Cambridge - Haverhill?

[Tobbes]

I see that there has been some warm words on reopening Cambridge - Haverhill this week.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...-plans-reinstate-cambridge-haverhill-13322745

Whilst the light rail words are unwelcome, I wondered what people here thought of the proposal in general? Accepting that the old station site is under a Tescos supermarket - which I'd hope to navigate around - the key for me is that it is full NR standards with an option to extend back to Sudbury to support further house building across central Suffolk.

 

[mildertduck]

I see that there has been some warm words on reopening Cambridge - Haverhill this week.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...-plans-reinstate-cambridge-haverhill-13322745

Whilst the light rail words are unwelcome, I wondered what people here thought of the proposal in general? Accepting that the old station site is under a Tescos supermarket - which I'd hope to navigate around - the key for me is that it is full NR standards with an option to extend back to Sudbury to support further house building across central Suffolk.

Might this line be suitable for Parry People Movers?

 

[jopsuk]

I'd like to see it formally associated with the Wisbech campaign- to potentially run as an all-stops local service, with (on the Haverhill branch) stations at Sawston, Abington for Granta Park and Linton.

I reckon there will be quite a lot of engineering challenge though. Crossing the A505/A11 junction chiefly, but more generally I would have thought that, especially if to Heavy Rail standards, it will be required to avoid at-grade crossings of roads, tracks and footpaths, and especially no farm accommodation crossings.

 

[jopsuk]

Might this line be suitable for Parry People Movers?

No, it needs capacity! The Haverhill road is subject to serious congestion, any rail link needs to be rapid and capable of coping with high demand

 

[eastdyke]

No, it needs capacity! The Haverhill road is subject to serious congestion, any rail link needs to be rapid and capable of coping with high demand

And be capable of integration with existing rolling stock ...

 

[ac6000cw]

Whilst the light rail words are unwelcome

Why?

As well as enabling a more frequent service to be run at lower cost, it can handle steeper gradients than heavy rail and also street running (so it can penetrate urban areas relatively cheaply).

One of the problems with rebuilding the Haverhill line (as it was originally) is that the flat junction with the mainline was just south of Shelford station, on a line that now carries 4tph in each direction off-peak, then runs through another flat junction which adds another 4tph. The costs of providing the extra capacity to deal with say 2tph for Haverhill (unless E-W rail pays for sorting out Shepreth Branch junction) would probably make the project a non-starter.

Light rail would open up the possibility of routing it through the open farmland to the east of Shelford, then through part of the Addenbrookes site, over the busway bridge and then along the busway route to Cambridge station. (this assumes the busway bridge structure is strong enough to carry light rail, and the two can share the right-of-way). I'm also assuming that there would be interchange with heavy rail at the proposed Addenbrookes rail station.

 

[eastdyke]

Why?

As well as enabling a more frequent service to be run at lower cost, it can handle steeper gradients than heavy rail and also street running (so it can penetrate urban areas relatively cheaply).

One of the problems with rebuilding the Haverhill line (as it was originally) is that the flat junction with the mainline was just south of Shelford station, on a line that now carries 4tph in each direction off-peak, then runs through another flat junction which adds another 4tph. The costs of providing the extra capacity to deal with say 2tph for Haverhill (unless E-W rail pays for sorting out Shepreth Branch junction) would probably make the project a non-starter.

Light rail would open up the possibility of routing it through the open farmland to the east of Shelford, then through part of the Addenbrookes site, over the busway bridge and then along the busway route to Cambridge station. (this assumes the busway bridge structure is strong enough to carry light rail, and the two can share the right-of-way). I'm also assuming that there would be interchange with heavy rail at the proposed Addenbrookes rail station.

I am not sure that (at least potentially) a 4 track station at Addenbrookes will ever be affordable.
Is there space for a new single running line from Cambridge under the Hills Road Bridge to the Addenbrookes site? Last time that I went through I thought that there might be.
In which case there is the potential for a 'Cambridgeshire Metro'. Wisbech-Haverhill. (And probably Newmarket - Addenbrookes as well - opening up more stations east of Cambridge).

But as always all things wishable need to be funded.

 

[ac6000cw]

There are already 4 tracks under Hills Road bridge, and at some time in the past they extended (I think) as far as Long Road, but I don't know if the bridge there is wide enough to handle 4 tracks (at present-day standards for clearances etc.). But I can't see any real impediment to widening it if needed.

 

[eastdyke]

There are already 4 tracks under Hills Road bridge, and at some time in the past they extended (I think) as far as Long Road, but I don't know if the bridge there is wide enough to handle 4 tracks (at present-day standards for clearances etc.). But I can't see any real impediment to widening it if needed.

Thanks!

Ah bad memory, wrong bridge

 

[daodao]

I see that there has been some warm words on reopening Cambridge - Haverhill this week.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...-plans-reinstate-cambridge-haverhill-13322745

Whilst the light rail words are unwelcome, I wondered what people here thought of the proposal in general? Accepting that the old station site is under a Tescos supermarket - which I'd hope to navigate around - the key for me is that it is full NR standards with an option to extend back to Sudbury to support further house building across central Suffolk.

The best solution would be to extend the existing busway to Haverhill, so that the vehicles can penetrate Cambridge city centre. Cambridge railway station is so remote from the city centre (well over 1 mile) that rail commuting into Cambridge is not very practical.

 

[bramling]

Cambridge railway station is so remote from the city centre (well over 1 mile) that rail commuting into Cambridge is not very practical.

This may well be so, however it doesn't seem to dissuade people. Trains into and out of Cambridge at commuter times are nowadays invariably heavily loaded.

 

[Firesprite]

The best solution would be to extend the existing busway to Haverhill, so that the vehicles can penetrate Cambridge city centre. Cambridge railway station is so remote from the city centre (well over 1 mile) that rail commuting into Cambridge is not very practical.

Most people are not heading to the city centre. No more incident & accident prone busways.

 

[edwin_m]

This is the sort of scheme that might become more practical (or at least less impractical) with the concept being discussed on another thread, where a Stadler Flirt or similar is adapated to have limited street running capabilities but less than the full flexibility of a tram. It could then using existing tracks out of Cambridge but a reinstated branch could make use of tighter curves, steeper gradients (but not as severe as on tramways) and even limited street operation. This could make it easier to get round bits of the former route that are built over, without the cost and disruption of building a new heavy rail alignment.

In this case I don't think heavy rail compatibiltiy would be important even if it did extent to Sudbury. Sudbury to Marks Tey is after all esssentially self-contained, although the type of vehicle I suggested could continue on the main line to ipswich or some other destination if capacity was available.

 

[jopsuk]

The best solution would be to extend the existing busway to Haverhill, so that the vehicles can penetrate Cambridge city centre. Cambridge railway station is so remote from the city centre (well over 1 mile) that rail commuting into Cambridge is not very practical.

A large bulk of the offices in Cambridge are on Station Road, Hills Road and off Brooklands Avenue- very much the station area.

 

[eastdyke]

In this case I don't think heavy rail compatibiltiy would be important even if it did extent to Sudbury. Sudbury to Marks Tey is after all esssentially self-contained, although the type of vehicle I suggested could continue on the main line to ipswich or some other destination if capacity was available.

Sudbury-Marks Tey is due to extend to Colchester Town in the developed Abellio GA franchise (after delivery of the FLIRT bi-modes).

Mind you that would not be a barrier to operation with adapted units.

 

[MarkyT]

This is the sort of scheme that might become more practical (or at least less impractical) with the concept being discussed on another thread, where a Stadler Flirt or similar is adapated to have limited street running capabilities but less than the full flexibility of a tram. It could then using existing tracks out of Cambridge but a reinstated branch could make use of tighter curves, steeper gradients (but not as severe as on tramways) and even limited street operation. This could make it easier to get round bits of the former route that are built over, without the cost and disruption of building a new heavy rail alignment.

In this case I don't think heavy rail compatibiltiy would be important even if it did extent to Sudbury. Sudbury to Marks Tey is after all esssentially self-contained, although the type of vehicle I suggested could continue on the main line to ipswich or some other destination if capacity was available.

Such vehicles might also be able to get into Cambridge city centre via a fairly straight route along Mill Street. A terminus could be provided in the park behind Drummer Street bus station.

 

[Firesprite]

Such vehicles might also be able to get into Cambridge city centre via a fairly straight route along Mill Street. A terminus could be provided in the park behind Drummer Street bus station.

Mill road is narrow and very busy.

 

[Tobbes]

If we're going to do light rail then as a function of the proposed Cambridge Metro underground seems more likely than street running, Markyt.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...ridge-underground-metro-james-palmer-13038824

But this doesn't alter my bias towards heavy rail for Haverhill and Sudbury, albeit being set up for tram-trains if that's more effective at the Cambridge end; the building potential for houses along the Sudbury line is simply too great to be overlooked.

 

[eastdyke]

If we're going to do light rail then as a function of the proposed Cambridge Metro underground seems more likely than street running, Markyt.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...ridge-underground-metro-james-palmer-13038824

But this doesn't alter my bias towards heavy rail for Haverhill and Sudbury, albeit being set up for tram-trains if that's more effective at the Cambridge end; the building potential for houses along the Sudbury line is simply too great to be overlooked.

I doubt that population density/potential usage would be anything like high enough in Cambridge to make underground an affordable option.

There should be a presumption against all large/very large new developments unless it can be shown that there is an efficient and affordable connection to the National Rail Network (amongst many other things).
Some of the problems associated with forward planning new developments arises from the planning responsibilty, at least in the first instance, laying at the District level. Neither Haverhill nor Newmarket are even in Cambridgeshire let alone the same Planning District as Cambridge.
With proper planning Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), or whatever any future revision is called, could be used to fund/part fund projects (Crossrail 1 is part funded by CIL). After all land and development becomes much more valuable with a Rail availability as properties can command higher prices.
A CIL contribution to rail of £5000 per house would not be unreasonable in the Cambridge travel to work area.

Its all about proper planning process.

 

[AndrewE]

One of the problems with rebuilding the Haverhill line (as it was originally) is that the flat junction with the mainline was just south of Shelford station, on a line that now carries 4tph in each direction off-peak, then runs through another flat junction which adds another 4tph. The costs ... would probably make the project a non-starter.

Light rail would open up the possibility...

So put in a couple of flying or burrowing junctions then! When billions keep being announced for upgrades to address [road] transport congestion (admittedly often re-announcements of the same money) why don't rail advocates think big?

IMO Light rail has shot itself in the foot repeatedly in the UK, except where a "PTE" or equivalent has promoted it (and absorbed the cost.) Manchester is the one that has really succeded in building a network, and that was mainly by stealing proper railway lines! Far better to focus on infilling (or re-building) the heavy rail network and adding new lines to the trams that we have now to build them into mainly on-street networks, maybe feeding heavy rail radial routes.

 

[ac6000cw]

The best solution would be to extend the existing busway to Haverhill, so that the vehicles can penetrate Cambridge city centre.

I actually agree with you, but any mention of guided busways seems to go down like a lead balloon on this forum, not withstanding that the Cambridge one has been a successful addition to the local transport system.

Keep in mind that this is a line that closed 50 years ago, probably most of the right-of-way land has been sold etc. so you're really talking about building a new route to modern standards, whatever runs on it.

 

[ocelocelot]

I actually agree with you, but any mention of guided busways seems to go down like a lead balloon on this forum, not withstanding that the Cambridge one has been a successful addition to the local transport system.

Keep in mind that this is a line that closed 50 years ago, probably most of the right-of-way land has been sold etc. so you're really talking about building a new route to modern standards, whatever runs on it.

I use the Cambridgeshire guided busway occasionally and am generally pretty impressed with it. I think frequencies like this the would be difficult to achieve with heavy rail, it's very much "turn up and go"-able (something like every eight minutes on the shared northern bit between Histon and Longstanton?). And buses can stop and start quickly which I think heavy rail would have struggled with. And turning level crossings into traffic light junctions seems to work pretty well, with bus detection which means the buses rarely have to stop for them. And the "last mile" aspect is really helpful: they can easily run on normal roads to reach central locations - admittedly they're then vulnerable to traffic problems. But fitting tram/light-rail street running or tunnels into Cambridge itself would be tricky and this way means people can travel from wherever in the countryside into central Cambridge on one bus. It functions as an express bus within Cambridge (only a handful of stops) so it's much quicker across town than the Citi stopping services with their timing points and stop-start running to let people on or off.

What I'm worried about is whether the ride quality will continue to deteriorate as the track gets older - I gather that the concrete beams have started to shift somewhat and it does feel a bit bumpy now in places - when it opened I recall it being a very smooth ride.

 

[Firesprite]

I actually agree with you, but any mention of guided busways seems to go down like a lead balloon on this forum, not withstanding that the Cambridge one has been not been a successful addition to the local transport system.

Keep in mind that this is a line that closed 50 years ago, probably most of the right-of-way land has been sold etc. so you're really talking about building a new route to modern standards, whatever runs on it.

The busway is a loss making money pit, that is incident and accident prone. The usage figures have never been independently validated. The bull**** coming from Campbell and Bates is clearly false. The usage is nowhere near claimed. Meanwhile bus services across the rest of Cambridgeshire are cut back even further. Three major crashes in year on the same section all down to speeding. The busway is falling apart, needs tens of million of pounds in repairs. The piles are sinking, bolts are breaking and the beams are rocking. So much for it being maintenance free.

 

[ac6000cw]

So put in a couple of flying or burrowing junctions then!

Yes, but they need a lot of space and (relatively) cost a lot of money to build - Haverhill is not a huge town, and Sawston and Linton (the largest intermediate settlements) are only large villages. Haverhill needs better transport links, but not at an E-W rail level of cost - we're talking about a branch line to connect a modest size town to a modest size city, not a major rail network interconnector.

 

[ac6000cw]

The busway is a loss making money pit, that is incident and accident prone. The usage figures have never been independently validated. The bull**** coming from Campbell and Bates is clearly false. The usage is nowhere near claimed.

So do you have independently validated usage figures to support your claims?

 

[jopsuk]

regardless of the numbers, at the moment locally the idea of building a new busway is political poison, with particularly the the new Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough being very against them- though the City Deal has proposed one as an option for the A1307 corridor project.

As well as commuters into Cambridge, there's a huge flow outbound, to Babraham and Granta Park.

 

[ac6000cw]

As well as commuters into Cambridge, there's a huge flow outbound, to Babraham and Granta Park.

Which means there should be plenty of potential for a successful high frequency light rail service between Cambridge rail station, Addenbrookes (with it's huge research campus), Babraham and Granta Park and then on to Linton and Haverhill. Over those sort of distances it's frequency that makes public transport attractive (as ocelocelot alludes to above in relation to the busway) i.e. a tram every 10 minutes, not a train every 30 minutes.

 

[Ianno87]

The busway is a loss making money pit, that is incident and accident prone. The usage figures have never been independently validated. The bull**** coming from Campbell and Bates is clearly false. The usage is nowhere near claimed. Meanwhile bus services across the rest of Cambridgeshire are cut back even further. Three major crashes in year on the same section all down to speeding. The busway is falling apart, needs tens of million of pounds in repairs. The piles are sinking, bolts are breaking and the beams are rocking. So much for it being maintenance free.

Whatever you may believe, the Busway *is* popular and genuinely gets people out of their cars. You only need to look at the buses arriving and leaving central Cambridge.

 

[whittlesfordok]

Agritech (science/agricultural park)is coming at whittlesford and they are going to build a transport interconnection at Whittlesford parkway and the Welcome centre at Hixton is talking about having personal people movers from Whittlesford to Hixton.
So this would be the idea place to start any railway from to Haverhill

 

[gingerheid]

The busway is a loss making money pit, that is incident and accident prone. The usage figures have never been independently validated. The bull**** coming from Campbell and Bates is clearly false. The usage is nowhere near claimed. Meanwhile bus services across the rest of Cambridgeshire are cut back even further.

If nobody is using it then it's strange indeed then that service levels have increased so much (even before Northstowe is built), at a time when all other services in Cambridge are indeed seeing cuts!

There's no point trying to deny that aspects in which it has been a success, one of which is that passengers (unaccountably) seem to like it and are using it in large numbers.

In use, it has been a success (and the fact that the accidents have been caused by speeding reinforces what a success it has been). In construction it wasn't a success, but that is not the fault of the concept of a busway.