London North Orbital Railway

[LE Greys]

After some discussion on this subject, what are people's views of what has been called variously the Varsity Line, the East-West Rail Link and the London North Orbital Railway? There have been several versions

• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge
• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Sandy-Hitchin-Cambridge
• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Hitchin-Cambridge
• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Luton-Stevenage-Cambridge
• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Luton-Welwyn-Cambridge
• Rickmansworth-Croxley Green-Watford Junction-St Alban's-Hatfield-Cambridge

I'm also assuming that Stansted-Braintree can be included at the eastern end.

Other than the rowing lake problem, and I'm sure it's possible to bridge a rowing lake, the lanes can run between the piers if necessary, the first version seems the easiest to do. Most of the route is still intact. Sending trains via Hitchin might save on new line, but puts extra pressure on the ECML section. The Bedford-Hitchin route is not necessarily as easy to build. Much of it is still there, but there are some missing sections. The Luton route either involves cutting through virgin countryside or rebuilding a line that has been built over in many places, not to mention trying to thread extra trains through the Welwyn Tunnels. The southern route would also involve a heavily-developed line, plus some sort of flyover at Watford, so that's also unlikely. Overall, I'd go for the first version, including the Stansted-Braintree-Whitham extension.

I reckon that there would be sufficient traffic to justify the line. Firstly, the North London Line is losing freight paths because of the increased passenger service. Perhaps there will be no freight paths during the day in a decade or two's time. Without a relief line, this means that Felixstowe and Tilbury will be entirely dependent on the Ely-Peterborough line. Passenger services act more as a cost-saving measure, to avoid the expensive in-and-out runs to London or time-consuming loops via Peterborough and Leicester.

 

[philjo]

I prefer the Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Luton-Stevenage-Cambridge route.

Main advantages of this route:
it could be designed to serve Luton Airpot directly (though possibly in a tunnel)
It serves Stevenage to provides connections with EC services & the extra journeys from Stevenage to MK etc.
A northbound link a Hitchin would not provide connections & reversal at Hitchin awkward (even though the flyover will be in use - but provision for northbound link is not in thdesign for the flyover).
If a southbound link to MML is provided at the Luton end it would provide a ECML diversion via St Albans as an alternative go the Welwyn route (FCC semi fast services etc as both routes would end up at Thanelink core anyway) & provide new servies to link St albans with stevenage.

 

[Aictos]

After some discussion on this subject, what are people's views of what has been called variously the Varsity Line, the East-West Rail Link and the London North Orbital Railway? There have been several versions

• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge
• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Sandy-Hitchin-Cambridge
• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Hitchin-Cambridge
• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Luton-Stevenage-Cambridge
• Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford-Luton-Welwyn-Cambridge
• Rickmansworth-Croxley Green-Watford Junction-St Alban's-Hatfield-Cambridge

I'm also assuming that Stansted-Braintree can be included at the eastern end.

Other than the rowing lake problem, and I'm sure it's possible to bridge a rowing lake, the lanes can run between the piers if necessary, the first version seems the easiest to do. Most of the route is still intact. Sending trains via Hitchin might save on new line, but puts extra pressure on the ECML section. The Bedford-Hitchin route is not necessarily as easy to build. Much of it is still there, but there are some missing sections. The Luton route either involves cutting through virgin countryside or rebuilding a line that has been built over in many places, not to mention trying to thread extra trains through the Welwyn Tunnels. The southern route would also involve a heavily-developed line, plus some sort of flyover at Watford, so that's also unlikely. Overall, I'd go for the first version, including the Stansted-Braintree-Whitham extension.

I reckon that there would be sufficient traffic to justify the line. Firstly, the North London Line is losing freight paths because of the increased passenger service. Perhaps there will be no freight paths during the day in a decade or two's time. Without a relief line, this means that Felixstowe and Tilbury will be entirely dependent on the Ely-Peterborough line. Passenger services act more as a cost-saving measure, to avoid the expensive in-and-out runs to London or time-consuming loops via Peterborough and Leicester.

With reference to that blasted rowing course (why it couldn't be located elsewhere is beyond me), it was said before the misguided permission was granted that were permission be granted then if a bridge was needed to carry a railway then it would be far too expensive.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sbates/brta/html/bedford_-_sandy_-_cambridge.html

 

[philjo]

And of course the (mis)guided busway at the Cambridge end is another blockage preventing the direct Sady-Cambridge route. (there are already others on that route such as the University satellite dishes using the trackbed just west of the city)

 

[LE Greys]

And of course the (mis)guided busway at the Cambridge end is another blockage preventing the direct Sady-Cambridge route. (there are already others on that route such as the University satellite dishes using the trackbed just west of the city)

I've often wondered if it is possible to divert from somewhere just west of the radio observatory to get to Barrington Cement Works (which closed a few years ago), then to Foxton Junction, bypassing the worst of the problems west of Cambridge without the complications of going to Hitchin. It is not very far from the observatory, with open farmland in-between.

 

[lancastrian]

And of course the (mis)guided busway at the Cambridge end is another blockage preventing the direct Sady-Cambridge route. (there are already others on that route such as the University satellite dishes using the trackbed just west of the city)

The Sandy to Cambridge line, an ex LNWR line is not the one they have built that complete white elephant the Cambridge NON busway. The Cambridge to St. Ives line was ex GER, and the short section from St. Ives to Huntindon was GNR & GER joint line. So it is not the totally useless busway that stop the East - West link being rebuilt between Sandy & Cambridge, but undoubtedly the local council and BR have sold the land off in penny parcels and some buildings will have been built across the trackbed. If some here knows the facts I am sure we will soon hear about them.

 

[LE Greys]

From the "If you held the Cross-Country franchise" thread

You could take the stops out and up it to 75mph and you would easily do it in 20 minutes.

EG3 takes it up to 100mph in places, again, Bicester to Oxford in 13 or 14 minutes is possible. Chuck in Water Eaton and probably 16.

Again, thats too conservative. To make E-W beneficial it will be higher, around 75mph to make it viable for Class 4 freight, I wouldn't be suprised if it got up to 90mph. At 75mph including stops at Bletchley and Bicester, Id expect 18 minutes tops.

Bedford to Oxford is conceivable at an hour if done properly.

75 seems like a reasonable speed to make the line useful. Ideally, it should have passive provision for 100, but be set out for 75 for the moment. I'd also think about electrifying it, or providing exchange sidings so that diesel-hauled Freightliners could change over to electric haulage at Bletchley and Sandy (and Oxford eventually). If we did have a Bedford-Oxford time of one hour, I would expect Cambridge-Oxford to be maximum 90 minutes, possibly about the same for Hitchin-Oxford if changing at Sandy. That beats the time via London by 15 minutes.

 

[swt_passenger]

All the intended timings and speeds are in the online East West rail operational reports, as are the proposed solutions for the missing links.
I'm pretty sure they intend a 100 mph infrastructure, same as Chiltern's Bicester - Oxford section.

Unfortunately their website 'reports' page seems to be broken, with all the links being diverted to 'news'; so I've emailed them in case there's a problem.

 

[stut]

The Sandy to Cambridge line, an ex LNWR line is not the one they have built that complete white elephant the Cambridge NON busway. The Cambridge to St. Ives line was ex GER, and the short section from St. Ives to Huntindon was GNR & GER joint line. So it is not the totally useless busway that stop the East - West link being rebuilt between Sandy & Cambridge, but undoubtedly the local council and BR have sold the land off in penny parcels and some buildings will have been built across the trackbed. If some here knows the facts I am sure we will soon hear about them.

There's a number of buildings on the old Sandy-Cambridge line. It's actually clear around Sandy (surprisingly - there's been a lot of new housing around there) and used as a farm track round Sandy Warren. At Potton, the surrounding properties (including the redeveloped station) have expanded to incorporate the old trackbed. Just outside Gamlingay, there is still a farm that sells old sleepers from the line! There's also a couple of industrial units on the trackbed at the former station site.

As previously mentioned, the MRAO (Mullard Observatory) is a telescope that runs on rails on a section of the former trackbed just west of where Lord's Bridge was, through to just short of the M11 (it covers quite some distance). Trumpington Park and Ride is then in the way (with some of the surrounding units), and the misguided busway takes up some of the space where the lines joined just north of Addenbrookes.

However, wasn't East West Rail's proposal to forget this part of the line, and instead have a chord in the outskirts of Hitchin instead? I'd personally love this - direct trains from Biggleswade to Cambridge, Bedford and beyond! The connections at Hitchin for Cambridge are awful from the north...

 

[swt_passenger]

Unfortunately their website 'reports' page seems to be broken, with all the links being diverted to 'news'; so I've emailed them in case there's a problem.

Their email address bounces - maybe they've given up... :cry:

Will try something else during the week...

 

[tbtc]

Other than the rowing lake problem, and I'm sure it's possible to bridge a rowing lake, the lanes can run between the piers if necessary...

Since a lot of the Olympic buildings seem to be designed for a temporary nature, is there a chance that (a couple of years after 2012) the importance of the rowing lake will be (erm) downgraded, meaning the railway can get its route back?

 

[stut]

I don't think the rowing lake will disappear - it's in the middle of a (currently developing) country park.

Plus, it's far from the only obstruction around there. Bear in mind that the A421 by-pass didn't exist when the railway line did (and knowing the cycle path well - it's quite a climb up to get over it!) - I suspect that, once you're up there, it wouldn't be too difficult to bridge the lake at the same time, frankly.

There's also parts of the trackbed lost to existing property around Willington Lock and, the biggest obstruction of all, a whole new housing estate on the site of Blunham Station. There's also a junction on the A1, a couple house and a school in the way in Sandy, so you'd need a different route to the ECML at that point, too.

Is the old Bedford-Hitchin line being considered too? I know there's some blockages at Shefford, but the Old Warden tunnels are still in existence...

 

[jopsuk]

I'd hope that the whole thing is electrified from the outset- it would surely be much cheaper to do it then than later. I'd hope that any "new" route, especially one with multiple connections to electrified lines, is built electric.

 

[tbtc]

I'd hope that the whole thing is electrified from the outset- it would surely be much cheaper to do it then than later. I'd hope that any "new" route, especially one with multiple connections to electrified lines, is built electric.

As an aside, I'd like to see any new/re-opened line electrified *if* it is connected to an electrified route at any point.

Understandable for Ebbw Vale/ Alloa not to, but any "North London Orbital" route should definitely be wired (given the cost/disruption of doing it later)

 

[LE Greys]

I don't think the rowing lake will disappear - it's in the middle of a (currently developing) country park.

Plus, it's far from the only obstruction around there. Bear in mind that the A421 by-pass didn't exist when the railway line did (and knowing the cycle path well - it's quite a climb up to get over it!) - I suspect that, once you're up there, it wouldn't be too difficult to bridge the lake at the same time, frankly.

There's also parts of the trackbed lost to existing property around Willington Lock and, the biggest obstruction of all, a whole new housing estate on the site of Blunham Station. There's also a junction on the A1, a couple house and a school in the way in Sandy, so you'd need a different route to the ECML at that point, too.

Is the old Bedford-Hitchin line being considered too? I know there's some blockages at Shefford, but the Old Warden tunnels are still in existence...

Not sure if it's being considered officially, but I would certainly look at it as an alternative. It was originally double-track, since it was the bottom end of the original Midland line to London before they built St Pancras. With the Hitchin Flyover, and potentially a couple of bays north of the Nightingale Road bridge, Hitchin could easily cope with several more trains. The problem, however, would be that freight going onwards would have to reverse.

Incidentally, the ECML at Sandy was double-track when the old line was closed, it's now four-track. The old alignment ran roughly where the up platform is today. The only way to squeeze two extra lines in would be to lengthen the road bridge, which will not be cheap.

 

[stut]

Wouldn't the slow lines Sandy-Arlesey have enough capacity (assuming a grade-separated junction)? Or are we talking about the Potton route as well as Willington?

 

[jopsuk]

looking at the map, using the old Cambridge-Sandy line faces tougher blockages than just the busway and telescopes- all the way through Potton, for example, the route has been built on, there's a golf course and at this location, there's fields expand right across and a factory/warehouse. An entirely new route would be more realistic than moving all that.

 

[stut]

Perhaps a route along the A421/8 would be possible? Pretty flat, lots of barely-used land since a primary A-road was by-passed by a dual carriageway, and Cambourne is screaming out for a decent transport link.

 

[LE Greys]

Wouldn't the slow lines Sandy-Arlesey have enough capacity (assuming a grade-separated junction)? Or are we talking about the Potton route as well as Willington?

Still needs north bays at Hitchin, plus freight reversing facilities, unless they feel like turning Cambridge Junction into a triangle. Running line capacity should be OK, it's junction and platform capacity at Hitchin, even with the flyover, that would cause problems.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

looking at the map, using the old Cambridge-Sandy line faces tougher blockages than just the busway and telescopes- all the way through Potton, for example, the route has been built on, there's a golf course and at this location, there's fields expand right across and a factory/warehouse. An entirely new route would be more realistic than moving all that.

Annoyingly, the golf course is right where I would have broken away from the alignment to head for Foxton - an idea conceived to avoid having to tunnel under the M11, since the alignment would have to go around the observatory anyway. Potton might be awkward, and could call for a long diversion.

 

[12CSVT]

With reference to that blasted rowing course (why it couldn't be located elsewhere is beyond me), it was said before the misguided permission was granted that were permission be granted then if a bridge was needed to carry a railway then it would be far too expensive.

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/sbates/brta/html/bedford_-_sandy_-_cambridge.html

I suspect one reason why the boating lake got the go ahead was because a local anti-railway rag otherwise known as 'Bedfordshire on Sunday' was constantly whipping up support for the lake while at the same time coming out with every derogatory story about the campaign to re-open the east - west rail link they could think of.

 

[stut]

Still needs north bays at Hitchin, plus freight reversing facilities, unless they feel like turning Cambridge Junction into a triangle. Running line capacity should be OK, it's junction and platform capacity at Hitchin, even with the flyover, that would cause problems.

IIRC, the proposal was indeed to turn Cambridge Junction into a (fairly wide) triangle.

 

[philjo]

The Hitchin flyover is being built as a single track curved viaduct & will have no provision for a future north-facing connection so any line linking Letchworth to Arlesey would have to be built as a separate structure.
At Cambridge junction itself the previously empty infil land between the ECML & Cambridge lines has been built on with flats in the last few years so there is no space any more to build a northbound chord at the junction.

Linking Hitchin-Ridgmont might be the most direct Oxford-Cambridge route using other existing track at either end with links to MML at Flitwick. Would be able to serve a new station at Henlow/Shefford, but major connections at Bedford or Stevenage/Luton are bypassed (though they could be connected by local/thameslink services).
Though this probably requires more new track built than the going via sandy-Bedford or Stevenage-Luton

 

[ntg]

I always though a trans-hertfordshire service would provice a better North London orbital (given it vicinity to North London) from existing lines where possible:

Watford Junction - St Albans (abbey) - Hatfield - Welwyn Garden City - Hertford - Broxbourne - Liverpool Street

Or alternatively a new railway to Harlow or Ongar.

 

[LE Greys]

Sorry but you have buckleys chance of opening the old railway in St Albans.

They're too posh, too old, too stuck in their ways and the land is worth too much (amazingly) to change anything in this area.

Even still, you would have to reverse at Abbey, a link where a train has to reverse is not a solution

I would look at closing Abbey and Park Street, and sending everything via the old link between How Wood and the MML to a new station south-east of St Albans City (which is unfortunately north of the old diveunder) somewhere near the current Morrison's - which would lose the southern part of its car park and have to find a replacement. Getting accross the A1(M) is not too difficult, it is heading down into the Hatfield Tunnel where the bridge would have to be, but the parallel A414 is more tricky. The other problem at Hatfield is that the junction faces the wrong way, towards London and north of the station. Diverting around the south, crossing the A1(M) at Junction 3 South and following the A1001 to a junction with the ECML south of the town might solve both problems.

Also, I would continue the line the other side of Watford via flyover or diveunder to Croxley and Rickmansworth. There is the possibility of reaching Aylesbury, Verney Junction and Bicester Town that way, and the somewhat more unlikely possibility of reaching Uxbridge Vine Street, West Drayton and Heathrow Terminal 5, possibly Staines as well.

 

[wildcard]

Not quite the answer you were looking for - but I would probably do Bicester-Bletchley (and Aylesbury-Calvert and the Croxley Link ) with a north to east chord at Bicester and north to west at Calvert) plus Bedford-Northampton. Too many obstacles have been put in place for Bedford-Sandy or Bedford-Hitchen and although the Stewartby cord is doable I can't see a new link being built Luton-Stevenage or Harpenden-Welwyn.
Sadly the good people of Oxford will still have to go via London to get to Cambridge or Stansted if they choose a train.
G

 

[Skimble19]

Is the old Bedford-Hitchin line being considered too? I know there's some blockages at Shefford, but the Old Warden tunnels are still in existence...

Strictly speaking you could probably bridge over most of the stuff in Shefford, it used to be up on one anyway! Most of the trackbed is still fine around there, there's even the odd bridge still in place! As for the tunnels at Old Warden, they're (from a non-engineers p.o.v) fine visually, some steps have been put in from the top of the embankment there so you can get down there and walk along the route, it's a fairly interesting walk!

Personally, I wouldn't use that route for this though, I'd go for the Bedford-Sandy route turning off the ECML somewhere after Arlesey to get onto the Hitchin-Cambridge line.. you'd just have to divert it a bit to the north of it's old alignment when you got near sandy to avoid the housing estate (although the embankment does still exist in places!)

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorry but you have buckleys chance of opening the old railway in St Albans.

They're too posh, too old, too stuck in their ways and the land is worth too much (amazingly) to change anything in this area.

Even still, you would have to reverse at Abbey, a link where a train has to reverse is not a solution

Don't tar us all with the same brush dear boy. Old maybe, posh - not quite, but stuck in ways?? As someone who lives within 2 minutes of the old line, I would welcome it reopening even if it did require a diversion of my Sunday morning run. Most people round here would say the same, unless you happen to back on to the line itself. At a stroke it would reduce traffic into St Albans from the east considerably, not least by reducing the incessant flow of half empty Uno buses.

However, with the Abbey line going over to trams in the next couple of years, it is much more likely as a tram route. All the stuff about bridges, the A414, A1(M) etc becomes irrelevant as it could just follow the road where required. This has the distinct advantage of then being routed where us Albanistas actually want to get to, i.e. St Albans City station, St Albans City centre, Hatfield Poly (or whatever it is these days), Asda*, Hatfield station... A far better use of my taxes than the Croxley link. Probably.

Finally, the suggestion of Morrissons (St Albans) having to give up land and find more car parking is likely to meet a little local resistance - the only land adjoining that isn't a road or former railway is Fleetville primary school or the HQ of CAMRA. I'm not sure which group would be more fun to upset.

* of course people of St Albans don't really want to go to Asda. We just want to know that we can get there in an emergency, i.e. when Waitrose is closed.

 

[A0]

I would look at closing Abbey and Park Street, and sending everything via the old link between How Wood and the MML to a new station south-east of St Albans City (which is unfortunately north of the old diveunder) somewhere near the current Morrison's - which would lose the southern part of its car park and have to find a replacement. Getting accross the A1(M) is not too difficult, it is heading down into the Hatfield Tunnel where the bridge would have to be, but the parallel A414 is more tricky. The other problem at Hatfield is that the junction faces the wrong way, towards London and north of the station. Diverting around the south, crossing the A1(M) at Junction 3 South and following the A1001 to a junction with the ECML south of the town might solve both problems.

The "old" route through Hatfield is a no-no, all gone under the Galleria and various other bits of development.

I can't see too many people agreeing to a line running round the south of Hatfield either - too close to existing residential areas and no clear path to the ECML.

I'd prefer it if the focus was on re-using existing infrastructure which may be subject to upgrade as part of other plans. Specifically Bedford - Kettering - Corby - Stamford - Peterborough, which would allow an Oxford - ECML link.

What would be needed:

4 tracking of MML, Bedford - Kettering (some has been done, but it would all need to be done)

Speed upgrades - which are planned for the MML in any case.

Capacity upgrade Kettering - Corby.

New southern curve at Manton Jnc.

All of these would cost a fraction of either building new routes or trying to revive long-closed routes where the formations have been lost.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Don't tar us all with the same brush dear boy. Old maybe, posh - not quite, but stuck in ways?? As someone who lives within 2 minutes of the old line, I would welcome it reopening even if it did require a diversion of my Sunday morning run. Most people round here would say the same, unless you happen to back on to the line itself. At a stroke it would reduce traffic into St Albans from the east considerably, not least by reducing the incessant flow of half empty Uno buses.

However, with the Abbey line going over to trams in the next couple of years, it is much more likely as a tram route. All the stuff about bridges, the A414, A1(M) etc becomes irrelevant as it could just follow the road where required. This has the distinct advantage of then being routed where us Albanistas actually want to get to, i.e. St Albans City station, St Albans City centre, Hatfield Poly (or whatever it is these days), Asda*, Hatfield station... A far better use of my taxes than the Croxley link. Probably.

Finally, the suggestion of Morrissons (St Albans) having to give up land and find more car parking is likely to meet a little local resistance - the only land adjoining that isn't a road or former railway is Fleetville primary school or the HQ of CAMRA. I'm not sure which group would be more fun to upset.

* of course people of St Albans don't really want to go to Asda. We just want to know that we can get there in an emergency, i.e. when Waitrose is closed.

I very much doubt it would stem the flow of traffic into St Albans for one simple reason - the railway station(s) are nowhere near the city centre.

Take a look at the many buses which run from Hatfield, through Fleetville to St Albans - the vast majority of their passengers get off at St Peter's Street.

It's not a problem unique to St Albans, but equally it's not one which reopening a long-dead railway line will resolve.

 

[Bald Rick]

I very much doubt it would stem the flow of traffic into St Albans for one simple reason - the railway station(s) are nowhere near the city centre.

Take a look at the many buses which run from Hatfield, through Fleetville to St Albans - the vast majority of their passengers get off at St Peter's Street.

It's not a problem unique to St Albans, but equally it's not one which reopening a long-dead railway line will resolve.

That's the point, the tram can more easily go to where people want to get to by using the roads if required, i.e. the city centre, the station, and my house*

* personal opinion, not necessarily representative of all residents of Hertfordshire

 

[A0]

That's the point, the tram can more easily go to where people want to get to by using the roads if required, i.e. the city centre, the station, and my house*

* personal opinion, not necessarily representative of all residents of Hertfordshire

Agreed the tram can - I was referring more to it being reopened as a rail link.

I think the problem with a tramlink will be two fold:

1 - the hills. I don't know how a tram will fare on Holywell Hill......

2 - where you'd route the line given the roads aren't particularly wide at present (in fact St Peter's St is quite narrow thanks to all the "traffiic improvements" the planners have put in over the last 10 years.

St Albans never had trams in a former time, so there's not even a precedent for where they could run.