• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

mwmbwls

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2009
Messages
645
I understand the concept. Is this plan therefore that a single line chord through from St Johns will be the EWR link through the Midland Station. Does this mean the MML slow and fast lines are unchanged and EWR never impinges upon them?
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
There will be no additional platforms. Platform 1A which is a terminus platform for current 2/3 car trains from Bletchley will pass through the station building and out the northern side where a turnback siding exists. This would be attached to the mainline on the northern side. Your basically turning 2 dead end roads into a through road. The station will move closer to Ashburnham road by about 50 feet.
Fine as a terminus, which Bedford will be initially - but how will this platform (and others) be used when EWR runs in two directions at Bedford?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Fine as a terminus, which Bedford will be initially - but how will this platform (and others) be used when EWR runs in two directions at Bedford?
A second through platform for EWR would certainly help operationally, especially if it was useable by Thameslink too, as the existing three Up side platforms are busy. But it would need quite a lot of space, requiring a totally new platform whereas extending Platform 1 only converts a mostly single-sided platform into an island. The bridge at the south end has width for two tracks through the arch currently used by the Platform 1 access, but it's lower than the adjacent arch so might need re-building for double track with electrification clearances (it has to be electrified as it's also the access to the Thameslink stabling sidings).

@richieb1971 , do you have a source for the info on platforms or is this speculation?
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
I just repeated what was told many times before. That 1A would be become P1 with a through road and the station would be moved towards Ashburnham road. I don't have a source. But it definitely makes sense.

The Ford End Road arch supporting the current branch services has the railway centrally positioned. I very much doubt it could support 2 way traffic without huge modifications. History has shown on the Bletchley end and the Bedford end that 2 way traffic a short distance from both stations has sufficed until now and I see no reason to change it. Bedford station really needs to move south of Ford end Road, where there is room for many more platforms than that currently exist. This is a headache born out of Route E and although the route seems to be concrete no plans for provision has been talked about where the bottlenecks exist.

edit, the arch is not flush with the railway, the railway enters the arch at an angle, which is why it won't work with 2 tracks.
 
Last edited:

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
I think the thing about Bromham Road bridge being a problem was if (as some have mentioned before) terminating Thameslink services were extended north for any reason (i.e. to a new (parkway?) station in North Bedford), then you would have everything on the slows for that short section before EWR veered off.
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
I think the thing about Bromham Road bridge being a problem was if (as some have mentioned before) terminating Thameslink services were extended north for any reason (i.e. to a new (parkway?) station in North Bedford), then you would have everything on the slows for that short section before EWR veered off.
Considering how close EWR is veering off, its about 1.5 mins/2 minutes journey time. Beyond Bromham road bridge rear gardens of homes bank against the track so its just not the bridge. EWR would use P1 which currently does not

Platform 1A has no access to the mainline currently. So provision for a connecting track would be required for a Thameslink train to station there even if it was a through road to the north, it would need to be connected to the south as well.
 

cle

Established Member
Joined
17 Nov 2010
Messages
4,008
Is there a diagram anywhere of the proposed future state?
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
1615297147317.png

The shaded area is where its going roughly. The thin bit above Bedford turns right near the Sainsbury's roundabout and is shoe horned between Clapham and Brickhill. Tempsford near A1 black cat roundabout is where its going across the ECML towards Cambourne. The entrance into Cambridge is also under public scrutiny as people cannot decide on a southern entrance to Cambridge or a northern one. A northern approach gives more Stansted options in the future, a southern will allow passengers to go direct to Norwich, Ipswich and surrounding areas.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
The entrance into Cambridge is also under public scrutiny as people cannot decide on a southern entrance to Cambridge or a northern one. A northern approach gives more Stansted options in the future, a southern will allow passengers to go direct to Norwich, Ipswich and surrounding areas.

I'd like to know if it's "people can't decide", as in the southern approach is not yet fixed, or whether that broad sweep of route E is now fixed, and subsequent work will just be about further refinement or route selection within that scope.

Or, to put it another way, was the selection of route E as the preferred route in any way "binding", or was it just EWR saying "yeah we think this is the way to go".

Or, to put it another way, what the hell is going on?
 

richieb1971

Established Member
Joined
28 Jan 2013
Messages
1,935
Route E was chosen because the previously allocated route didn't go through Bedford. On the old route Sandy complained the station would be moved to more northern position where the crossover of ECML/EWR happened. And Cambridge never really got behind the whole southern approach thing at all.

So then came Route E. Goes through Bedford, completely misses Sandy and heads a bit further north towards St Neots, includes Cambourne etc. Then the approach to Cambridge came under scrutiny because it includes Cambourne and does a major southern curve to basically head up north again.

If Cambridge had a triangle it caters for both directions on the pathing. But it all depends on if all routes should include Cambridge or not. Obviously if your triangle is north of Cambridge some trains would miss it completely if they are destined in the future to go Yarmouth, Norwich or Ipswich.

Basically, east of Bedford is getting a lot of nimby's because no route exists and it will create havoc in the countryside as its a big ole railway. Route E is fine in principal, but I think EWR have a bit of nerve putting it right next to homes. There are fields galore a mile further north where it won't affect residents at all.
 

DavidGrain

Established Member
Joined
29 Dec 2017
Messages
1,233
Route E is fine in principal, but I think EWR have a bit of nerve putting it right next to homes. There are fields galore a mile further north where it won't affect residents at all.
That sounds like the old joke. Why was the station built out of town? Because it had to be near the railway.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I'd like to know if it's "people can't decide", as in the southern approach is not yet fixed, or whether that broad sweep of route E is now fixed, and subsequent work will just be about further refinement or route selection within that scope.

Or, to put it another way, was the selection of route E as the preferred route in any way "binding", or was it just EWR saying "yeah we think this is the way to go".

Or, to put it another way, what the hell is going on?

I'm taking it that the principle of a southern approach to Cambridge is now established, and a northern approach is officially off the cards (other than a few local people on the southern route who don't want a railway near them).

The remaining question of the southern approach is exactly how it is routed and how it connects into the existing railway.
 

bspahh

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
1,727
I'm taking it that the principle of a southern approach to Cambridge is now established, and a northern approach is officially off the cards (other than a few local people on the southern route who don't want a railway near them).

The remaining question of the southern approach is exactly how it is routed and how it connects into the existing railway

... and who is going to pay for it.

The Government wasn't willing before the pandemic. I can't see that they will be any more enthusiastic now they have more borrowing to pay for. House building is a bet on the growth in the UK economy.

NIMBY protestors might not get a different route to get built, but they could delay it.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
...I mean, it's not just nimbys. I personally think a northern approach would be better, but that's not in the corridor so AFAIA, it's off the cards.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
... and who is going to pay for it.

The Government wasn't willing before the pandemic. I can't see that they will be any more enthusiastic now they have more borrowing to pay for. House building is a bet on the growth in the UK economy.

NIMBY protestors might not get a different route to get built, but they could delay it.

Or EWR could be built as a catalyst to stimulate growth.

...I mean, it's not just nimbys. I personally think a northern approach would be better, but that's not in the corridor so AFAIA, it's off the cards.

No one ever seems to be able to devise what a credible northern alignment might be (and no, you can't just rip up the Busway)
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
No one ever seems to be able to devise what a credible northern alignment might be (and no, you can't just rip up the Busway)

The most "credible" one I saw was a route that headed NE after leaving Cambourne, went between Northstowe and Impington, then went east and south to join the Fen Line somewhere to the NE of Milton.

I say "credible" only because there was a suggestion of a Northstowe station where the line crossed the busway and there's a lot of new housing going up round there.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
No one ever seems to be able to devise what a credible northern alignment might be (and no, you can't just rip up the Busway)
I mean, you can. It might not be the best idea, but tearing it up won't crack the planet in half. The whole point of a bus is that it can run anywhere with a road to change its route as needed. Reinstating a level crossing on Milton Road I suspect is more of an issue, as taking the railway above or below it to avoid the need would make returning to grade by Chesterton "difficult".

Regardless of the merits or otherwise, it's not happening.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,909
but I think EWR have a bit of nerve putting it right next to homes. There are fields galore a mile further north where it won't affect residents at all.
If they hasd stuck in open fields a different set of NIMBYS would be upset - aka the 'tree huggers' just look at the trouble with HS2 in the Chilterns.
 

leytongabriel

Member
Joined
27 Jan 2013
Messages
587
If they hasd stuck in open fields a different set of NIMBYS would be upset - aka the 'tree huggers' just look at the trouble with HS2 in the Chilterns.
Not sure you can compare the area of outstanding natural beauty that is the Chilterns with the flat fields of Cambridgeshire.
 

bspahh

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
1,727
The most "credible" one I saw was a route that headed NE after leaving Cambourne, went between Northstowe and Impington, then went east and south to join the Fen Line somewhere to the NE of Milton.

I say "credible" only because there was a suggestion of a Northstowe station where the line crossed the busway and there's a lot of new housing going up round there.
That sort of route would be my favourite of the Northern routes into Cambridge. However, it would be expensive.

To get lots of funding from housing developers, EWR needs the stations to be near places which don't already have planning permission for loads of new houses. If the developers don't pay up, then the government needs to instead.

Road works to get a railway across the A14 would be extremely unpopular in a large fraction of the population who care about roads and not railways. The time to propose that was before the A14 was rebuilt.

I don't think there is any chance of a 100mph railway line running at street level across Milton Road in the North of Cambridge. There used to be a railway there, but then it went past a farm, rather than a Science Park.

You could put the railway in a tunnel under Milton Road, but that would also need to extend to Cambridge Regional College and the Western entrance to the Science Park.
 

Steve Harris

Member
Joined
11 Dec 2016
Messages
891
Location
ECML
Not sure you can compare the area of outstanding natural beauty that is the Chilterns with the flat fields of Cambridgeshire.
Apart from Cambridgeshire is not totally flat. It does have some hills you know ! (Not many I agree, but there are some).

I don't think there is any chance of a 100mph railway line running at street level across Milton Road in the North of Cambridge. There used to be a railway there, but then it went past a farm, rather than a Science Park.

You could put the railway in a tunnel under Milton Road, but that would also need to extend to Cambridge Regional College and the Western entrance to the Science Park.
Sorry, but the railway was still there and being used, when the science park was first built and opened (1970 according to Wikipedia). The Fen Drayton - Kings Cross Goods Yard sand trains stopped mid to late 80's if I remember correctly.

I agree, there is no chance of EWR crossing Milton Road though.
 
Last edited:

Neen Sollars

Member
Joined
21 Jul 2018
Messages
324
Oxford to Cambridge, there was a lot of protest in Oxford against Phase 1 to Bicester, and that was an existing line. Not quite a case of NIMBYism more like be very quiet IMBY. NR had to spend more on noise mitigation but not as much as demanded by the locals.
 

Maltazer

Member
Joined
7 Feb 2019
Messages
71
Apart from Cambridgeshire is not totally flat. It does have some hills you know ! (Not many I agree, but there are some)

And one of those hills is the one Cambourne sits on - 200ft higher than Cambridge station, with some fairly steep approaches in some directions. Any route will have to take that into account, especially if it's going to suit the mythical freight trains.
 

sharpener

Member
Joined
4 Oct 2018
Messages
32
Apart from Cambridgeshire is not totally flat. It does have some hills you know ! (Not many I agree, but there are some).


Sorry, but the railway was still there and being used, when the science park was first built and opened (1970 according to Wikipedia). The Fen Drayton - Kings Cross Goods Yard sand trains stopped mid to late 80's if I remember correctly.

I agree, there is no chance of EWR crossing Milton Road though.

Yes, Laser-Scan were one of the first companies on the Science Park and I worked there 1974-77. The gravel trains from St Ives going past my office window used to brighten up my day!

There is no good solution and a southern approach has also got to descend from 200 ft and cross the M11
 

mwmbwls

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2009
Messages
645
All of this debate about a northern or southern entrance to Cambridge seems to overlook the fact that Cambridge is not the end of the line in the overall EWR plan. This is their overall graphic all all phases

EWR - possible eastern extensions from cambridge to norwich and ipswick by Mwmbwls, on Flickr

The final phase of EWR is intended to use existing tracks to Norwich and other points east which means that a northern entry for EWR passenger trains into Cambridge would entail a reversal. Messy but not impossible - Cross Country do it at Reading but is it desirable.? Cambridge is expanding south - expansion means jobs - jobs mean commuters, etc. The Papworth medical complex next to Cambridge South services patients needs for patients in contiguous counties and also draws its workforce from beyond existing the county boundaries. Cambourne put up an articulate fight to be included of the new route because . the new EWR route gives them better access to South Cambridge and also the rest of the Arc to Oxford. EWR have done quite a good job in stitching together the varying agendas along the route which incorporates a number of logical "and" solutions.

As for who pays for it. The Government is paying for the public infrastructure. The Oxford Cambridge Arc is being brought under one planning structure. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/oxford-cambridge-arc#our-ambition-for-the-arc The capacity for both local councils and the DfT to operate free range policies seems likely to be clipped. This could have implications for on electrification decisions.

Also of note is https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Routeing-of-rail-freight-forecasts.pdf This is a 2020 Network Rail planning document basic plan that endeavours to "skate to where the puck is going to be" as they say in Ice Hockey. It identifies a clear and urgent need to get freight trains, intermodal ones in particular, off congested routes such as the southern WCML,ECML and the North London Line where paths are at a premium. Part of this plan is to deliver the (FTN) the Felixstowe to Nuneaton Plan. This neatly now elides with Peterborough's Werrington fly-under to divert freight trains to Doncaster via Lincoln. If you look at pages 15 and 16 "Haven, Thames and The Golden Triangle" you will find a map whereby Network Rail suggest that 50 freight trains a day could usefully be diverted along the EWR. - roughly one train per hour in each direction.
 

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
Also of note is https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/Routeing-of-rail-freight-forecasts.pdf This is a 2020 Network Rail planning document basic plan that endeavours to "skate to where the puck is going to be" as they say in Ice Hockey. It identifies a clear and urgent need to get freight trains, intermodal ones in particular, off congested routes such as the southern WCML,ECML and the North London Line where paths are at a premium. Part of this plan is to deliver the (FTN) the Felixstowe to Nuneaton Plan. This neatly now elides with Peterborough's Werrington fly-under to divert freight trains to Doncaster via Lincoln. If you look at pages 15 and 16 "Haven, Thames and The Golden Triangle" you will find a map whereby Network Rail suggest that 50 freight trains a day could usefully be diverted along the EWR. - roughly one train per hour in each direction.

Yeah I don't understand this. Only electric freight occupies the NNL and WCML, and they can only divert diesel freight down EWR, but that freight is already going via a route that avoids the NNL and WCML as far as Nuneaton already.

I guess they're assuming that EWR will be electrified eventually, and also that a north facing chord gets built at Bletchley. And probably a whole load of other assumptions too.
 

mwmbwls

Member
Joined
14 Dec 2009
Messages
645
Yeah I don't understand this. Only electric freight occupies the NNL and WCML, and they can only divert diesel freight down EWR, but that freight is already going via a route that avoids the NNL and WCML as far as Nuneaton already.

I guess they're assuming that EWR will be electrified eventually, and also that a north facing chord gets built at Bletchley. And probably a whole load of other assumptions too.

There is a vague single line reference to that in the Network Rail report although whether that would mean an east to north curve at Bletchley or a reversal west of the viaduct (which is not in the current plan) is unclear. I think that DRIFT might have influenced their thinking.- but that is a speculation strictly forbidden on this thread.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
There is a vague single line reference to that in the Network Rail report although whether that would mean an east to north curve at Bletchley or a reversal west of the viaduct (which is not in the current plan) is unclear. I think that DRIFT might have influenced their thinking.- but that is a speculation strictly forbidden on this thread.
The report is quite clear it's a north curve that would be needed, and @The Planner in post #4,770 mentioned the North Chord has moved into slightly firmer territory.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top