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

[Steve Harris]

I was attempting to make the more general point that whatever is built initially is unlikely to stay in exactly the same configuration forever. Like all infrastructure, it will develop, over decades perhaps. If there proves to be sufficient demand for people going to Cambridge, then it is within the realms of possibility that future generations may choose to build an additional St Neots East station. In the meantime, people from the particular new development and the wider St Neots/Eynesbury area will have to drive/cycle/bus to Tempsford or Cambourne station if they wish to catch the train or go south first to Tempsford by GN train.

Or do what they currently do, and drive to Cambridge. Hence why the A428 upgrade is finally happening (and should be delivered years before E-W rail). Yes things change, like everything in life, but I'm not convinced that another station (other than that planned by E-W rail at Tempsford), will happen in my lifetime. But, as they say, only time will tell, if I'm proved right or wrong.

Afterall, part of the reason of E-W rail is to initiate new housing development as well as serve current housing/settlements.

 

[mr_jrt]

That's not an option. The Cambridge South site is very constrained, squeezed between the Biomedical Campus and Hobson's Park, and intensively used by trains running through to/from London and Stansted.

The decision to have a central island platform helpfully provides space for a central turnback siding south of the platforms, and the DDUU track configuration means you would have no conflicting movements to and from it. I can't seem to find any diagrams showing the intended track arrangements post-EWR, though. Do things remain DDUU, or is the plan DU+DU?

 

[59CosG95]

The decision to have a central island platform helpfully provides space for a central turnback siding south of the platforms, and the DDUU track configuration means you would have no conflicting movements to and from it. I can't seem to find any diagrams showing the intended track arrangements post-EWR, though. Do things remain DDUU, or is the plan DU+DU?

The pre-EWR plan is DD+UU, but I suspect EWR might well change this to be DU+DU, so that any trains can then use the south-facing bays in Cambridge (Central).

 

[Steve Harris]

The pre-EWR plan is DD+UU, but I suspect EWR might well change this to be DU+DU, so that any trains can then use the south-facing bays in Cambridge (Central).

I think you'll find there was extra platforms mentioned in the E-W rail consultation documents (on the east side). So, I'm guessing it's highly unlikely that E-W rail would be using platform's 2 and 3 at Cambridge* (unless of course the plan is to shift what currently uses 2 and 3 to the new platforms to free up 2 and 3 for E-W).

* Bearing in mind, the long term plan is to run onto Ipswich etc, which would mean use of a through vice bay platform.

 

[zwk500]

The decision to have a central island platform helpfully provides space for a central turnback siding south of the platforms, and the DDUU track configuration means you would have no conflicting movements to and from it.

does the flare allow for the length of turnback siding required, and does the horizontal alignment (cant) permit the necessary pointwork?

* Bearing in mind, the long term plan is to run onto Ipswich etc, which would mean use of a through vice bay platform.

Is this actually part of the long term plan, or is it just something the concerned politicians have mused about?

 

[Verulamius]

Looking back at Network Rail's Cambridgeshire Corridor Study of 2019 this had a base case of 6x4 cars an hour from EWR in to Cambridge. This required 2 12 coach platforms on the east side at Cambridge station. It was also suggesting additional trains on the Cambridge Ipswich route with doubling through Cherry Hinton.

Now the projected numbers will have changed since then because of COVID, but it is interesting that the EWR update is suggesting 4x4 cars with @tspaul26 suggesting that 8cars would be required.

 

[Magdalia]

The decision to have a central island platform helpfully provides space for a central turnback siding south of the platforms,

does the flare allow for the length of turnback siding required, and does the horizontal alignment (cant) permit the necessary pointwork?

Now that I know that flare is a permitted term to describe the layout I can respond!

The horizontal alignment is unlikely to be an issue, the pointwork for the new station with loops suggests that should be ok.

But the flare definitely is an issue. Any turnback siding of decent length would extend beyond Addenbrookes bridge, where there is a width constraint. Then it is not far to the bridge over the Ninewells stream, and the flare can only start north of that.

 

[zwk500]

Now that I know that flare is a permitted term to describe the layout I can respond!

The horizontal alignment is unlikely to be an issue, the pointwork for the new station with loops suggests that should be ok.

But the flare definitely is an issue. Any turnback siding of decent length would extend beyond Addenbrookes bridge, where there is a width constraint. Then it is not far to the bridge over the Ninewells stream, and the flare can only start north of that.

I wouldn't take me as evidence of official terminology!

 

[Steve Harris]

Is this actually part of the long term plan, or is it just something the concerned politicians have mused about?

No idea !!

All I can say is that I have seen documents (years ago) that had a crude map showing (what is now) E-W rail going to Ipswich. Of course, MP's come and go and so does staff in organisations/businesses and available funds change over time. So, if that is still the plan, your guess is as good as mine !

 

[zwk500]

No idea !!

All I can say is that I have seen documents (years ago) that had a crude map showing (what is now) E-W rail going to Ipswich. Of course, MP's come and go and so does staff in organisations/businesses and available funds change over time. So, if that is still the plan, your guess is as good as mine !

Anything with, in effect, crayoning on it I would regard as 'political musings', see also the potential Reading extensions of EWR that were talked about at first. AFAIK once the project had any kind of firm commitment it has always been Oxford-Cambridge only with anything beyond that being in the 'we won't do anything that would prevent it' camp (Aylesbury is a different issue).

 

[Steve Harris]

Anything with, in effect, crayoning on it I would regard as 'political musings', see also the potential Reading extensions of EWR that were talked about at first. AFAIK once the project had any kind of firm commitment it has always been Oxford-Cambridge only with anything beyond that being in the 'we won't do anything that would prevent it' camp (Aylesbury is a different issue).

As I said earlier.... time will tell !

Besides, everything is "political musings' until it is actually delivered/built ! As I've seen so many 'scheme's' half finished/scrapped completely or cut back due to lack of money or change of government, with vast sums of money wasted in the meantime. So, (pedantically) you could call the Bedford - Cambridge section of E-W is currently 'political musings', lol

 

[Redbus74]

Read through many of the last pages, lots to take in and lots of questions being a local issue for us.

Biggest question is there going to be a new station on the ECML at Tempsford as well as a station for EWR for interchange purposes. Some posts say yeah some seem to say no or am i wrong ?

 

[70014IronDuke]

Read through many of the last pages, lots to take in and lots of questions being a local issue for us.

Biggest question is there going to be a new station on the ECML at Tempsford as well as a station for EWR for interchange purposes. Some posts say yeah some seem to say no or am i wrong ?

As I understand it, yes - Tempsford (new) will have interchange between EW and ECML - but only for stoppers on the ECLM slows.

It will not have fast line platforms on the ECML and it will not have any rail connection between the EW route and the ECML. As far as I'm concerned, this is all that is needed or justified.

What is somewhat bonkers is that EW rail will run past the eastern outskirts of St Neots with no station - but you can blame that on St Neots' councillors, if the post upthread on this is accurate.

 

[zwk500]

Read through many of the last pages, lots to take in and lots of questions being a local issue for us.

Biggest question is there going to be a new station on the ECML at Tempsford as well as a station for EWR for interchange purposes. Some posts say yeah some seem to say no or am i wrong ?

Far from conclusive, but p.100 says:

We’ve concluded that a station on the ECML near Tempsford would perform better than a station at St Neots South

Which strongly suggests that there will be ECML platforms on the Slow Lines.

 

[Cantab26]

I can't seem to find any diagrams showing the intended track arrangements post-EWR, though. Do things remain DDUU, or is the plan DU+DU?

Pre-EWR: DDUU

Post-EWR: DUDU

The pre-EWR plan is DD+UU, but I suspect EWR might well change this to be DU+DU, so that any trains can then use the south-facing bays in Cambridge (Central).

It has to change to DUDU regardless of where EWR services terminate or which platforms are used at Cambridge.

I think you'll find there was extra platforms mentioned in the E-W rail consultation documents (on the east side). So, I'm guessing it's highly unlikely that E-W rail would be using platform's 2 and 3 at Cambridge* (unless of course the plan is to shift what currently uses 2 and 3 to the new platforms to free up 2 and 3 for E-W).

Broadly speaking, yes, if EWR services terminate at Cambridge.

* Bearing in mind, the long term plan is to run onto Ipswich etc, which would mean use of a through vice bay platform.

In that case, it is likely that 1/4 would become EWR through northbound with 7 becoming EWR through southbound.

Great Northern stoppers would terminate in 2/3. Thameslink terminates on new platform 9.

Great Northern and Greater Anglia through services use platform 8 northbound and new platform 10 southbound.

This arrangement de conflicts most of the service groups in conjunction with the four-tracking between Cambridge and Shepreth Branch Junction.

does the flare allow for the length of turnback siding required, and does the horizontal alignment (cant) permit the necessary pointwork?

No.

Is this actually part of the long term plan, or is it just something the concerned politicians have mused about?

Both. Not part of current scope, but latest announcement doesn’t preclude future expansion/extension.

Looking back at Network Rail's Cambridgeshire Corridor Study of 2019 this had a base case of 6x4 cars an hour from EWR in to Cambridge. This required 2 12 coach platforms on the east side at Cambridge station.

The 12-car platforms to the east are to allow current services to be shifted across, freeing up western platforms for EWR.

Biggest question is there going to be a new station on the ECML at Tempsford as well as a station for EWR for interchange purposes. Some posts say yeah some seem to say no or am i wrong ?

Detailed design isn’t confirmed yet, but based on discussions with wider industry ECML platforms on the slows are likely (and as a minimum EWR would make passive provision for later installation).

What is somewhat bonkers is that EW rail will run past the eastern outskirts of St Neots with no station - but you can blame that on St Neots' councillors, if the post upthread on this is accurate.

Adding a station there wouldn’t unlock any specific housing.

If some future developer wanted to pony up the cash (to support a new housing development) then the current design wouldn’t preclude an additional station being added later (the same as for Toft/Comberton).

And I wouldn’t recommend approaching this matter as if the views of St Neots town councillors carry any significant weight in the decision-making - it’s not a plebiscite!

 

[Class 170101]

Pre-EWR: DDUU

Post-EWR: DUDU

The pre-EWR plan is DD+UU, but I suspect EWR might well change this to be DU+DU, so that any trains can then use the south-facing bays in Cambridge (Central).

It has to change to DUDU regardless of where EWR services terminate or which platforms are used at Cambridge.


Broadly speaking, yes, if EWR services terminate at Cambridge.

In that case, it is likely that 1/4 would become EWR through northbound with 7 becoming EWR through southbound.

Great Northern stoppers would terminate in 2/3. Thameslink terminates on new platform 9.

Great Northern and Greater Anglia through services use platform 8 northbound and new platform 10 southbound.

This arrangement de conflicts most of the service groups in conjunction with the four-tracking between Cambridge and Shepreth Branch Junction.

I feel the layout should be different depending upon whether EWR terminates at Cambridge or heads further north.

If terminating at Cambridge The line designations should be DU DU and crossing moves take place at Cambridge Station North (or Mill Road Jn) with GN and EWR using the side of the station, platforms 1 to 4 closest to the station entrance with GA and XC using 9 and 10 (new) with 7 and 8 being used by 12 car Class 700s on Thameslink. Shrepreth Branch Jn would disappear.

If as some would want, EWR services to Ipswich and Norwich the you would be better having UU and DD and a grade separated Jn at Shepreth Branch Jn so at Cambridge 2 and 3 would be used by GTR as now and some EWR services, 1 and 4 by Down services, Up services would use 9 and 10 and 7 and 8 would hold GTR 12 carriage terminating trains.

But I am not sure where this taking us as I fear it will need a change of government and will take many years sadly before EWR reaches Cambridge so I'll stop there....

 

[Cantab26]

I feel the layout should be different depending upon whether EWR terminates at Cambridge or heads further north.

This does not reflect the thinking of those actually involved in the project.

If terminating at Cambridge The line designations should be DU DU and crossing moves take place at Cambridge Station North (or Mill Road Jn) with GN and EWR using the side of the station, platforms 1 to 4 closest to the station entrance with GA and XC using 9 and 10 (new) with 7 and 8 being used by 12 car Class 700s on Thameslink. Shrepreth Branch Jn would disappear.

This loads the majority of services on the western pair of tracks and reduces overall flexibility for platforming and pathing on the WAML south of the station, thus defeating much of the point of the four-tracking. It also then locks in that service pattern.

If as some would want, EWR services to Ipswich and Norwich the you would be better having UU and DD and a grade separated Jn at Shepreth Branch Jn so at Cambridge 2 and 3 would be used by GTR as now and some EWR services, 1 and 4 by Down services, Up services would use 9 and 10 and 7 and 8 would hold GTR 12 carriage terminating trains.

This introduces greater conflicts in the station throat as well as having greater environmental impacts from a grade-separated junction.

It would be, shall we say, sub-optimal.

In any event, a lot of this will depend on whether and, if so, how much of the Royston line gets four-tracked between Shepreth Branch Junction and the new Hauxton Junction (where EWR diverges).

 

[Magdalia]

I feel the layout should be different depending upon whether EWR terminates at Cambridge or heads further north.

Providing that the trains using the south end bays are predominantly to/from the GN/EWR, then separation by use (DUDU) has an advantage of eliminating double conflicts between trains starting out of the bays and trains coming down from the West Anglia side. It doesn't matter whether the trains using the bays are EWR trains or GN trains.

But there will always be a conflict between down trains from the West Anglia side and up trains from north of Cambridge going to GN/EWR, unless there is some form of grade separation. Different layouts put that conflict in different places, but one lot of conflicting movements that nobody seems to consider are those into and out of the carriage sidings, and access is at the north end of the station.

This loads the majority of services on the western pair of tracks

But on the other hand, this is a valid point.

In any event, a lot of this will depend on whether and, if so, how much of the Royston line gets four-tracked between Shepreth Branch Junction and the new Hauxton Junction (where EWR diverges).

I don't see 4 tracks from Shepreth Branch Junction towards Hauxton as a feasible proposition because of the tightness of the curve at Shepreth Branch Junction, the Shelford Road bridge, the pond next to it, and the proximity of the Granhams Road junction to the bottom of the Shelford Road bridge. I don't see how 4 tracks can go south of the pond, yet still get the Shelford Road bridge ramp down to ground level at the Granhams Road Junction.

 

[Cantab26]

I don't see 4 tracks from Shepreth Branch Junction towards Hauxton as a feasible proposition because of the tightness of the curve at Shepreth Branch Junction, the Shelford Road bridge, the pond next to it, and the proximity of the Granhams Road junction to the bottom of the Shelford Road bridge. I don't see how 4 tracks can go south of the pond, yet still get the Shelford Road bridge ramp down to ground level at the Granhams Road Junction.

It has been looked at already (in part due to some of the consultation feedback), but needs further detailed technical work.

Not an impossible thing by any means.

 

[zwk500]

So, (pedantically) you could call the Bedford - Cambridge section of E-W is currently 'political musings', lol

I think that would be pushing the point. It's had a public consultation and is preparing for the stuatory consultation prior to the DCO. Those are serious pieces of work.
Of course it can still be cancelled, there's no end of schemes that got to final design before being put back on the shelf, but it's much more than a strategy paper.

 

[Nodding Cat Ch]

How long does it normally take between route announcement and proper plans of the route, especially junctions, being available.

 

[Cantab26]

How long does it normally take between route announcement and proper plans of the route, especially junctions, being available.

It takes as long as it takes: there is no fixed timetable.

It will be a few years at least and fully detailed plans won’t be available until after development consent is granted.

 

[Nodding Cat Ch]

Hopefully the trains will be as quick as your reply.... thanks

 

[Brubulus]

The only part of the route I don't think is optimal is the decision to run north of Cambourne instead of building a station to the south of it as it seems to add unnecessary distance. I also possibly think that a couple halts could be constructed to serve the villages with 1tph and this could be combined with the Marston Vale stopping service. This would also have the side effect of silencing the majority of the NIMBYs.

 

[richieb1971]

I think that would be pushing the point. It's had a public consultation and is preparing for the stuatory consultation prior to the DCO. Those are serious pieces of work.
Of course it can still be cancelled, there's no end of schemes that got to final design before being put back on the shelf, but it's much more than a strategy paper.

If the central section isn't built you dont have an EWR. The whole selling point is an end to end solution. Even if it's a Oxford to Cambridge solution it still fails. There is a lot of noise about how this arc will become the silicon valley of the UK. It won't be without somehow linking Bedford to Cambridge. I'm kind of lost on what the selling factor of this railway is because some say its housing, some say its the Silicon Valley of the UK, some say its some kind solution to stop linking in London via rail. I think the selling factor of the railway is that you get none of these things without it. That is the bigger picture isn't it?

 

[zwk500]

The only part of the route I don't think is optimal is the decision to run north of Cambourne instead of building a station to the south of it as it seems to add unnecessary distance. I also possibly think that a couple halts could be constructed to serve the villages with 1tph and this could be combined with the Marston Vale stopping service. This would also have the side effect of silencing the majority of the NIMBYs.

I don't think anything could have been done to silence the majority of NIMBYs, it would have just been whack-a-mole. Routing South seems sensible but there are lots of individual villages south of Cambourne that wouldn't have got a station without major new development and that would be worse than having a station for the villagers. Staying north of Cambourne means following the road corridor and therefore noise and visual impact are mitigated by the HQDC next door.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 May 2023 ==

I'm kind of lost on what the selling factor of this railway is because some say its housing, some say its the Silicon Valley of the UK, some say its some kind solution to stop linking in London via rail. I think the selling factor of the railway is that you get none of these things without it. That is the bigger picture isn't it?

Essentially, yes. The primary thing the railway is supposed to achieve is to support major development of commuter towns at Cambourne, the Marston Vale, Winslow etc by providing access to jobs in Oxford, MK, and Cambridge (primarily, development will take place all along the route and Bedford and Bicester (and a tiny amount from St Neots) may also provide some jobs). Cambridge-Oxford is not the primary purpose but it still does form part of the case and reasoning, even if thelink has been seized on by PR people and politicians as an easy marketing tool and political point. Pharmaceutical companies like AstraZeneca and other tech, etc., based in Cambridge are very keen for the possibility of easier links with Oxford and it's economic offering of research and engineering.

 

[Redbus74]

As I understand it, yes - Tempsford (new) will have interchange between EW and ECML - but only for stoppers on the ECLM slows.

It will not have fast line platforms on the ECML and it will not have any rail connection between the EW route and the ECML. As far as I'm concerned, this is all that is needed or justified.

What is somewhat bonkers is that EW rail will run past the eastern outskirts of St Neots with no station - but you can blame that on St Neots' councillors, if the post upthread on this is accurate.

It would seem mad not to have a new station on the ECML for interchange. I know there is already a line from Hitchin to Cambridge and also Peterborough to Cambridge but it would allow journeys West to Bedford and Oxford Etc.

Does anyone know where exactly the position of the St Neots South station was proposed.

Also is there a more detailed map available with the route. The ones i have seen just seem to have the towns on and roads but not a lot of detail, like road numbers, villages etc, if you know what I mean.

 

[swt_passenger]

[…]
Also is there a more detailed map available with the route. The ones i have seen just seem to have the towns on and roads but not a lot of detail, like road numbers, villages etc, if you know what I mean.

Have you seen these maps, it divides the route into about a dozen sections, you’ll still need another map to get the exact road numbers though :

East West Rail | Route Update Announcement 2023

This page hosts key information and documents for the Government's 2023 route update announcement on East West Rail.

eastwestrail.co.uk

The “Tempsford variant” map includes a proposed site for St Neots South.

 

[Class 170101]

This does not reflect the thinking of those actually involved in the project.

This loads the majority of services on the western pair of tracks and reduces overall flexibility for platforming and pathing on the WAML south of the station, thus defeating much of the point of the four-tracking. It also then locks in that service pattern.

Yes it would put the majority on the western tracks but four tracking would still be needed as you would have 10tph on the western tracks with 4tph on the eastern pair and I doubt you could merge them together and have 14tph on two tracks reliably (it might work on paper - a train every 4 minutes - but no way in practise would ity work).

This introduces greater conflicts in the station throat as well as having greater environmental impacts from a grade-separated junction.

It would be, shall we say, sub-optimal.

Depends on the track configuration in my opinion. Grade Separation would be needed for DD UU configuration but DU DU I think would see Shepreth Branch Jn abolished with 1, 4, 7 & 8 used by GTR, EWR through services with 9 and 10 used by GA and XC services only. 2 and 3 would be used by GTR Foxton services and maybe some EWR services as I cannot see all four (if any) heading north beyond Cambridge.

The conflicts would be at Cambridge Station north between Kings Lynn / Ipswich services against XC and GA Cambridge North services in the DU DU scenario with southern conflicts between 1,2,3,4, 7 and 8 (most of which are there now). The DD UU setup effectively leaves the existng conflicts in place but more of them.

In any event, a lot of this will depend on whether and, if so, how much of the Royston line gets four-tracked between Shepreth Branch Junction and the new Hauxton Junction (where EWR diverges).

I wasn't expecting any to be fiour tracked between Shepreth Branch Jn and Hauxton Jn only Shepreth Branch Jn to Cambridge.

 

[Redbus74]

Have you seen these maps, it divides the route into about a dozen sections, you’ll still need another map to get the exact road numbers though :

East West Rail | Route Update Announcement 2023

This page hosts key information and documents for the Government's 2023 route update announcement on East West Rail.

eastwestrail.co.uk

The “Tempsford variant” map includes a proposed site for St Neots South.

Thanks for those, yes that gives me more idea of where things are planned.

Looks like the Tempsford station will be roughly where the previous one was ?

With regards to Camborne is the station the other side of the A428 a busy dual carriageway? Looks like it unless a mistake?