 

FMerrymon

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2024
Messages
362
Location
Reading
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.

Its an option for the future. Network rail previous options for the west coast mainline have included it, with the plan to make MK central a hub.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20250601_145926_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    Screenshot_20250601_145926_Adobe Acrobat.jpg
    204.8 KB · Views: 125

Magdalia

Established Member
Joined
1 Jan 2022
Messages
7,323
Location
The Fens
It create less conflicting movements than running EWR onto the Cambridge-Ipswich line and then separate Ipswich-Cambridge and Newmarket-Cambridge South services. It combines the 3 into 1.
Running through between EWR and the Newmarket line conflicts with almost every other service at Cambridge, everything running to/from Liverpool Street/Stansted and everything running to/from the Ely line.

If Cambridge-Ipswich was improved (currently averages 33mph!) then Ipswich-Peterborough could be scrapped to relieve this section and also Ely
Cambridge-Ipswich isn't going to get much faster, and you have forgotten the need to serve the recently reopened station at Soham.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
28,603
Location
Nottingham
Bletchley Flyover, Watling Street, A5, M1, A507, a farm access, A421, Midland Main Line, A5141, a footbridge, another footbridge, Ampthill Road (at Bedford St John's), Cauldwell Street, and one last footbridge that already has wires under it.

Of these I'd suggest that the Watling St, MML, and Ampthill Road bridges are the ones that would cause most concern for both the clearances and how difficult/disruptive they'd be to rebuild.
Noting for completeness that some of these are underbridges.

The fairly significant realignment around St Johns might include enough lowering to deal with Ampthill Road and Cauldwell Street without rebuilding them. The benefit of adding 25kV near interchanges is that the supply can be shared with the existing railway - it may still need reinforcement but not as much as a new 25kV "island". Although any problems installing it in the St Johns area could be addressed by dropping a feed down from the MML where the two cross.
 

JonathanH

Veteran Member
Joined
29 May 2011
Messages
23,264
The logical option is to join EWR and the Cambridge-Ipswich service.
It is quite bizarre that there are comments to split Peterborough to Horsham trains because it involves the only service for local stations (Arlesey to Huntingdon) being at the whim of distant disruption, yet people would ve happy to see the only service at local stations between Cambridge and Stowmarket at the whim of distant disruption beyond Cambridge.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
112,984
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
It is quite bizarre that there are comments to split Peterborough to Horsham trains because it involves the only service for local stations (Arlesey to Huntingdon) being at the whim of distant disruption, yet people would ve happy to see the only service at local stations between Cambridge and Stowmarket at the whim of distant disruption beyond Cambridge.

Indeed. The utterly woeful punctuality of the Liverpool-Norwich service highlights why it would probably be best to keep it relatively self-contained. Cambridge East and Cowley probably aren't an issue though.
 

CMS1

Member
Joined
15 Feb 2025
Messages
245
Location
uk
It is quite bizarre that there are comments to split Peterborough to Horsham trains because it involves the only service for local stations (Arlesey to Huntingdon) being at the whim of distant disruption, yet people would ve happy to see the only service at local stations between Cambridge and Stowmarket at the whim of distant disruption beyond Cambridge.
There's a very big difference between the mostly self-contained EWR and Thameslink & the Brighton Main Line.

Cambridge-Ipswich isn't going to get much faster, and you have forgotten the need to serve the recently reopened station at Soham.
I haven't forgotten Soham but it's a pretty pointless station without a Cambridge service. Even via Ely would be shorter than the road trip via the A14. I'm not suggesting this is possible, but that if it's not possible we shouldn't have spent 19M building it!
 
Last edited:

William3000

Member
Joined
24 May 2011
Messages
596
Location
Cambridgeshire
It makes more sense for some Cambridge trains to go to Milton Keynes Central - possibly extending them to Birmingham New Street via Northampton. The remaining trains could then go through Bletchley and Oxford.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
5,608
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.

Well that is that then. The platform is too short for a splitter either.

More trains Cambridge/Newmarket and through trains to Cambridge South can both be achieved in other ways, neither need to be EWR.

What are those ways? Ely is seemingly in the too-hard pile - I do think that redeveloping that station (addl platform, and some bays for more local service) might scratch some of the itch. And killing off Norwich-Peterborough - (Liverpool) / bypassing Ely - that service eats a lot of paths.

I do agree that a standard 2tph Cambridge-Ipswich would be preferable than convoluted EWR patterns.
 

Farigiraf

Member
Joined
23 Jul 2023
Messages
1,142
Location
Bridge on the River Cam
I haven't forgotten Soham but it's a pretty pointless station without a Cambridge service. Even via Ely would be shorter than the road trip via the A14. I'm not suggesting this is possible, but that if it's not possible we shouldn't have spent 19M building it!
65k entries/exits last year is quite decent for a village/small town station with a 2-hourly service that doesn't go to the place that most people want to go. Increase to hourly and it could pass 100k. Give it a Cambridge service (via the aformentioned Newmarket curve along with dual-tracking from Bury-Ely) and some decent bus/cycle connections from nearby villages and it could be comparable in usage with Waterbeach. Doesn't seem pointless to me, rather it's just your average village station which happens to have lots of potential due to it being near to a rapidly growing city. Agreed that £19mil is far too high but now it's here, it should be used to its full potential.
 

Top