The Cambridge conundrum of East-West Rail and what is to be done.

 

The Cambridge conundrum of East-West Rail and what is to be done.

ERTA is very much engaging with matters pertaining to getting the following sorted:

1. East-West Rail via St Johns Bedford going eastwards, not the Northern Route E.

2. Our call is for the Borough Council to see sense and support no. 1 above.

3. At Tempsford, to have a grade separated junction with physical rail connectivity between the outer slow lines and the east-west twin track lines to enable through passenger and freight running.

That said, we are mindful of a few things:

1. East of Tempsford is proposed to call at Cambourne (expanding location) and then journey south to join the existing Royston-Cambridge line and a spur for direct running to Stansted maybe (?)

2. Cambridge is a busy rail theatre with only a twin track solution capacity currently and even with 4 tracks to serve Addenbrookes (Cambridge South Station/new) it is unlikely they will be continuous to Cambridge Station itself, partly due to the built environment and the road bridge and Guided Busway which would be closed in such an expansion of railway lands. The Guided Busway from Trumpington-Cambridge Station utilises the former trackbed of the old Bedford-Cambridge Railway.

3. So, where will freight go? Our suggestion is a new track/railway linking off the Soham/Ely lines across country to south of Godmanchester to link to the East Coast Main Line (ECML) for onwards via Tempsford to Bedford and the Oxford corridor via St Johns. It needs to be identified, protected, studied and accepted now and could do Norwich/Ipswich-Oxford longer distance cross-country passenger and freight and alleviate Cambridge, which has its own services east-west anyway.

4. If the east-west rail south of Cambourne is doable – a big if now, let alone with 10 years of continued rapid expansion and development – then that should be for passenger services only.

5. The old northern junction off the St Ives line was decimated by building Cambridge North Station over Chesterton Junction and imposition of Guided Busway.

6. The old Bedford-Cambridge route and Trumpington Junction were destroyed by Guided Busway, Trumpington Park and Ride, Trumpington Meadows built development, a school Playing field, River Cam, M11 motorway corridor and combinedly informs a set of dynamics which block any recovery without high costs and upheaval. Pity, we did make strenuous efforts and campaigned to save the chances, but powers and authorities overruled and capitulated to expediency of other agendas.

7. So, if East-West Rail is to serve Cambridge it either has to:

a. be allowed to build from Tempsford-Cambourne and head south to the Royston-Cambridge and Stansted lines.

b. Not happen at all.

c. Build a new line to Ely/Soham and have a reversal or curve for direct passenger running off that to Cambridge. It needs studying, it needs engineering solutions.

8. Development is going in apace and were warned with Regional Spatial Strategies and plethora of Consultations over decades it was coming and now is upon us. Thus, if you don’t allow land and intrusion of a railway, you still have the development and consequences more and expanded roads, urban congestion, pollution and parking delays/costs, mayhem and noise 24x7 contrast a train which once gone, peace returns. Thus, objectors to the railway of any configuration, still won’t change the countryside being sacrificed for Cambridge, yea Greater Cambridge growing to and beyond M11 perimeter, Then all of Caxton-Royston by dint and stint over coming years. As night follows day, it is coming. A railway could be part of the puzzle to alleviate roads and better connect communities, but things are a-changing and the truth and answer truly is ‘blowing in the wind’ to any able, willing and apprehending it.

I am willing to liaise, talk and engage, but it needs professionals to number crunch, design and plan and deliver in a timely manner. NIMBY objectors, need to pool resources and not just say no to whatever, but Plan B, study and put the practical answer and solution in a report and send to local councils, MP’s and whoever/whatever agency/people who may listen.

Bar Hill is marginal as a border of Greater Cambridge, 10 years hence it will be assumed into urban cordon. Northstowe new town like Cambourne, no use saying “send a rail there” without giving thought to lands, routing and specifics and crucially where the line links existing lines. Light Rail and Guided Busways should be seen segregated to heavy rail. We do need more people and goods off roads and onto rails. No east-west rail means that is merely wishful thinking.

Final thought, end to end timings is all well and good as per discussions of rail speed. But I have sat in an X5 Coach, now 905 double-decker bus, and witnessed congestion radial of Cambridge on the A428 between Cambridge and the A1 at St Neots – solid traffic! Cambridge is a key place a variety of people wish to get to/from. We must have choices and consider the environmental balances with no rail access. Compromises on all sides are inevitable. No man or place is an island! See John Donne’s poem: https://allpoetry.com/No-man-is-an-island

Richard Pill /27-02-21

richard.erta@gmail.com / https://ertarail.co.uk/publicity/

East West Main Line 

Inbox

Stephanie Morley <stephaniemorley2004@yahoo.co.uk>

Dear Richard, 

My name is Stephanie Jack and I am coordinating the Eversden EWR working group.

Your email that was sent to the Eversden Parish council was forwarded to me as they thought it

might be of interest. 

We created our working group back in November after a webinar held by Cambridge Approaches

and CamBedRailRoad was held discussing the proposed option E route by East West Main Line.  

Since then we have connected all the villages within the proposed route from Cambourne to

Cambridge south station and have been raising awareness about what is planned.

We have many concerns about the proposed route ranging from environmental issues, costs,

community connections or lack of, the unknown freight element and the lack of consultation.

We along with Cambridge Approaches are now asking for a full and fair consultation on a northern

approach which would use a multi modal existing transport corridor to connect at Cambourne via

a north station and continue on to Northstowe and enter Cambridge via the north station.

We support this option as it supports the growing settlements within our area

(Cambourne and Northstowe) it would be less impactful environmentally, it uses existing travel

routes, it could potentially have better links for Ely and Norfolk and could also mean that freight

could bypass Cambridge city altogether.  

We have support from our local MP Anthony Browne and the petition supporting this has

surpassed 6k signatures.

Essentially I think we both want similar things, to avoid freight going through our cities and

wondered if we could mutually support each other’s aims. I have linked CamBedRailRoads

website that shows how they propose the route south of Bedford through to Cambridge north station,

I know you are aware of there route from seeing a previous tweet. 

http://www.cambedrailroad.org/general.php?id=49

I have linked below the comparisons between a north and south Cambridge route researched by

Cambridge Approaches. 

https://cambridgeapproaches.org/a-comparison-of-option-e-and-cbrr-length-and-capital-cost/

https://cambridgeapproaches.org/a-comparison-of-option-e-and-cbrr-part-2-residential-environmental-impact/

The petition asking for a northern approach consultation 

https://www.change.org/p/secretary-of-state-for-transport-northern-rail-route-should-be-evaluated-equally-alongside-ewr-s-current-proposals-d7bd2f1f-7675-41de-b072-161074cfdeef

The Wildlife Trust report  comparison to a north and south route. 

https://cambridgeapproaches.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/Wildlife-Trust-Consultation-ResponseAnnotations.pdf

I look forward to hearing back from you.  

Kind regards 

Stephanie.

Cambridge Windows for More By Rail - plan to keep options open, not diminish them!

Dear Colleagues,

Please ask - where and how east-west rail's central section will integrate with the new station - see map - the old Bedford-Cambridge route can be seen to the left now Guided Busway which must go by road to Addenbrookes!

The point being the east-west rail could integrate with this station as well as having the old trackbed back for segregational capacity creation south of Cambridge which needs land for more tracks for approraches to the Cambridge main station anyway, given the desire to run more trains including some freight?

Please try and get along and take some flyers.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/cambridge-south-station/?fbclid=IwAR3O_4vEH7USXnVEEcVabp4dgMYWxSevYD8nDvGBe8vdDQ-TAJ0hx0KxHkU  

I attach a copy of my paper. I have an insight on how to tackle Blunham and Sandy access - but does depend on whether Bedford Borough Council/Mayor Dave Hodgson wants the railway from the east to enter Bedford via St John's and link with Bedford Midland, reverse to extra baying capacity and out again for Oxford? Contrast more circuitous and expensive options. Only willing to share my insight if invited to a meeting, where views are able to be openly expressed by either the Consortium, the Company or Bedford Borough Council or similar and that in private.

See diagram for a clue of what we would prefer at design stage. Proper rail optional integration, not one north-south station and develop land to block out the rest and by default overload Shepreth Junction!

The consultation is 'open to all'. Please spread the word.

Key to remember is that getting this and east-west right now, affects us all pro and anti and so what is happening here at Cambridge has a knock on effect rippling across the arc to Oxford and vice versa, ditto Bedford, ditto Milton Keynes. 

Likewise, if we want to free up more capacity into, across and out of London or indeed between Ely and Peterborough, we must have a robust railway able to take a lion's share of passenger and freight, not just passenger. Until it is built and made robust, over-demand for what is available is locked-in. 

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

ERTA Chairman

richard.erta@gmail.com

English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) believes the East-West Rail is paramount and needs a fundamental rethink to get it right for Cambridge and further afield.

6 August 2019

Press Release

English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) believes the East-West Rail is paramount and needs a fundamental rethink to get it right for Cambridge and further afield.

The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) support the principle and notion of a fully restored direct rail link between Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge for improving east-west travel options.

However, we believe that the original route was the best and should never have been closed and that the intermittent 50 years of abandonment has been too long for this glaring gap to go unaddressed in physical infrastructure terms. Moreover, whilst blockages exist on the old route (Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge) any new route will have its own issues and cost more to negotiate with and so a trade off back to the old route should be tabled and considered alongside any new options. In summary:

1. The old route enables segregation allowing more trains off existing lines to plough east and west respectively.

2. The old route must have deviations where considerable blockages exist such as around Potton and Gamlingay but the access at Trumpington also needs careful consideration.

3. If the new route links in at Shepreth for example, it overloads Shepreth Junction where the Bishops Stortford and Royston lines converge into Cambridge. This could cause delays to existing services and/or restrict what frequency east-west could offer.

4. The railway must be rebuilt to cater for more passengers and freight to go by rail. Merely providing choice is not enough, there must be encouragement and incentive for modal shift to unlock gridlock congestion across the regions.

The ERTA will continue to make these points known to elected representatives at all tiers and locations and expects tough decision pro-affirma to be made for the greater good of humanity and the environment.

End of Press Release

Further comment: Mr Richard Pill, Media Spokesperson 01234 330090/ richard.erta@gmail.com

East-West Rail - getting the Bedford, Blunham, Sandy and Cambridge right

The Trajectory of old railway can be ascertained and Steer Davis Gleave 1997 went north of this 2004 data and was an 'S' on it's sides looping round to south Blunham. If since 2004 data more encroachment has occurred - depending on what it is, whether the feasibility of curves has been compromised is debatable at this stage. Thus the option of Tempsford to Thurleigh/Milton Ernest and through Bedford Midland (serving Bedford) and out via St John's 1984 makes some sense, even though more expensive and not a panacea for avoiding the need to compulsory purchase, deviate and realign and of course the cost. Options which avoid Bedford Midland altogether or involve slewing the Bedford-Bletchley line to Wixams alias Bedford South must be opposed rigorously, it is sheer fantasy to think that Midland Main Line which already has trains waiting south of Kempston Road Bridge for a path into Bedford Midland would welcome more trains, slower trains and varied configured trains adding to the problem of capacity into and out of Bedford Midland Station. Therefore coming into Bedford from the west via St John's 1984 Halt makes sense to keep capacity options open for passenger and freight hopefully. Getting through Bedford Midland will be a challenge on current twin track for everything capacity and remodelling the tracks, platforms and so forth should be looked at, not just a relocated train shed and mere aesthetics which hide a multitude of sins very often! Who will give thought to this, who will take up the baton? We at very least should be loathed to give up railway lands to road development before these matters of layout and access are settled. The consultation earlier this year on routes should have included the old route - to gauge public opinion objectively not sway it to false premises of 'new dawns' which are yet to be worked up to a real route and list of what compulsory purchases and compensation will be required to contrast with the issues of the old route - to make an objective comparison. Yes, Cardington Road, Priory Marina entrance, Willington, Blunham and north of Sandy curvatures need a new assessment, but to discard it currently before the alternative and there can be only one if we are to serve Bedford Midland, must be looked at. ERTA will continue to call for these things to be considered and highlight sailent points. Thanks. Sandy-Bassingbourn-Shepreth hangs on whether you intrude on Wimpole Hall lands and can access the Hitchin-Royston line at Shepreth. Again segregation until Cambridge has benefits in able to take and do more passenger and freight by rail. But principal issues are a need to bypass Potton and Gamlingay to the south perimeter, realign using adjacent lands, raise M11 with under bridge, bridge River Cam and tunnel under Trumpington Meadows/Park and Ride and getting rid of single line on old trackbed Guided Busway. Linking passenger-wise with the new Cambridge South for Addenbrooke's and direct running into Stansted on the one hand, restoring the old Trumpington Junction for access to Cambridge, before or after Long Road Bridges, needs examination. Overloading Shepreth Junction, triple railways on a flat level junction and just 3 tracks is a recipe for chaos, so Mayors of Bedford and Cambridge need to compare notes and help each other get a better deal. It needs over-arcing leadership and debate. Sadly we have bubbles of parochial interest and scoping and media reflects the reporting of that rather than regional and inter-regional aspects and the pros and cons x whosoever is purporting whatever including professionals and Government.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

ERTA Officer.

Mis-Guided Busway is no substitute for a proper local railway!

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

This news story may be of some interest. Our predecessor organisation with RDS and others fought a hard fight to try and get the tracks reopened - they were still dormant - but the Cambs Authorities u-turned from 1992 supporting of the rail option to Guided Busway and here's the result! Those buses could be redeployed elsewhere like the lack of links other than Cambridge Cambourne has for example. 

Our meetings and fixture continue, please try and support them if you will, they are good networking opportunities.

We need donated books and magazines for our stalls, if you wish to donate please email me back. Thank you.

Please peruse our updated website: https://ertarail.com/events/

We continue to fight the good fight for an East-West Rail Link which serves Bedford via St John's and Bedford Midland Stations, not bypasses the town centre as some have argued! People won't drive and park and ride to go to Cambridge when they would be half way there by the time they boarded a train if it lands at Wixams. Likewise an Oxford-Bedford rail link must link to Bedford-Cambridge for a fully integrated east-west rail link. Yet we have yet to see a diagram with east-north curves into Bedford and the Midland Main Line North via St John's or Wixams, so ruling out freight unless it is implemented. 

Here's the news story... in a time of for some of us 'austerity'!

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/flawed-busway-scheme-127-million-13387301

Bedford Borough Plan - where's the rail infrastructure?

There is a consultation in the Harpur Centre on the Bedford Local Plan 2035. See www.bedford.gov.uk/localplan2035. Email: planningforthefuture@bedford.gov.uk 
Check those houses at Bromham and relation to a clear access for Cobbler Line trajectory. 
Closing date is 9th June.
Questions via 01234 718300. Things we want is as follows:
a. Station at Oakley north of Lower Farm Road.
b. Retail Park Station on the MVR not MML!
c. East-West Rail sooner than later with Bedford-Sandy being delivered same time as Oxford-Bedford ideally - what are we getting for £10 million allocated?
d. All build results in road saturation and progressive gridlock. Same style houses being rolled out Bedford, Northampton, Milton Keynes, Cambridge... this results in ever more cloning of towns/residential estate areas.
e. Unless there's a more focused and coherent plan for the rail projects a-c by 2035 not after 2035, we will have a short fall of footfall and spend, informing closed shop syndrome and spiraling diminishment of traditional town centres, more out of town pressure to pander to the car. Empty properties abound domestic and commercial and more directives to fill and amend those first before green field expansion should be looked at.
f. Bedford-Northampton should be progressed with East-West not addendum to it/afterthought.
g. Network Rail must be flexible on level crossing and bridge adaptations, Cardington Road Bedford and Bridge Street Northampton need rail accessibility to be retained.
h. Wixams and/or Ampthill should be pursued together or incrementally, both serve differential markets - Wixams declutters commuting into Bedford for rail, Ampthill declutters Flitwick off the M1/A507 and all south of Wixams e.g. Marston Moretaine/A421 development corridor.