Any resemblance to Lord Hendy is purely co-incidental
We have been trying to get visibility of this for years now and I thought you might be interested in the current state of play. The Business Case is developed in three stages: Strategic Outline (SOBC), Outline (OBC) and Full (FBC). The internal appeal on a recent freedom of information request to the Department for Transport (DfT) revealed that the SOBC had been completed in 2019, but that the DfT did not consider it in the public interest to publish it. The case is with the Information Commissioner’s Office.
We had an Economic and Technical Report in May 2023 which revealed that it would cost £8billion in today’s money to deliver 2090 commuters to Cambridge every day. That’s a rather ridiculous £4million each. We had a meeting with EWRCo. on 10 December 2025 where I challenged EWRCo.’s Tom Wilson (head of business case), with this number. He said that he had seen that, ‘but we have moved away from that analysis’.
Tom and team at EWRCo. are now working on the OBC and they say they would like to see it published at the time of the public enquiry for Development Consent Order (DCO) currently set to open in September 2027. But he was not sure if the DfT would approve the publication.
Richard Fuller MP has asked a parliamentary question and exchanged letters with the DfT asking whether the business case would be published in time for the DCO. The question was dodged in both cases by saying that the FBC would be published once planning consent had been completed.
The situation at the moment is that our government has spent around £500M planning this project and has published no justification that it is prepared to stand behind. It is also not committed to publish anything before the planning consent decision. I would be more relaxed about this situation if it were not for the fact that the business case is being developed by people whose jobs depend in the project going ahead.
What we do have is a claim that EWR will increase the Gross Value Added to the economy by £6.7Billion by 2050 due to the building of 100,000 new houses. The only published analysis we have (May 2023) shows that 3% of people in Cambourne would use EWR to commute to Cambridge and 2% from Tempsford. It seems that they are counting every house whether or not the inhabitants actually use the railway. I hope that our poor potholed road network is up to the challenge. The local road network in Cambridgeshire carries about 500,000 people / day and is clearly underfunded by DfT. If growing the local economy is so vital why not make sure that the most important transport infrastructure we have is in good condition?
We also know that they are not allowing for displacement – that is jobs that would have been created elsewhere without EWR.
It seems that versions of the business case were published at the time of the public enquiry for the Lower Thames Crossing and the A303 Stone Henge Bypass, but that (amazingly) there is no legal requirement to do so. I guess we will not see a justification for this project and the spending of £8billion of public money unless we continue to ask for it. Please join me in doing so (the Rail Minister’s email address is lord.hendy@dft.gov.uk, or you can also write to your MP).
11 replies on “Publication of the Business Case for East West Rail”
Excellent analysis
I do not wish the EWR to proceed. I believe it will be a considerable waste of money, which could be better invested in our roads to improve the current situation with them.
i cannot believe the figures given for the number of expected travellers, total fabrication !!
100% agree! Not to mention destroying the green spaces, what little remain, in Harston and south Cambridgeshire. Go build it next to M11 from Northstowe down which, if anyone took the time from the EWR to look, is where the pollution is generated and gridlock forms. EWR will destroy precious natural habits but at least put it next to infrastructure that is already in place (M11). Netherlands does this correctly.
I am horrified that the full business case has not been published for all to see. I am one of the public and I am interested!! This railway will go close to my village and home and generally affect the children at our village college.
From the first unsubstantiated suggestion of this Southern route for EWR, one caught a big whiff of corruption. Well-positioned interested parties have stacked the deck against the more reasonable, more affordable, less harmful Northern route.
And now, the stench grows as it becomes apparent that the business case simply is not there at all. It is clear that all involved are doing their best to cover up this fact.
If UK leadership is truly worried about the electorate’s growing interest in the political parties promising to “burn it all down,” they will end this charade once and for all — in favor of basic transparency, democracy and well-reasoned use of the public purse. Cutting a foolish 8 billion pound project (one that is based on carbon-guzzling tech, mind!) serving only a few thousand people each day seems a good place to start proving to everyday people that the people who are meant to represent us in government actually do have some principles left.
My sincere thanks for another extremely perceptive and realistic analysis. I remain confused perplexed and frustrated that those in power refuse to listen
Have contacted my MP to point out that they could join the ECML before Tempsford and then come into St Neots before heading North and going round the top of Loves Farm to Cambourne. This would save money as that would save building a dual station at Tempsford and allow people to go to Cambridge by rail.
A lot of farmland would be saved plus they wouldn’t have to tunnel under the new bypass or be near the houses at Wintringham.
Ian Sollom just replied that EWR had already decided on the route. He didn’t comment on my suggestion about using St Neots station as there is plenty of capacity on the slow lines for EWR to use.
The southern route was to help Biomedical commuters but it is not useful if it does not run at shift change nor after 11pm for spouses called in to Papworth
It is not possible to change the route but it is possible to stop at Cambourne and go north later saving farms and environment.
well done Peter Moss. I have had no answer to my asking what freight is expected. The turning will damage Cherry Hinton.
The best freight would be rubbish and recycled metals from Milton
From Cambourne to Addenbrookes and from Cambridge rail there is a good bus service, needed by many more visitors
It’s as bad as HS2 (sorry – now LS2). Costs too much, is massively destructive, is not justified, and is misguidedly underwritten and irrationally defended as a sacred and untouchable growth enabler by successive governments who only want to build houses and help the construction industry, with no regard to common sense or economic prudence. The northern route is the obvious one.
The latest EWR horror is the newly announced intention to construct a 24 hour train maintenance depot and sidings in the village of Fulbourn.
The depot is to clean the EWR trains overnight. The sidings will be used to decant 3 London-Cambridge trains from Cambridge Central – so nothing to do with EWR, but being covertly shoehorned into the EWR plans in the hope no one will notice.
The intended site in Fulbourn is Green Belt and bordered by chalk streams and springs, an ancient monument and 3 SSI sites. Swifts – a Red List species – breed in the area and will be disrupted by night time lights and noise. It is close to a nursing home, psychiatric hospital and 3 primary schools.
The depot will be used for emptying train toilets and storing sewage that will be collected by HGV once or twice a week. 260 homes will be directly affected by the depot, with 30 of these homes within 50m of the proposed site. Many similar sites have been associated with foul smells and spilled sewage contaminating the ground and waterways.
The route for construction traffic and sewage removal vehicles is via the Wilbrahams, but no Wilbrahams households were informed of the recent consultation. This route has been designated as being unsafe for HGVs.
EWR’s own analysis found the alternative site in Foxton was preferable in every category including being sited next to a sewage plant, disrupting fewer houses and having fewer environmental and heritage assets. The only reason for choosing Fulbourn over Foxton was its proximity to Cambridge Central and the cost of shunting empty trains back and forth.
This is not an acceptable reason. The destruction of Fulbourn is not a justifiable price to pay.
Why has a proposal not been worked up for a depot at Six Mile Bottom? That is the obvious place if there must be a depot outside Cambridge.
Six Mile Bottom would be 2-3 minutes beyond Fulbourn with significantly fewer heritage, environmental and social concerns. It is closer to A11 and would mean construction traffic and sludge trucks would not be passing through the narrow lanes of the Wilbrahams and Fulbourn.
There is plenty of space for a car park at Six Mile Bottom and – if a passenger platform was opened there – it would provide rails connection to Cambridge for the surrounding villages. Villages which are currently poorly served by the bus routes.
Because EWR is supposed to be for the benefit of people in the area, right? Not destroying homes and communities.