East West Rail project [to be] examined by Transport Committee [on March 6th 2024 from 09:30]

[gallafent]

6 March 2024 - Strategic transport objectives - Oral evidence - Committees - UK Parliament

09:00 - The Wilson Room, Portcullis House

committees.parliament.uk

There's a link to watch online, and instructions on how to attend in person, on that web page.

The East West Rail project will be scrutinised by the Transport Committee in an evidence session with Rail Minister Huw Merriman, DfT officials and the project’s Chief Executive.

Meeting details​

At 9:30am: Oral evidence

Inquiry Strategic transport objectives



Mrs Naomi Green

Managing Director at England's Economic Heartland



Dr Andy Williams

Chair at Oxford to Cambridge Science Supercluster Board



Tom Wootton

Mayor at Bedford Borough Council



At 10:15am: Oral evidence

Inquiry Strategic transport objectives



Will Garton

Director General for Levelling Up at Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities



Huw Merriman MP

Minister for Rail at Department for Transport



Dame Bernadette Kelly DCB

Permanent Secretary at Department for Transport



Beth West

Chief Executive Officer at East West Rail



East West Rail aims to establish a line linking Oxford and Cambridge via Bicester, Milton Keynes and Bedford. The project, with an estimated cost of £6-7bn, was announced in 2013 and the East West Railway Company was set up as a delivery body in 2017.
The session, part of the Committee’s strategic transport objectives inquiry, will also see MPs question the Mayor of Bedford and representatives of the Oxford to Cambridge Science Supercluster Board and England’s Economic Heartland – a sub-national transport body covering an area from Swindon to Cambridgeshire.
The session follows a recent National Audit Office (NAO) report which said the Government “is not yet clear how the benefits of the project will be achieved nor how it aligns to other government plans for growth in the region”. The report did not provide a value-for-money appraisal of the project.
Witnesses will be asked about the case for building East West Rail, and how different strategic objectives were considered and prioritised in the lead up to the project being green-lit, such as local economic growth, housing development and improving connectivity between cities along the route.
As well as seeking an update on how plans are progressing, MPs will want to hear how local government, businesses and residents have been consulted and communicated with, and how the Government and EWR will respond to the findings of the NAO’s report.
There will be questions about to what extent different government departments have been planning for the project in a joined-up way, and whether the project will be fully electrified in order to minimise carbon emissions.
The Strategic Transport Objectives inquiry is a broader examination of how the Government works across departments and regional and local government to plan and invest in infrastructure and services, and the criteria and methods it uses for making decisions on major projects. This session will use East West Rail as a case study within the inquiry.

​

Location​

The Wilson Room, Portcullis House

 

[GRALISTAIR]

What good do these meetings do in all honesty?

Surely there is way too much talk and not enough walk in British politics?

 

[BrianW]

What good do these meetings do in all honesty?

Surely there is way too much talk and not enough walk in British politics?

It's a 'recognition' of parliament 'scrutinising', 'calling folk to account', 'holding feet to the fire', 'showing who's boss', electioneering, ... i.e. I agree with you. It's a cost, a sham, like 'consultation'. However, EWR Co do need to make a better showing than HS2 Ltd.

 

[The exile]

Of course “just get on with doing it” was what led to the PPE debacle. Possibly even understandable under the circumstances - where the stuff was needed “tomorrow” .

 

[AM9]

Of course “just get on with doing it” was what led to the PPE debacle. Possibly even understandable under the circumstances - where the stuff was needed “tomorrow” .

Does that infer that Tory ministers' dodgy mates are managing EWR construction?

 

[The exile]

You may think so. I couldn’t possibly comment.

 

[richieb1971]

From Bedford's perspective, the northern route is alienating those who do not want the railway and quite a lot of those who do want it.

I wrote to Tom Wootton recently he agreed there is bullishness to EWR's drive to get the northern route done regardless of what anyone says.

People vote politicians in for respresentation of interests, but get absolutely no power representation on the railway. The current administration is largely reactive to problems, rather than pre actively trying for the best outcome.

 

[geoffk]

I read the book "How Westminster Works... and Why It Doesn't" by Ian Dunt. In his view the Select Committee system is one of two parts of the Westminster system which actually works well, a model of how things should be done – listening to evidence and scrutinising by means of co-operation and compromise rather than partisanship. (The other is the House of Lords).

 

[BrianW]

6 March 2024 - Strategic transport objectives - Oral evidence - Committees - UK Parliament

09:00 - The Wilson Room, Portcullis House

committees.parliament.uk

There's a link to watch online, and instructions on how to attend in person, on that web page.

Thanks for the link. As far as I could tell there was no reference to the Bicester Level Crossing, maybe not of Bicester at all, even the international draw Bicester Village.The 'world-leading' universities and bio-tech got many references, and Mayor Tom made many mentions of Bedford (how like his predecesor elected Mayor Whatwashisname). The various members of the Transport Cttee were sure to get their local angles in- Bucks, Borders, Leamside and Stoke got dishonourable mentions. BCR and the 'Green Book' took a hammering as did EWR 'consultaions', compared unfavourably with Highways England (or whatever they are called today). 'Transformational Opportunities' is the expression to capture, and value. Greg Smith asked how EWR would help someone travel from Corby to Silverstone- I imagine a petrolhead would drive at speed or take their personal jet or chopper.
I imagine interest in 'solving' Bicester level crossing may best be approched by reducing the 'last mile or several' for a high-value job commuter to Oxford or Cambridge to get to, and park their car, at one side or other of Bicester Village Station.
For Bedford, regeneration opportunities; and for the intervening 'heartland', more housing, sorry 'villages' like beads on a string, with Section 106 agreements (or Community Infrastructure Levy payments/ 'bribes' to pay for/ contribute to 'active travel' foot- and bike-ways.
I 'learned' little, or a little at most. Final tracklaying Bicester- Bletchley ceremony tomorrow; and Greenford-WestEaling Battery train achieved 84 miles between charges; Ox-cam =86, or v/v.
Cambridge 'opportunities' mentioned quite a bit by current Chancellor Hunt.

 

[BlueLeanie]

Greg Smith asked how EWR would help someone travel from Corby to Silverstone- I imagine a petrolhead would drive at speed or take their personal jet or chopper.

We took the Helicopter option from London Oxford airport to Silverstone as a a treat for the kids years ago. They absolutely loved it.

 

[al green]

Mayor Tom was talking his usual bollocks. He claimed there was no liaison by EWR with parish councils. I live about 5 miles from the line and I'm on a EWR parish council liaison group.

 

[richieb1971]

Mayor Tom was talking his usual bollocks. He claimed there was no liaison by EWR with parish councils. I live about 5 miles from the line and I'm on a EWR parish council liaison group.

He still represents the people of Bedford who are for and against it, both parties seem unhappy with the process. The last Mayor was also someone who gave Bedford lots of things they didn't ask for. It seems when these people get to power they seem to take things into their own hands and not show representation, just focused on tunnel vision mentality. I still believe at this stage, the railway will go ahead on the northern route no matter what protests are made or what arguments are made against it. Simply because these people have divine power that cannot be questioned.

My biggest problem with EWR is that they have plans to do this and that, but they have no plan on how to implement it without causing further issues. When you ask them about those issues, they give very vague responses like "We will endeavour to do our best to mitigate that problem". Folk don't want that kind of answer, they want concrete information. If EWR have a plan ,they have a plan. They should just be transparent about it.

 

[Magdalia]

BBC News has a report on the select committee proceedings here:

Next stretch of East West Rail line approved in Budget

Accelerated work should allow services to run between Oxford and Bedford by the end of the decade.

www.bbc.co.uk

The government has given the green light to the next section of the long-awaited East West Rail (EWR) in the Budget.

Earlier the Transport Select Committee met to quiz key players in the project.

Cambridge 'opportunities' mentioned quite a bit by current Chancellor Hunt.

The key Budget document on Cambridge is here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/65e865a05b6524001af21a7c/The_Case_for_Cambridge.pdf

HM Government
The case for Cambridge
March 2024

This includes the following statements about East West Rail.

To support this long-term ambition and the immediate transport requirements of Greater Cambridge, the government will: • Deliver East West Rail, radically improving connectivity to other innovation and economic centres in Bedford, Milton Keynes and Oxford, and making sure we bring the full benefits of this new line to the city of Cambridge.

The government will ensure that the East West Rail Growth Board, chaired by HMT, includes consideration of how the new rail connection into Cambridge can be best integrated into the city’s transport network for the future.

BBC News also has a report on this which is here:

Budget says Cambridge to get help to 'realise full potential'

The government moves forward with plans to establish a development corporation to expand Cambridge.

www.bbc.co.uk

The government has moved forward with plans to establish a development corporation to help "realise Cambridge's full potential".

 

[tspaul26]

I still believe at this stage, the railway will go ahead on the northern route no matter what protests are made or what arguments are made against it. Simply because these people have divine power that cannot be questioned.

Alternatively, an holistic review has been undertaken and the conclusion was that going north of Bedford was (overall) preferable.

The fact that you don’t like the decision doesn’t mean that it’s wrong or that the “divine power” is at work.

If you want to change it then the objectors need to come up with something genuinely new which would then require the decision to be reconsidered and, potentially, re-opened.

However, almost everything provided to EWR Co thus far has been by typical NIMBY campaigns banging the usual NIMBY drums.

I note in this regard that the rail evaluation report commissioned by the current Mayor of Bedford concluded that in cash terms (so far as the benefits of the new railway can be monetised) the various options considered were somewhat of a muchness, whereas routes north of Bedford performed better in terms of environmental impact.

Perhaps the people at EWR Co do know what they are talking about after all?

My biggest problem with EWR is that they have plans to do this and that, but they have no plan on how to implement it without causing further issues. When you ask them about those issues, they give very vague responses like "We will endeavour to do our best to mitigate that problem". Folk don't want that kind of answer, they want concrete information. If EWR have a plan ,they have a plan. They should just be transparent about it.

It’s too early in the process for that kind of detail and no other project of this scale and type would have it or provide it at this stage.

That kind of information will normally be set out (indicatively) in the Environmental Statement with the final details provided and approved after the DCO is granted.

 

[DarloRich]

yeah - a step closer to "merging" my station!

 

[tspaul26]

yeah - a step closer to "merging" my station!

I expect you will keep your station (on paper).

But it might be renamed ‘Norton Bridge Redux’.

 

[DarloRich]

I expect you will keep your station (on paper).

But it might be renamed ‘Norton Bridge Redux’.

As long as there is a service at Am and PM peaks - day time services can be thinned out with minimal impact tbh.

( at least until E-W is such a success that some of the bigger house building plans along the vale come to fruition )

BTW - I am ABSOLUTLY in favour of E-W rail!

 

[richieb1971]

It’s too early in the process for that kind of detail and no other project of this scale and type would have it or provide it at this stage.

That kind of information will normally be set out (indicatively) in the Environmental Statement with the final details provided and approved after the DCO is granted.

If you have a plan, and don't address the consequences your just upsetting people and keeping them in the dark. In my years of following projects, it often comes up that the project leaders know nothing about what i'm asking, just have tunnel vision on the project directives. Where is the joined up thinking? Every project has a framework from the beginning, you don't make it up as you go along. Well I don't believe that.

Tom Wootton told me the THL trains are going into Cauldwell walk instead the sidings ate up by EWR. You would think that THL would know this by now? Or they just spring that on them at the last minute?

 

[A0wen]

What good do these meetings do in all honesty?

Surely there is way too much talk and not enough walk in British politics?

It's a 'recognition' of parliament 'scrutinising', 'calling folk to account', 'holding feet to the fire', 'showing who's boss', electioneering, ... i.e. I agree with you. It's a cost, a sham, like 'consultation'. However, EWR Co do need to make a better showing than HS2 Ltd.

Well OK, so how would either of you suggest a body like EWR is held to account in terms of what it's doing ?

That's why we have elected politicians - it's part of their job.

The alternative would simply be to give EWR all the money it demands without any check or balance or ensuring its methods and justifications are sound.

 

[eldomtom2]

As long as there is a service at Am and PM peaks - day time services can be thinned out with minimal impact tbh.

We no longer live in a world where peak-only transit is acceptable, if we ever did.

 

[tspaul26]

If you have a plan

EWR is a project, not a plan.

and don't address the consequences your just upsetting people and keeping them in the dark

As has been explained to you more than once, the level of detail you are seeking does not exist at this stage - and would not on any other transport project of this scale which is being consented through the DCO process.

In my years of following projects, it often comes up that the project leaders know nothing about what i'm asking

Because it’s too early in the process for such levels of detail to be known and, in any event, it’s not their role to know the minutiae.

just have tunnel vision on the project directives.

Should the project objectives be ignored then?

Where is the joined up thinking? Every project has a framework from the beginning, you don't make it up as you go along. Well I don't believe that.

Indeed, you don’t make it up as you go along.

But just because you don’t like the decisions that have been made or you want more information doesn’t mean there’s any lack of thinking.

Tom Wootton told me the THL trains are going into Cauldwell walk instead the sidings ate up by EWR. You would think that THL would know this by now? Or they just spring that on them at the last minute?

What Tile Hill trains?

 

[richieb1971]

EWR is a project, not a plan.

As has been explained to you more than once, the level of detail you are seeking does not exist at this stage - and would not on any other transport project of this scale which is being consented through the DCO process.

Because it’s too early in the process for such levels of detail to be known and, in any event, it’s not their role to know the minutiae.

Should the project objectives be ignored then?

Indeed, you don’t make it up as you go along.

But just because you don’t like the decisions that have been made or you want more information doesn’t mean there’s any lack of thinking.

What Tile Hill trains?

You are exactly the type of person that goes round upsetting people. You should work for EWR. You see whats in front of you and you back it up 110%. If people have questions, tell them to come back when all the decisions have already been made behind closed doors with a bullet proof dossier of why the option chosen was best. Run along you peasent weaklings, the bosses already got this.

What Tile Hill trains? Thameslink. Jowitt sidings to Cauldwell walk depot. Thats just one example, which is 2 railway companies which should be easy to tell the story. Its already railway land and its changing hands. Personally I think going to Cauldwell walk is not a great plan at all. Its doable, but its far from ideal. 2 lanes of Jowitt are going to become lanes for EWR so that means 2 12 car trains need to move.

The other issue that there is no feedback is the steepness of Bromham road bridge which is already steep getting steeper for 6 tracks. You'll need cyclists to pedal up quite a steep gradient on that bridge once all said and done and there is no cycling provision on it. That will be fun.

And Bedford station itself, which is boxed in.. but there seems to be expansion plans for extra platforms, 1000's of cars.. Where? Where are they going to put all this? The only direction is up.

It seems utterly ridiculous (and its not because I don't like it) that this project is going ahead without outlining these concerns first.

EWR (or the process) is telling everyone they are 2 years too early (for information), or 2 months too late to change anything.

I'm asking very basic questions. I just want a high level understanding of where things are going.

 

[tspaul26]

You are exactly the type of person that goes round upsetting people. You should work for EWR. You see whats in front of you and you back it up 110%. If people have questions, tell them to come back when all the decisions have already been made behind closed doors with a bullet proof dossier of why the option chosen was best. Run along you peasent weaklings, the bosses already got this.

You are exactly the type of person who won’t listen when explanations are given as to why the things you are seeking are not available at the present stage of design.

You should work for the NIMBY lot.

What Tile Hill trains? Thameslink. Jowitt sidings to Cauldwell walk depot. Thats just one example, which is 2 railway companies which should be easy to tell the story. It’s already railway land and it’s changing hands. Personally I think going to Cauldwell walk is not a great plan at all. It’s doable, but it’s far from ideal. 2 lanes of Jowitt are going to become lanes for EWR so that means 2 12 car trains need to move.

You used the railway abbreviation for Tile Hill, instead of simply referring to Thameslink.

And that hasn’t been decided yet so you’re asking EWR Co to tell a story that hasn’t been written.

You’re also quite good I’ve noticed at casting general assertions about how things are “not a great plan” and your preferences are so much better, but then never follow through with any detailed reasoning that holds up.

The other issue that there is no feedback is the steepness of Bromham road bridge which is already steep getting steeper for 6 tracks. You'll need cyclists to pedal up quite a steep gradient on that bridge once all said and done and there is no cycling provision on it. That will be fun.

More nonsense from you. The additional portal should be possible to fit without materially altering the gradient of the approach road, but the station track layout has to be confirmed first before that aspect is finalised.

And Bedford station itself, which is boxed in.. but there seems to be expansion plans for extra platforms, 1000's of cars.. Where? Where are they going to put all this? The only direction is up.

Indeed, the direction is up which is why the last public consultation explained that options being explored included densification of the existing extensive surface parking.

It seems utterly ridiculous (and it’s not because I don't like it) that this project is going ahead without outlining these concerns first.

It seems utterly ridiculous that you expect a project of this scale to be fully designed to the last screw.

And even if that was done to the level of detail you seem to assume it should be (without any legitimate basis), you would then no doubt complain about it being presented as a fait accompli.

EWR (or the process) is telling everyone they are 2 years too early (for information), or 2 months too late to change anything.

This is because (like many projects of this type and scale) an iterative design process is being used which has an increasing level of granularity in the information as you move along the process.

The problem with objectors like you is that you are attempting to re-litigate matters that have already been decided, but you don’t have anything new to bring to the table. And then when it is concluded that there is no justification to re-open the earlier decisions you complain about EWR Co ‘not listening’, when what you actually mean is they won’t just roll over and do what you want.

I'm asking very basic questions. I just want a high level understanding of where things are going.

You are asking questions which assume that EWR Co should have this level of detail at this early stage of the design process - an assumption that is not grounded in reality.

 

[A0wen]

EWR is a project, not a plan.

As has been explained to you more than once, the level of detail you are seeking does not exist at this stage - and would not on any other transport project of this scale which is being consented through the DCO process.

To be pedantic, EWR is actually a *programme* which will comprise of a number of projects. That said, I agree with the gist of your point.

You are exactly the type of person that goes round upsetting people. You should work for EWR. You see whats in front of you and you back it up 110%. If people have questions, tell them to come back when all the decisions have already been made behind closed doors with a bullet proof dossier of why the option chosen was best. Run along you peasent weaklings, the bosses already got this.

This on the other hand is unfair as a criticism and belies a fundamental lack of understanding about how large projects are run. That's not the fault of @tspaul26 or project teams in general. It is the fault of people who believe they somehow have more say or more right to determine the direction of a project than they actually do.

What Tile Hill trains?

THL = Tile Hill Station - it's why there are forum rules about using acronyms and ensuring you define them the first time you use them in your post.

The other issue that there is no feedback is the steepness of Bromham road bridge which is already steep getting steeper for 6 tracks. You'll need cyclists to pedal up quite a steep gradient on that bridge once all said and done and there is no cycling provision on it. That will be fun.

In any project there are a group of stakeholders - some are important i.e. must be consulted and engaged in the decision making, others less so. In the case of EWR the stakeholders who are important are going to be the statutory bodies, such as Network Rail, Bedford Council, Highways Agency, National Grid, Environment Agency. Users and residents will fall at the bottom of that list - for good reason. They don't have any statutory responsibility, they are only representing themself - you can see this by the myriad of local complaints from individuals or non-statutory groups - they all have their pet demands of the project, but no responsibilitiy for delivering it. Who decides what's best for the "users" when the users aren't spoken for by one body ? You've got Richard Pill and his bunch of crayonistas (ERTA / BRTA / whatever they call themselves this week) demanding the line be basically on the old formation with a reversal at Bedford Midland - you've got other groups who want roughly what EWR's preferred approach is, and others who want it to run south of Bedford and interchange at Wixams - so which "group" do you give precedence to ? Answer - none of them, because they are non statutory and only speak for themselves, not all or even the majority of users.

Your issue with the Bromham Road bridge is something that EWR will have to deal with Network Rail and the Highways Agency about - there are standards out there for the construction of bridges including gradients, visibility etc etc - so those will need to be met. If you think that's an issue - raise it with the Highways Agency, they'll be able to tell you the standards which need to be met.

I'm asking very basic questions. I just want a high level understanding of where things are going.

Sorry - your definition of "high level" is way off.

Here's "high level" - EWR are proposing to build a railway between Bedford and Cambridge to accomodate a service level of 4tph. A preferred route has been identified - detailed work is now being done to validate the viability of that option.

That's a "high level" view - you are wanting a level of detail which is done through the iterations of design phase. And as somebody who's been managing projects albeit IT projects for over a decade, my experience says that the design phase should take about half the total project duration. If it's less then I'd usually be concerned that the design hasn't been done robustly. AIUI EWR are currently in "design" - they've done an options analysis to determine which option to move to design, now in design they'll look to get it to a point where it can be built - or dropped if it's not achievable or the costings no longer meet the benefits case.

@tspaul26 has tried to explain this to you - you seem either unwilling or unable to listen to what is being explained to you. That you don't like the process, doesn't mean the process is wrong.

 

[richieb1971]

You should work for the NIMBY lot.

As I said before, I am for EWR and I wouldn't care if it went 100 meters passed my house either. My questions are factored around my own thoughts for a route that doesn't create the problems that the northern route does. That does not mean I do not want the railway. I have wanted an "EWR" since childhood as I were born just after the last one closed its doors. I saw the remnants of the last railway, have cycled the paths, studied the remains of the stations and have been a rail enthusiast since I could walk. I gravitate towards railways, not away from them.

And that hasn’t been decided yet so you’re asking EWR Co to tell a story that hasn’t been written.

Yes, a regular theme between us in this thread. You only really have 2 choices, put it somewhere vacant, or spend more money on new provisions.

You’re also quite good I’ve noticed at casting general assertions about how things are “not a great plan” and your preferences are so much better, but then never follow through with any detailed reasoning that holds up.

I'm quite happy to push any pre conceptions I had aside and just deal with the reality of the situation of what has been presented thus far. Lets just work with what we know from this point forward.

More nonsense from you. The additional portal should be possible to fit without materially altering the gradient of the approach road, but the station track layout has to be confirmed first before that aspect is finalised.

There are business properties on the incline with a double roundabout at the bottom. Thats quite a lot of shifting. I suppose the 2 lanes could be shifted uphill instead of downhill. That would work. The flat area of the new bridge would reach roughly where the boxed vehicle is in the pic. Even with this gradient thats here in the pic, a cyclist holds up the traffic for a considerable amount of time because its single lane all the way down where further junctions await. Its also single lane coming the other way from the other side with no space for double lanes, but that won't need to change as its on the MML fast side.

It seems utterly ridiculous that you expect a project of this scale to be fully designed to the last screw.

And even if that was done to the level of detail you seem to assume it should be (without any legitimate basis), you would then no doubt complain about it being presented as a failed accomplishment.

Playing devils advocate, I can see that forecasting a plan that would be otherwise scrutinized and open to serious revision would be a problem for a project on this scale. But its hard to sit back hearing rhetoric like "They are going with the northern route choice despite all our growing concerns" by parties that have challenged EWR for answers or to consider other possibilities. The only rhetoric we hear is the numbers on cost. But how do you factor in cost without a plan down to the last detail? The forecasted/planned route is a plan, we just don't know what infrastructure supports it. What we do know is that EWR have chosen this route because they believe infrastruture exists to support the route. But for you, thats putting too much meat on the bone at this present time.

Most railways built in the 18th and 19th century were build on open plaines. In the 21st century a railway needs to fit in with pre existing settlements and it is much harder to please everyone. I do understand this. I think EWR have a colossus task to deliver this railway east of Bedford.

The problem with objectors like you is that you are attempting to re-litigate matters that have already been decided, but you don’t have anything new to bring to the table. And then when it is concluded that there is no justification to re-open the earlier decisions you complain about EWR Co ‘not listening’, when what you actually mean is they won’t just roll over and do what you want.

Again, lets step back a bit and relabel me as a "passionate observer", not an objector. Asking "why" a choice is chosen is not necessarily making me an objector. I simply have questions about the choices, based on the idea that decisions were made on concrete grounds with substance.

You are asking questions which assume that EWR Co should have this level of detail at this early stage of the design process - an assumption that is not grounded in reality.

Well, as I said before. The reailty is the proces made choices that shocked people in the Bedford area because it was going one way, then abruptly changed to a whole new direction. This new direction then attracted a lot of scrunity, questions and objections. When EWR were challenged with this none of it were overturned. When you ask for more details about what they are forcing through, you hear "we haven't got to that level of the design phase yet". If you cannot see why that would upset people then I can't make a case to you. You/they have made up your mind that ignoring the challenge is best and to plough forward.

When it comes to Bedford, I don't see why Bedford station needs to be on the line. The town is a graveyard, the station is surrounded by old buildings and its very existance in its current state is a measure of "we worked with what we had" when the Hitchin line downgraded and St Pancras was born. Over 100 years later we are still shoe horning in solutions. Whatever Bedford station becomes, it will be the last revision. Once you put 2 new platforms on the east side you've eaten up what little space is left.

 

[duffield]

As I said before, I am for EWR and I wouldn't care if it went 100 meters passed my house either. My questions are factored around my own thoughts for a route that doesn't create the problems that the northern route does. That does not mean I do not want the railway. I have wanted an "EWR" since childhood as I were born just after the last one closed its doors. I saw the remnants of the last railway, have cycled the paths, studied the remains of the stations and have been a rail enthusiast since I could walk. I gravitate towards railways, not away from them.

Yes, a regular theme between us in this thread. You only really have 2 choices, put it somewhere vacant, or spend more money on new provisions.



I'm quite happy to push any pre conceptions I had aside and just deal with the reality of the situation of what has been presented thus far. Lets just work with what we know from this point forward.

There are business properties on the incline with a double roundabout at the bottom. Thats quite a lot of shifting. I suppose the 2 lanes could be shifted uphill instead of downhill. That would work. The flat area of the new bridge would reach roughly where the boxed vehicle is in the pic. Even with this gradient thats here in the pic, a cyclist holds up the traffic for a considerable amount of time because its single lane all the way down where further junctions await. Its also single lane coming the other way from the other side with no space for double lanes, but that won't need to change as its on the MML fast side.
View attachment 153864


Playing devils advocate, I can see that forecasting a plan that would be otherwise scrutinized and open to serious revision would be a problem for a project on this scale. But its hard to sit back hearing rhetoric like "They are going with the northern route choice despite all our growing concerns" by parties that have challenged EWR for answers or to consider other possibilities. The only rhetoric we hear is the numbers on cost. But how do you factor in cost without a plan down to the last detail? The forecasted/planned route is a plan, we just don't know what infrastructure supports it. What we do know is that EWR have chosen this route because they believe infrastruture exists to support the route. But for you, thats putting too much meat on the bone at this present time.

Most railways built in the 18th and 19th century were build on open plaines. In the 21st century a railway needs to fit in with pre existing settlements and it is much harder to please everyone. I do understand this. I think EWR have a colossus task to deliver this railway east of Bedford.

Again, lets step back a bit and relabel me as a "passionate observer", not an objector. Asking "why" a choice is chosen is not necessarily making me an objector. I simply have questions about the choices, based on the idea that decisions were made on concrete grounds with substance.

Well, as I said before. The reailty is the proces made choices that shocked people in the Bedford area because it was going one way, then abruptly changed to a whole new direction. This new direction then attracted a lot of scrunity, questions and objections. When EWR were challenged with this none of it were overturned. When you ask for more details about what they are forcing through, you hear "we haven't got to that level of the design phase yet". If you cannot see why that would upset people then I can't make a case to you. You/they have made up your mind that ignoring the challenge is best and to plough forward.

When it comes to Bedford, I don't see why Bedford station needs to be on the line. The town is a graveyard, the station is surrounded by old buildings and its very existance in its current state is a measure of "we worked with what we had" when the Hitchin line downgraded and St Pancras was born. Over 100 years later we are still shoe horning in solutions. Whatever Bedford station becomes, it will be the last revision. Once you put 2 new platforms on the east side you've eaten up what little space is left.

Just to take up the specific question of "why Bedford station needs to be on the line", from my perspective it's as follows. It's not about Bedford as a town at all really, it's that the existing Bedford station site is the only realistic location for a full scale grade A interchange between four current services. With the inclusion of the extra fast line platform for EMR in the rebuild, Bedford becomes a potential interchange between EWR, Thameslink, EMR connect and EMR intercity, and allows through running possibilities to/from EWR in future. As far as I can see there is no practical alternative that covers all of this.

The question then is whether such a full scale four-way interchange (including various future possibilities for through running in directions not currently envisaged) is necessary or useful. Personally, I think it is, and that a less well connected and flexible interchange elsewhere would be regretted as a limitation in future, with no possibility of fixing it.

 

[Magdalia]

When it comes to Bedford, I don't see why Bedford station needs to be on the line. The town is a graveyard

You have answered your own question here. Bedford town centre has huge potential for economic revival once EWR is up and running to Cambridge. As Cambridge grows, there will be businesses that want to ride in the slipstream of that growth, but unable to afford to locate in Cambridge. For them Bedford will be an ideal location with cheaper rents, an available workforce and excellent connectivity to Cambridge.

One thing that has struck me in recent weeks, reading various Bedford related discussions, is that Bedford seems much more excited about the prospect of a few minimum wage low productivity jobs in a theme park than it is about more and better high wage high productivity jobs linked in to the booming Cambridge economy. For me, this poverty of ambition encapsulates why the UK economy is in such a bad state.

I think that I shall start to call it the Bedford phenomenon.

 

[A0wen]

Just to take up the specific question of "why Bedford station needs to be on the line", from my perspective it's as follows. It's not about Bedford as a town at all really, it's that the existing Bedford station site is the only realistic location for a full scale grade A interchange between four current services. With the inclusion of the extra fast line platform for EMR in the rebuild, Bedford becomes a potential interchange between EWR, Thameslink, EMR connect and EMR intercity, and allows through running possibilities to/from EWR in future. As far as I can see there is no practical alternative that covers all of this.

The question then is whether such a full scale four-way interchange (including various future possibilities for through running in directions not currently envisaged) is necessary or useful. Personally, I think it is, and that a less well connected and flexible interchange elsewhere would be regretted as a limitation in future, with no possibility of fixing it.

EMR to EWR interchange is, apart from for Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough and Luton, an irrelevance.

Leicester to Cambridge can be done already via Peterborough, Leicester to MK can be done with a simple change at Nuneaton, Leicester to Oxford can be done via Birmingham or MK very soon.

Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield are similar, albeit with interchange at Tamworth for MK and via Grantham / Newark / Peterborough for Cambridge.

Even with EWR there will be precisely no justification for more EMR stops at Bedford.

 

[BrianW]

You have answered your own question here. Bedford town centre has huge potential for economic revival once EWR is up and running to Cambridge. As Cambridge grows, there will be businesses that want to ride in the slipstream of that growth, but unable to afford to locate in Cambridge. For them Bedford will be an ideal location with cheaper rents, an available workforce and excellent connectivity to Cambridge.

One thing that has struck me in recent weeks, reading various Bedford related discussions, is that Bedford seems much more excited about the prospect of a few minimum wage low productivity jobs in a theme park than it is about more and better high wage high productivity jobs linked in to the booming Cambridge economy. For me, this poverty of ambition encapsulates why the UK economy is in such a bad state.

I think that I shall start to call it the Bedford phenomenon.

The Transport Cttee heard much in relation to EWR about it contributing opportunities for regeneration of Bedford, and high-paid jobs (rather than for housing- the 'arc' being played down (I think for 'political'/NIMBY reasons- greenfields etc. Bedford- expect some 'densification'. Flats for cheaper child-carers and cleaners of biotech facilities?

EMR to EWR interchange is, apart from for Corby, Kettering, Wellingborough and Luton, an irrelevance.

Leicester to Cambridge can be done already via Peterborough, Leicester to MK can be done with a simple change at Nuneaton, Leicester to Oxford can be done via Birmingham or MK very soon.

Nottingham, Derby and Sheffield are similar, albeit with interchange at Tamworth for MK and via Grantham / Newark / Peterborough for Cambridge.

Even with EWR there will be precisely no justification for more EMR stops at Bedford.

Maybe there will be justification for stops for Bedford as a destination in its own right rather than for interchange

 

[tspaul26]

To be pedantic, EWR is actually a *programme* which will comprise of a number of projects. That said, I agree with the gist of your point.

Whilst generally agreeing with your post, EWR is legally classed as a project.

This is because it does not meet the relevant legal criteria to be a plan or programme.

(This is a point which I have had cause to examine in some detail over the past few years, shall we say!)