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

[Magdalia]

Bedford needs an up fast platform.

And the latest from East West Rail suggests that it will get an up fast platform.

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/you-said-we-did/you-said-we-did-report#block-2285

You Said, We Did Autumn Update​

How feedback from NSC3 is helping inform design decisions, where we’ve been able to make key progress and outlining our next steps

November 2025

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. By redeveloping Bedford station, we would be increasing capacity for passengers using not only the new EWR services but also the north-south Midland Main Line.

We are working on how the station would support bus connections and those walking and cycling to and from the station. Improvements to sustainable and active travel would make it easier for people to access the town centre and the riverside, helping to boost the local and regional economy, create new jobs and support businesses in and around the town.

In addition, we are considering the introduction of an up-fast platform which would improve interchange between train services east and west as well as north and south.

And this is south of Ford end road bridge where I believe the station should expand into

How do you get the East West Rail tracks into that space?

Hmm, the central section to Cambridge that is planned is 1.5x further than it needs to be. Isn't that a massive cost you don't need? I've never seen a railway take so long to get to its destination as Route E, it looks like a snake. I think that's pretty ridiculous when you consider the cost of 1.5x the distance its going to take to get to Cambridge.

The East West Rail route needs to take in Bedford, Tempsford, Cambourne and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They are not on a straight line.

The biggest costs will be the alterations at Bedford and Cambridge, which are independent of the route taken in between.

Of course if Bedford gets some gee whiz station i'll take it all back.

A gee whiz 6 platform station, with eastern and western entrances, is what Bedford will get, see here from the same EWR report:

Figure 17: Aerial illustration of proposed redevelopment of Bedford station

Figure 18: Illustration of proposed eastern entrance to Bedford station

​

Wixams is likely going to have 4 platforms straight out of the box.

Cambridge South also has 4 platforms.

Stansted Express handles 4tph of 230m trains in 2 platforms with 6.5 million journeys to/from Liverpool Street and 1.7 million journeys to/from Tottenham Hale. That service has sufficient spare capacity to cope with the increase in passenger numbers associated with the planning permission granted yesterday.

A 4 platform Wixams will be fine. The one thing that I hope that Wixams gets, but Cambridge South doesn't have, is a second bridge.

 

[stevieinselby]

The East West Rail route needs to take in Bedford, Tempsford, Cambourne and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus. They are not on a straight line.

Not to mention that:
(1) plenty of older railway lines follow(ed) circuitous routes, either to connect to towns or to avoid hills and rivers, and
(b) 150 years ago, towns were a lot smaller than they are now, and the emphasis was on providing a commercial service rather than connecting passengers so there was little value given to linking your station to another railway company's station, meaning that the Victorians faced far fewer impediments to just driving a straight line through or along the edge of a town.

 

[richieb1971]

How do you get the East West Rail tracks into that space?

I see from the illustration they have managed to put 6 platforms in the footprint of the current station.

I see the steam shed is now a multi storey car park so it will be torn down after all these years of non use.

Quite impressive. The only niggle I have with that illustration is that Thameslink terminators are still on the main through lines.

It seems the space south of Ford end road is earmarked for "other" development. Interesting. I mean you could put 2 bay platforms in there!!!

Not to mention that:
(1) plenty of older railway lines follow(ed) circuitous routes, either to connect to towns or to avoid hills and rivers, and
(b) 150 years ago, towns were a lot smaller than they are now, and the emphasis was on providing a commercial service rather than connecting passengers so there was little value given to linking your station to another railway company's station, meaning that the Victorians faced far fewer impediments to just driving a straight line through or along the edge of a town.

View attachment 194240

That is todays only route. I can't comment on it because I don't know if that path was the preferred path back in the day. From Bedford to Cambridge, you had a direct route in place until 1966-7. You could of also gone to Hitchin and then to Cambridge which could have been a potential option for EWR, definitely both were shorter and followed straighter lines. Had those lines just been mothballed, the argument to make a circuitous route as it is would have been dismissed. I mean they didn't ignore Oxford to Bletchley path.

Thanks for showing me the illustration of Bedford from the EWR pack.

 

[Magdalia]

From Bedford to Cambridge, you had a direct route in place until 1966-7.

The L&NWR route from Bedford to Cambridge was not direct. It had a very loopy bit to turn from west-east to north-south through Sandy, then looping round the bottom of Sandy Heath to get to Potton. It is much like an upside down version of what EWR is doing at Bedford. Then, instead of following the direct river valley route towards Cambridge from Wrestlingworth, the line loops northwards to go round the back of of Wimpole Hall instead of crossing the avenue at the front of the hall. Very much NIMFY not NIMBY.

It is also worth remembering that the Great Eastern struck out from Cambridge towards Bedford but got no further than Shepreth. Their line would have gone up the river valley from Shepreth towards Wrestlingworth and Sandy. Rail routes between Cambridge and Bedford have never been simple or direct.

You could of also gone to Hitchin and then to Cambridge which could have been a potential option for EWR, definitely both were shorter and followed straighter lines.

The Hitchin-Cambridge line is already full with a mix of fast Cambridge trains and stopping trains, with 7 intermediate stations all 1-4 miles apart. In that respect it is like Marston Vale, but with much busier stations.

Kings Cross-Cambridge is another example of an indirect route: the most direct route between Cambridge and London is the old A10 via Royston, Buntingford, Ware and Hoddesdon, and there has never been a railway via that route.

Not to mention that:
(1) plenty of older railway lines follow(ed) circuitous routes, either to connect to towns or to avoid hills and rivers, and

Thanks for this map. Cambridge-Peterborough and Peterborough-Leicester are classic examples of Victorian routes that were not direct. Peterborough-Leicester is a particularly good example because the indirect route was designed to take in the intermediate towns Stamford, Oakham and Melton Mowbray.

A very good example of a modern indirect line is Stansted Airport.

 

[edwin_m]

the line loops northwards to go round the back of of Wimpole Hall instead of crossing the avenue at the front of the hall. Very much NIMFY not NIMBY.

Perhaps that should be NIMGE - not in my grand estate.

 

[Stephen42]

I see from the illustration they have managed to put 6 platforms in the footprint of the current station.

I see the steam shed is now a multi storey car park so it will be torn down after all these years of non use.

Quite impressive. The only niggle I have with that illustration is that Thameslink terminators are still on the main through lines.

It seems the space south of Ford end road is earmarked for "other" development. Interesting. I mean you could put 2 bay platforms in there!!!

It's an extended footprint for the additional platforms, though mostly on railway controlled land. There's actually seven platforms there not six, three for Thameslink, two for EWR and two on the fasts for EMR.

In terms of the gap between the lines south of Ford End Road, you can't easily put two bays there (or ones of any use). The adjacent sidings are 8-car with only the carriage wash handling a 12-car train. 8-car bays won't get used in peaks and the length required for a 12-car bay will be longer than a siding as the buffer stop will be more substantial on a passenger rated line. At the south end the bridge on the slows prevents the track separation for platforms constraining entry/exit speed, parallel moves and platform length. Replacing the bridge will be incredibly disruptive to train operations and expensive as a result.

A one platform bay may might be more achievable. Construction will still be a nightmare with live railways nearby and no easy way to deliver any materials or plant. A south of Ford End Road concept was considered by EWR in their earlier consultation, they concluded it would be far more expensive than the north version currently proposed.

 

[flitwickbeds]

I still think it would have been better to have built a new "Bedford South" station somewhere near the Interchange Retail Park, with platforms on both Marston Vale/EWR, and the MML, and then have EWR go south of the town towards Cambridge.

However, now that Universal is a thing, I still like my idea in the Speculative forum of building a new branch off the MML (junction access from both the North and the South) to a dedicated Universal station, with platforms for EWR as well. Then start one (possibly two) Thameslink trains an hour at Universal instead of Bedford. That reduces the amount of trains standing in platforms at Bedford, provides dedicated service to Universal from London and Luton Airport - as well as any charters coming either way off the Midlands Mainline - and still maintains the usual Thameslink timetable south of Flitwick. It also provides EWR-MML interchange at Universal as well as Bedford.

The final option I like is to build a new super station somewhere like Elstow (Edit - Clapham) where the land is plentiful and there would be reasonable demand for trains. Move the Thameslink terminus there, so that Bedford becomes a through station for MML, Thameslink, and EWR - meaning that platforms could be shared between all three much more easily, possibly without any work done to Bedford station itself.

 

[mr_jrt]

If we're being fanciful, I believe getting some of the Bedford terminators out of those platforms was part of the impetus several years ago of the proposal to reopen Bedford to Northampton...

 

[William3000]

Hmm, the central section to Cambridge that is planned is 1.5x further than it needs to be. Isn't that a massive cost you don't need? I've never seen a railway take so long to get to its destination as Route E, it looks like a snake. I think that's pretty ridiculous when you consider the cost of 1.5x the distance its going to take to get to Cambridge. Look at the line on the left built in Victorian Britain, almost a straight line.

View attachment 194213

EWR state its too expensive to go any other way, and yet choose the most ridiculous journey I've ever seen. Bedford station (Expensive), knocking down whole streets of homes (Expensive), Talking of building huge amount of bridges and tunnels (Expensive). If you talk of going any other way EWR say its TOO EXPENSIVE! That expensive bridge on Bromham road that was out of commission for a year, YEP its going to be knocked down again. I Can give all sorts of examples of being "Ridiculous".

This was an opportunity to break free of bottlenecks and move the congestion and basically make everything work better. But putting everything in bottleneck Bedford is the plan. Of course if Bedford gets some gee whiz station i'll take it all back. Yes, some folk in Bedford are not too happy with things, that's not me. I just want a great project delivered, and done with resiliency and boxed in stations and stations which already have bottlenecks is not a good foundation.

Cambridge’s fastest line to London is not straight at all. It goes west-south west to Hitchin which is very indirect. It still manages to reach London in around 50 minutes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2025 ==

Hmm, the central section to Cambridge that is planned is 1.5x further than it needs to be. Isn't that a massive cost you don't need? I've never seen a railway take so long to get to its destination as Route E, it looks like a snake. I think that's pretty ridiculous when you consider the cost of 1.5x the distance its going to take to get to Cambridge. Look at the line on the left built in Victorian Britain, almost a straight line.

View attachment 194213

EWR state its too expensive to go any other way, and yet choose the most ridiculous journey I've ever seen. Bedford station (Expensive), knocking down whole streets of homes (Expensive), Talking of building huge amount of bridges and tunnels (Expensive). If you talk of going any other way EWR say its TOO EXPENSIVE! That expensive bridge on Bromham road that was out of commission for a year, YEP its going to be knocked down again. I Can give all sorts of examples of being "Ridiculous".

This was an opportunity to break free of bottlenecks and move the congestion and basically make everything work better. But putting everything in bottleneck Bedford is the plan. Of course if Bedford gets some gee whiz station i'll take it all back. Yes, some folk in Bedford are not too happy with things, that's not me. I just want a great project delivered, and done with resiliency and boxed in stations and stations which already have bottlenecks is not a good foundation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2025 ==

Cambridge’s fastest line to London is not straight at all. It goes west-south west to Hitchin which is very indirect. It still manages to reach London in around 50 minutes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2025 ==

Cambridge’s fastest line to London is not straight at all. It goes west-south west to Hitchin which is very indirect. It still manages to reach London in around 50 minutes.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Dec 2025 ==

the originally Varsity route was sub-optimal despite being slightly more direct. The lack of directness is made up for by speed. It’s conceivable that EWR could have missed out Bedford - the fourth largest town/city on the Oxford to Cambridge route

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, there's news today that removes my objection to relocating Ridgmont station as part of the consolidated stations plan - the Amazon fulfilment centre which provides the station's main (only?) custom is to close and move to Northampton. With this gone, a location closer to Aspley Guise the other side of the M1, as is proposed, is probably overall more useful. Other than the Amazon warehouse there's only the tiny village/hamlet of Brogborough in its reasonable catchment, on the other side of the M1 there are a few distributed villages that might give it some custom (though mostly by car).

'Bye Bye Milton Keynes': Amazon bosses announce shock plan to close down city's massive fulfilment centre for move to Northampton

Amazon bosses have announced out of the blue their intention to close down their massive Milton Keynes fulfilment centre and move to nearby Northampton.

www.miltonkeynes.co.uk

Amazon bosses have announced out of the blue their intention to close down their massive Milton Keynes fulfilment centre and move to nearby Northampton.
The Marston Gate building employs almost 600 people and has been one of the MK’s biggest employers since it opened in 1999.

Named after the nearest international airport, LTN1, it is the hub for millions of items being stored, packed and shipped.

But in just four months’ time - by May – the centre is set to be empty, closed down, and all operations moved to a brand new £500m building in Northampton, 18 miles away. The exact address has not yet been revealed.

(Apologies for the iffy quoting, the MK Citizen site is as bad as Reach Media for being full of clickbait and ads, so that's what I could get from it!)

 

[edwin_m]

It's possible some other warehousing company will move into the vacated premises.

 

[greataj]

What I don't understand from the plans is the emphasis on the Marston Vale stations like Ridgmont and the need for somewhere like Stewartby to be connected directly with Cambridge. All those stations are low usage for which the hourly Bletchley-Bedford is more than sufficient. Some of those stations I would say are lucky to even get an hourly service at that.

If the plans are for future EWR services to serve some of those stations purely to pace them with the much slower Bletchley-Bedford stopper, then something more needs to be done to overcome that. Either that's closing some stations such as Apsley Guise or Lidlington entirely, or putting passing provision in at one or two potentially relocated stations. The latter works very well on the WAML for instance.

If however that's not an issue, then I see no reason why any new EWR services should really be using any of the Marston Vale line stations, except for maybe a few peak-time calls. Bedford St Johns maybe a different ball game, but I partially share the views of a few others that it's a bit of a pointless investment given it's proximity to Midland.

I would suggest the following pattern then would be appropriate:

2tph Oxford-Cambridge: Bicester Village, Bletchley, St Johns, Bedford, Tempsford, Cambridge South (could maybe have 1tph for Woburn Sands and Stewartby on alternate services)
2tph Oxford-Milton Keynes Central: Oxford Parkway, Bicester Village, Winslow
1tph Bletchley-Bedford: All stations
2tph Bedford-Cambridge: Tempsford, Cambourne, Cambridge South

I would also say a signficant consideration should be that either an Oxford-Cambridge or Bedford-Cambridge should provide seamless connection at Cambridge South with Stansted Airport services - Probably from a patronage and revenue perspective, the highest priorty of any interchange on the full EWR route. Other key ones would be Thameslink at Tempsford plus both Thameslink and EMR Connect at Bedford. LNWR at Bletchley will also be important, but Milton Keynes at least will of course already be served with direct EWR services from the Oxford end of the route.

 

[D365]

What I don't understand from the plans is the emphasis on the Marston Vale stations like Ridgmont and the need for somewhere like Stewartby to be connected directly with Cambridge. All those stations are low usage for which the hourly Bletchley-Bedford is more than sufficient. Some of those stations I would say are lucky to even get an hourly service at that.

If we ignore Universal for now, the proposal is based on Stewartby becoming a glorified turnback siding for Cambridge services terminating within Bedfordshire. Similar to the EWR services that will ’turn back’ at Cambridge East / Cherry Hinton instead of Cambridge station.

 

[CMS1]

Wouldn't it make more sense to prioritise Wixams with a shuttle bus to Universal? Most families drive for days out (which is often more efficient than public transport anyway), I imagine the Universal rail traffic will be from London

 

[Magdalia]

What I don't understand from the plans is the emphasis on the Marston Vale stations like Ridgmont and the need for somewhere like Stewartby to be connected directly with Cambridge. All those stations are low usage for which the hourly Bletchley-Bedford is more than sufficient. Some of those stations I would say are lucky to even get an hourly service at that.

If East West Rail was only about existing traffic then it would not be happening.

There was already significant potential to grow traffic in the Marston Vale before Universal arrived on the scene. In particular Stewartby has proposed housing growth that is regarded as being within commuting distance of Cambridge. Stewartby and Ridgmont are both potential railheads for nearby Cranfield University. Also there is a big effort to improve Bedford St Johns as a link to Bedford hospital.

Furthermore, from a construction and operational perspective the biggest challenges are Bedford and Cambridge. One of the ways that East West Rail is addressing that is to try to minimise using either for terminating trains.

If we ignore Universal for now, the proposal is based on Stewartby becoming a glorified turnback siding for Cambridge services terminating within Bedfordshire. Similar to the EWR services that will ’turn back’ at Cambridge East / Cherry Hinton instead of Cambridge station.

Which is how we get this. In both cases East West Rail are then going on to making a virtue out of a necessity. In addition to being a place to turn back the trains that isn't Bedford, using Stewartby for turnback provides through trains to/from Cambridge both for commuting and Universal, and a better service to Bedford hospital at Bedford St Johns.

If the plans are for future EWR services to serve some of those stations purely to pace them with the much slower Bletchley-Bedford stopper, then something more needs to be done to overcome that. Either that's closing some stations such as Apsley Guise or Lidlington entirely

This is happening through what is usually referred to as the consolidated stations option. See here it the You Said We Did report:

Taking account of feedback from the consultation and ongoing engagement with local stakeholders, we’ve continued to shape our proposals for stations and services along the MVL. This work has helped us better understand the benefits of each option and led to a decision to move forward with the Consolidated Stations Option (Concept 2).

Our proposed approach​

Given these constraints, we’ve been working to understand how passengers currently use the railway and where future development is anticipated to come forward. This analysis has confirmed that to serve the region effectively, we should provide a spread of modern, well-equipped stations across the region around the following areas:

• Woburn Sands - supporting the existing community and nearby developments including the south-east Milton Keynes Extension and East of Wavendon Strategic Urban Expansion.
• Ridgmont - serving Brogborough, Aspley Guise, Ridgmont, the M1 motorway and surrounding development opportunities.
• Lidlington - supporting the village and the nearby Marston Valley development.
• Stewartby - supporting Stewartby village and providing access to local developments including the proposed Universal resort and the Stewartby Brickworks consented housing development.

At our most recent consultation, we established the need to relocate Woburn Sands and Lidlington in order to expand them. With this proposal update, we’re also confirming our intention to relocate Ridgmont and Stewartby stations. For more information, see Chapter 4.6.2 (Ridgmont station) and 4.6.3 (Stewartby station).

 

[edwin_m]

Wouldn't it make more sense to prioritise Wixams with a shuttle bus to Universal? Most families drive for days out (which is often more efficient than public transport anyway), I imagine the Universal rail traffic will be from London

As suggested in #193, Stewartby has merit as a turnback even without Wixams. It's probably easier to provide the turnback facilities here than at Bedford, and it means the housing around the station is more attractive for commuters into Cambridge.

Apparently both Wixams and this station will have access to Universal. It's indeed to be expected that most visitors would arrive from London via Wixams, but Stewartby provides direct services from Oxford and eventually Cambridge which are also tourist destinations. The peak flows for Universal at both stations will not coincide with commuter peaks, so apart from needing some extra station facilities Wixams passengers are essentially a free bonus for the railway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we ignore Universal for now, the proposal is based on Stewartby becoming a glorified turnback siding for Cambridge services terminating within Bedfordshire. Similar to the EWR services that will ’turn back’ at Cambridge East / Cherry Hinton instead of Cambridge station.

Indeed. I think it's purely that there is space to do it along the Vale because the land is mostly flat and farmland so cheap to acquire, no need to knock anybody's house or business down to do it. And it's the station for Universal so merits a more frequent service, though I believe this was the plan before the Universal deal came along.

Wouldn't it make more sense to prioritise Wixams with a shuttle bus to Universal? Most families drive for days out (which is often more efficient than public transport anyway), I imagine the Universal rail traffic will be from London

It needs to be, and will be, connected to both. Oxford and Cambridge are full of foreign, particularly American, tourists, to whom a Universal Studios theme park will be very appealing. It's not just London, though a fair bit of it will be. If the line is going past the park not serving it would be absolutely nuts.

 

[Magdalia]

Oxford and Cambridge are full of foreign, particularly American, tourists, to whom a Universal Studios theme park will be very appealing.

In Cambridge that's not what happens now. Many tourists are from the Far East, especially China, though whether they would be less attracted to a Universal theme park than Americans I couldn't say. Furthermore, most tourists do Cambridge in a day and don't stay overnight, and that's likely to be similar in Oxford.

It needs to be, and will be, connected to both.

If the line is going past the park not serving it would be absolutely nuts.

Absolutely. Tourism in Cambridge doesn't alter the need for Universal to have a station on East West Rail, both for visitors and employees.

 

[edwin_m]

In Cambridge that's not what happens now. Many tourists are from the Far East, especially China, though whether they would be less attracted to a Universal theme park than Americans I couldn't say. Furthermore, most tourists do Cambridge in a day and don't stay overnight, and that's likely to be similar in Oxford.

There's the option of staying at one of Universal (which I assume will have hotels), Oxford or Cambridge and using the train to visit the others. Bicester Village is also on the route and is a big draw for tourists.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's the option of staying at one of Universal (which I assume will have hotels), Oxford or Cambridge and using the train to visit the others. Bicester Village is also on the route and is a big draw for tourists.

Milton Keynes has tons of hotels, I think a fair few people will stay there though probably mostly travelling by car, particularly as there won't be a direct MKC to Stewartby service (something I still believe to be nuts). They only tend to be busy midweek and on Silverstone weekend and during rare MK Bowl gigs.

 

[camflyer]

In Cambridge that's not what happens now. Many tourists are from the Far East, especially China, though whether they would be less attracted to a Universal theme park than Americans I couldn't say. Furthermore, most tourists do Cambridge in a day and don't stay overnight, and that's likely to be similar in Oxford.

Yup. Tourists to Cambridge are usually day trippers from London who don't stay overnight, come by bus or coach, clog the streets with tour groups and don't spend much money in the city. Overnight visitors are more likely to be on business/academic trips. That said, I'm not surprised that more people don't stay over in Cambridge as hotel prices can be eye-watering for those not on expense accounts.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That said, I'm not surprised that more people don't stay over in Cambridge as hotel prices can be eye-watering for those not on expense accounts.

Clearly a lot do otherwise the hotels would be cheaper.

 

[Royston Vasey]

Clearly a lot do otherwise the hotels would be cheaper.

It's more like a shortage of good hotels at a modest price point. Between the Hilton (formerly Crowne Plaza) and the University Arms (both about treble the price they were pre-refurb, when they were both terrible) and the Graduate (formerly DoubleTree) by Hilton, you have a handful of Premier Inn/Travelodge type properties, sparsely and not centrally located, and a smattering of low quality guest houses in the inner suburbs. Oxford is the same.

 

[Magdalia]

Well, there's news today that removes my objection to relocating Ridgmont station as part of the consolidated stations plan - the Amazon fulfilment centre which provides the station's main (only?) custom is to close and move to Northampton.

BBC News now has a report on this story which is here:

Amazon plans to close the first UK site it opened in Bedfordshire

The online retail company says staff will be redeployed and it will listen "to everyone's views".

www.bbc.co.uk

Amazon has announced plans to close its first UK centre which it opened in 1998.

The online retail company said it had started a consultation to shut its fulfilment centre at Marston Gate, Ridgmont, Brogborough, Bedfordshire, by junction 13 of the M1.

Staff would be moved to other sites or a new £500m facility being built in Northampton that would be open in May, it added.

However, Amazon are not withdrawing completely from the site, the article also says this:

Amazon confirmed its sortation centre, also in Magna Park - which employs 1,100 staff - would not be affected.

 

[camflyer]

Moderator note: Split from

East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

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?

www.railforums.co.uk

Lots of negative comments in the Cambridge News

Cambridge to Oxford rail link slammed as 'delusional'

CambridgeshireLive readers share strong views on plans to link Cambridge, Oxford, Bedford and Milton Keynes by rail, with concerns over costs, delays and local impact

www.cambridge-news.co.uk

Cambridge to Oxford rail link slammed as 'delusional'
CambridgeshireLive readers share strong views on plans to link Cambridge, Oxford, Bedford and Milton Keynes by rail, with concerns over costs, delays and local impact. They show worries about cost, delivery, and local impact. Some ask for different priorities closer to home.

One reader questioned who would benefit. Weneedqueenmeghan comments: "It's a private railway for the university. Nobody else will use it. They should pay for it themselves."

Camssurvivor says: "I travelled on the last train from Bletchley to Cambridge nearly 60 years ago. If the line wasn't considered financially viable and essential then, it certainly isn't now. Governments have thrown money around like water."..

 

[Farigiraf]

CambridgeshireLive readers share strong views on plans to link Cambridge, Oxford, Bedford and Milton Keynes by rail, with concerns over costs, delays and local impact

I assume all 5 of them presumably also don't like the levels of traffic between Cambridge and Cambourne?

How about a new Cambridge - Bedford motorway then? Same or higher cost, just as likely to be delayed, and will definitely result in the massacring of the countryside.
EWR (and the Cambourne busway) doesn't seem too bad in comparison, does it?

 

[Robin Edwards]

Lots of negative comments in the Cambridge News


Cambridge to Oxford rail link slammed as 'delusional'
CambridgeshireLive readers share strong views on plans to link Cambridge, Oxford, Bedford and Milton Keynes by rail, with concerns over costs, delays and local impact

Cambridge to Oxford rail link slammed as 'delusional'

CambridgeshireLive readers share strong views on plans to link Cambridge, Oxford, Bedford and Milton Keynes by rail, with concerns over costs, delays and local impact

www.cambridge-news.co.uk

Based on the lingering embarrassment of not running trains between MKC and Oxford having invested so much, it's understandable how delusion is the view held in Cambridge.

 

[stut]

I assume all 5 of them presumably also don't like the levels of traffic between Cambridge and Cambourne?

How about a new Cambridge - Bedford motorway then? Same or higher cost, just as likely to be delayed, and will definitely result in the massacring of the countryside.
EWR (and the Cambourne busway) doesn't seem too bad in comparison, does it?

To be fair, the A428 dualling at Caxton Gibbet is doing a fine job of the massacring in its own right...

 

[Steve Harris]

I assume all 5 of them presumably also don't like the levels of traffic between Cambridge and Cambourne?

How about a new Cambridge - Bedford motorway then? Same or higher cost, just as likely to be delayed, and will definitely result in the massacring of the countryside.
EWR (and the Cambourne busway) doesn't seem too bad in comparison, does it?

Well. I'm not aware of any planned Cambridge - Bedford Motorway, but the A428 upgrade is steaming ahead. And going by what's been achieved so far it will probably be finished and open before EWR's Development Consent Order lands on a government desk !

 

[Cantab26]

it's understandable how delusion is the view held in Cambridge.

I don’t see anything to suggest that any of these limited anonymous comments are held by people in Cambridge.

Lots of the same old tired NIMBY saws from South Cambridgeshire villages though…