No problem, let's replace the busway!And must also get over the guided busway near Oakington as well!
No problem, let's replace the busway!And must also get over the guided busway near Oakington as well!
More on why there won't be a northern approach to Cambridge
Why East West Rail Company says it is rejecting a northern route into Cambridge
It has released further explanation of why it favours a southern route in Cambridge South.www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk
Hopefully that will settle the matter - although we all know it won't
The proponents of the northern approach also propose a North to East chord at Coldham Lane to avoid the "reversal problem" to reach Ipswich. Unfortunately that goes straight through the middle of Coldhams Common, which is a very popular local green space. Which strangely enough they forget to point out.
I too feel this argument is going to run and run, in spite of the (in my view) pretty obvious advantages all round of the southern approach (which EWR's consultation articulates well).
No problem, let's replace the busway!
Thanks - clearly some misrepresentation by the locals commenting in the newspaper (what a surprise...).Could it be because the houses are not being built on the floodplain?
The image below is an extract from the Environment Agency flood risk map. The dark and light blue areas represent flood zones 3 and 2 respectively (in popular parlance, ‘floodplain’).
The dark blue shading with white diagonal stripes denotes areas benefitting from flood defences.
The ‘thousands of houses at Northstowe’ would almost all be in the white area north, east and southeast of Longstanton which is not an area with likelihood of flooding, with a very small quantity located on the area benefitting from flood defences to the northeast of Longstanton.
The yellow marker shows roughly where the new station would be with the railway (northern approach) running from the southwest to the northeast right across the extensive area of floodplain.
There is a further issue in that (unlike houses) building a long embankment across a floodplain traps flood water, often exacerbates flood risk nearby or further upstream and can have serious effects on water flow and ecology downstream. This requires significant infrastructure interventions such as drainage and viaducts in order to avoid and mitigate these impacts.
i.e. mucho expensive
And must also get over the guided busway near Oakington as well!
The proponents of the northern approach also propose a North to East chord at Coldham Lane to avoid the "reversal problem" to reach Ipswich. Unfortunately that goes straight through the middle of Coldhams Common, which is a very popular local green space. Which strangely enough they forget to point out.
Indeed - just imagine the uproar if a new rail line was proposed across Coldhams Common to build this "simple chord".
Plus, if you convert the busway to rail then a number of places (such as the Regional College/Science Park) would lose their current busway stop.
It’s ludicrous: on the one hand they say ‘there’s not much demand for trains to Norwich and Ipswich so reversing at Cambridge is fine’ and on the other they advocate running extra trains from Norwich and Ipswich that don’t call at Cambridge at all because there’ll be loads of demand.It's all classic Nimbyism - "it's far too complex to do the project here so they should do it somewhere else where I'm sure it will be easy even though I have no idea how"
Good to see this well-argued contribution; thank youtspaul26. Planners, including railway planners do their best to consider everything. Geotechnics and hydrology (happy to be corrected if not the right terms) are vital considerations. The derailment at Carmont has rightly sensitised us to the dangers of earthworks in relation to rainwater. I am also calling to mind one of Michael Portillo's jaunts, to I think Tewkecbury, where an embankment to a disused railway was being removed as it had held back water, of which the Rivers Severn and Avon carry a lot.Could it be because the houses are not being built on the floodplain?
The image below is an extract from the Environment Agency flood risk map. The dark and light blue areas represent flood zones 3 and 2 respectively (in popular parlance, ‘floodplain’).
The dark blue shading with white diagonal stripes denotes areas benefitting from flood defences.
The ‘thousands of houses at Northstowe’ would almost all be in the white area north, east and southeast of Longstanton which is not an area with likelihood of flooding, with a very small quantity located on the area benefitting from flood defences to the northeast of Longstanton.
The yellow marker shows roughly where the new station would be with the railway (northern approach) running from the southwest to the northeast right across the extensive area of floodplain.
There is a further issue in that (unlike houses) building a long embankment across a floodplain traps flood water, often exacerbates flood risk nearby or further upstream and can have serious effects on water flow and ecology downstream. This requires significant infrastructure interventions such as drainage and viaducts in order to avoid and mitigate these impacts.
i.e. mucho expensive
And must also get over the guided busway near Oakington as well!
That I don’t have too much of a problem with as it’s honest.I also understand people complaining and using the tools available to them to look after their own interests- Councillors, MPs, consultation proceses- I would if it were my house or greenhouse or view affected.
That I don’t have too much of a problem with as it’s honest.
It’s the NIMBY pretense that ‘this alternative is obviously much better so everyone at project X must be a moron [and it just happens to be further away from my house]’ that really annoys me.
The only thing I’ve seen suggested thus far that might merit further consideration has been the idea of an intermediate station between Cambourne and Cambridge South to serve the villages in between, but I daresay the NIMBYs would then be up in arms over that as well!
Thanks!N43 Take a look at this again if not already viewed.
Oxford to Bletchley, and MK is happening and not dependent on any more changes at Oxford. ...
An excellent idea, and reopen the line from Cambridge to Huntingdon.No problem, let's replace the busway!
It was never Cambridge - Huntingdon per se, it was two separate railways. And St Ives - Huntingdon was a pre Beeching closure. It was lightly engineered and had several speed restrictions.An excellent idea, and reopen the line from Cambridge to Huntingdon.
think my favourite argument for northern approach is ”10,000 houses are to be built, and a busway has been built on a flood plain, what’s stopping EWR?”. Screenshot provided by @tspaul26 of a flood risk map around Longstanton shows why the former were possible and why EWR won’t be possible.More on why there won't be a northern approach to Cambridge
Why East West Rail Company says it is rejecting a northern route into Cambridge
It has released further explanation of why it favours a southern route in Cambridge South.www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk
The new ‘Northstowe’ station wouldn’t even be anywhere near Northstowe, but south of Oakington. Most of Northstowe would be an hour’s walk or more away.Also this argument about the lunacy of a new build railway bypassing said houses - the aforementioned busway is suddenly completely unfit for purpose?
Why replace a very frequent service that goes into town centres with an infrequent one that doesn't? Who would that benefit?An excellent idea, and reopen the line from Cambridge to Huntingdon.
Some sort of training exercise, perhaps?
Some new track has appeared close to the new bridge works at Charbridge Lane, Bicester. Bit random?
Interestingly it’s gone from a single fence layer to double layer also. There appears to be enough space on the end of that track to put a buffer stop, so I was thinking maybe it’s for deliveries in the meantime?There’s nothing to suggest it isn’t the first proper track being laid. The tracks were renewed for quite a distance under the Chiltern lines as part of the Oxford Bicester upgrade, and IIRC almost reached the site of that new footbridge. But the last bit was lifted again a year or so back when this project started up. I’d have thought it’s probably the obvious place to start any track laying.
My guess would be that they're laying down enough track to accommodate one of those track construction machines (see post #5064) clear of the live railway. With a full load of continuous rail sections ready to go, those machines must be several hundred metres long.There’s nothing to suggest it isn’t the first proper track being laid.
The new track construction machines don’t carry the rail with them. That is laid on the ballast bed in advance. However it is conceivable that it has been laid to enable long welded rail deliveries to be made.My guess would be that they're laying down enough track to accommodate one of those track construction machines (see post #5064) clear of the live railway. With a full load of continuous rail sections ready to go, those machines must be several hundred metres long.
In the shorter term the focus is getting the section Bicester - Calvert sectional operation for HS2 material deliveries hence starting relaying from Bicester. Calvert - Bletchley is 1-2 years behind that.Presumably the track will be laid from the Bicester end as that is the only point at which there is rail connection until the Bletchley viaduct is in place.
True. But the other style of track-laying machine shown in the second video of post #5064 does transport the lengths of continuously welded rail behind the machine. It will be interesting to see which version of machine the contractors for EWR use.The new track construction machines don’t carry the rail with them.
But anyway, I agree the track that is being been laid seems to be about the length you'd expect to be able to accommodate a train carrying 400m sections of CWR.
For the Balfour Beatty machine, I was wondering how, (or if), the foot of the rail is protected, assuming they have to pull it along the ballast? Presumably for a renewal the delivery train can position it outside the existing tracks beforehand, but it looks to be a weak aspect of the new construction process...CWR is generally supplied in strings 216m long.
That technique used on Borders is a bit of an oddity. The NTC is much better.
Why 216m? Is it simply a case of "it's always been that", or is there some sort of very logical explanation?CWR is generally supplied in strings 216m long.
That technique used on Borders is a bit of an oddity. The NTC is much better.