Categories
news

County Elections – Candidate Positions on EWR

There are twenty seven County Council candidates in the four electoral wards strongly affected by the proposed route of EWR to Cambridge (Sawston & Shelford, Hardwick, Cambourne, Papworth & Swavesey). We have emailed the sixteen for whom we have contact details asking for a position statement on taking EWR to Cambridge. Here are the responses so far (in no particular order) and we aim to update this post if and when we get more input. So, check back as we approach the election on 1 May 2025.

Thank you so much to the candidates who have responded. Please join the conversation in the comments!

Richard Williams


Name: Richard Williams
Party: Conservative
Electoral Division: Sawston & Shelford (Shelfords, Newton, Hauxton, Harston Haslingfield)
 
Position Statement
 
I do not support EWR. One of the main reasons I am standing for County Council is because the affected villages need clear, unequivocal and vocal support from their representatives in opposing the current EWR proposals. I don’t think that has been the case so far and I would genuinely be committed to representing local views passionately and without hesitation. I have been District Councillor for Newton for the last five years and in that capacity have always supported the village in its opposition to EWR’s proposals and have used my role on the District to argue for a much clearer and stronger line supporting the villages against the threats posed by EWR. The severing of local communities by the proposed line, as well as the disruption and damage caused to communities concern me a lot. I am unconvinced of the need for EWR.  We need to make the case that EWR is not necessary for successful growth in Cambridge and that there are much better ways to solve the need for better connectivity between new developments and the city. A new light rail (metro) network across Cambridge would provide a much better solution to transport problems, and the cost saving from stopping EWR could go a long way to funding a new integrated transport solution for the city area. These options, and other routes for an EWR line (although my strong preference is not to have one at all), need to be properly explored. The case for a different approach would be much stronger with the full backing of local councillors and I would use my role on the County Council to support the villages.

Laurence Damary-Homan


 
Name: Laurence Damary-Homan
Party: Liberal Democrat
Electoral Division: Sawston & Shelford (Shelfords, Newton, Hauxton, Harston and Haslingfield)
 
Position Statement
 
East West Rail, as a national infrastructure project, is something that will not ultimately be decided at the local level in its entirety but I hope that local representatives will have a strong voice and impactful influence in the process of shaping how it is delivered if it does indeed come forth. From speaking with residents in the division I am running in, I hear a range of opinions but it is common for many that will be affected to have concerns of varying degrees. I am not minded to expend my energy calling for things over which I have no realistic influence but, where I can (if elected), I will call for delivery of EWR to be as sympathetic to affected neighbourhoods and settlements as possible. Reducing the harms of the project is my top priority, closely followed by maximising benefits to communities. I hope to see EWR, if delivered, to have as low an impact as possible on the environment and local wildlife, day to day living of residents, and our beautiful countryside views. Where it does come forth, I would like to see measures to ensure that affected residents to have effective transport links (be it directly tied to the rail network of through other means), that construction is planned in a way that minimises disturbance to local people and wildlife, and that the lines come forth at maximum distances possible from dwellings and other sensitive locations where appropriate.

Guy Lachlan



Name: Guy Lachlan
Party: Independent
Electoral Division: Cambourne (Cambourne, Bourn)
 
Position Statement
 
From a local perspective, the ‘final’ EWR route from the proposed Cambourne station looping to the south makes little sense to me and is clearly a political fudge. I don’t see how it will ever be useful for freight traffic with the inclines and bottlenecks it involves, eg at Coldham’s Lane, Newmarket and Warren Hill Tunnel.
 
I’d rather see the route continue north of the A428 and crossing the A14 serving Cambridge North station for the following reasons:
 
Reduced Environmental Impact
Fewer current residents adversely impacted
Better support for planned Housing growth, especially Northstowe
Improved Freight Capacity. A northern route via Milton and Soham would bypass the southern bottlenecks, supporting a transition to rail freight
Cheaper and less complex Infrastructure upgrades
Better connectivity for Northstowe and Cambourne

Chris Carter-Chapman


 
Name: Chris Carter-Chapman
Party: Conservative
Electoral Division: Hardwick (Harlton, Eversdens, Toft, Comberton Caldecote Hardwick)
 
Position Statement
 
During the 2024 General Election, I put the fight against East West Rail’s proposed southern approach at the very heart of my campaign to be elected as the next Conservative MP for South Cambridgeshire. Having held multiple meetings with EWR, its construction partners and local community groups, I was wholly convinced that the southern approach fails against every metric by which a project of this magnitude should be judged. It makes no sense economically and causes significant environmental damage, as well as directly harming the cohesion of our village communities. Whilst I was not successful in my efforts to be elected to Parliament, many people subsequently approached me and urged me to stand in the forthcoming County Council elections. They understandably feel that, with the Liberal Democrats supporting EWR, they do not have anyone in the room where decisions are being taken who is giving the opposing argument. If I am successful on the 1st of May, I will urgently convene a meeting for residents in Harlton, the Eversdens, Comberton, Toft, Hardwick and Caldecote to focus our efforts on the next stage of our fight. With emerging news suggesting even greater environmental damage resulting from EWR’s planned route, now is the time for us to make our stand.”

Miranda Fyfe

Name: Miranda Fyfe

Party: Green

Electoral Division: Sawston & Shelford (Shelfords Newton Hauxton Harston Haslingfield)

I’ve been very public about my opposition to the currently proposed Southern Approach for EWR, and my support for the Parliamentary Petition to “Pause and rethink” the route. During last year’s General Election campaign, the BBC unilaterally characterised my position as being that I want EWR “Stopped ASAP” which lacked nuance but that’s media for you. I am deadly serious about decarbonisation and public transport, because I’m passionate that as a society we urgently need to reduce our overall energy consumption in every way possible. So, in principle I love the idea of reconnecting Bedford and Cambridge by rail. Many people fondly imagine this whole project as a “re-opening of the old Varsity line”. But sadly, the Bedford to Cambridge section of the EWR project does not re-use a single mile of the old Varsity line, and has become a property developers’ charter, masquerading as public transport. That was how I’d characterised it last June (writing in the Cambridge Independent) and my assessment proved prescient when the House of Commons Select committee were told by a DfT senior advisor last December that: “EWR is essentially a jobs, growth and housing project”. Voters and politicians alike are being duped by the promise of much-needed “cheap housing”. This Emperor has no clothes! We can’t and won’t solve the housing crisis simply by building more and more homes; instead, we need to fundamentally change the way housing is treated as an investment vehicle. Which of course is not within the powers of the humble County Councillor. As your County Councillor then, I would continue to advocate passionately for the far less environmentally destructive Northern Approach to Cambridge for EWR, while also working with colleagues to explore other quick-win transport solutions (such as more direct buses, avoiding central Cambridge – maybe now a real possibility under Franchising). And despite my overall objection to the Southern Approach, I would of course take time to interrogate the details of plans at the forthcoming Statutory Consultation in order to advocate for my residents in Haslingfield, Harston, Hauxton, Newton, and the Shelfords, who all stand to be severely affected if the plans go ahead.

Alison Elcox

Name: Alison Elcox

Party: Reform

Electoral Division: Cambourne (Cambourne Bourn)

I’m Alison Elcox and I’m standing as the County Councillor for Cambourne and the surrounding villages.  This puts me in a slight predicament as EW Rail would be brilliant for Cambourne, but detrimental to basically anywhere between Cambourne and Cambridge.  So what are my thoughts?  If I get the chance I would prefer to dump the Southern route into Cambridge in favour of the Northern route, as it’s cheaper and less destructive to the countryside.  If the Southern route ‘has’ to be used, though for the life of me I don’t know why, I will push for it to be underground.  Do I actually think it’s ever going to happen? No! The business case is not strong enough.  This is an ongoing saga.

Chris Morris

Name: Chris Morris

Party: Liberal Democrat

Electoral Division: Hardwick (Harlton Eversdens Toft Comberton Caldecote Hardwick)

East West Rail is understandably a cause of significant concern for many in the villages of Hardwick Division, who largely stand to gain little themselves and who have already had to endure more than a decade of exceptionally poor communication from successive governments and EWR executives who have taken us for granted.

Many local residents continue to have questions regarding both the robustness of the overall business case and the evidence on which the Southern Alignment has been selected. Indeed, some question whether this is the current government’s preferred route as was the case with the Conservatives – or if further changes may be made. This is fuelling significant distress and mistrust, and improved transparency is desperately needed.

This is a national infrastructure project and I believe these questions need to be answered by the government directly, not by EWR alone, and that they must be addressed in the context of a joined up and deliverable approach to development and transport planning across the region, not in isolation.

I think it is essential that if central government remains steadfast in its support for both East West Rail in general, and the Southern Alignment in particular, whilst making our deep concerns clear, we also speak up loudly to ensure that all mitigations are maximised and that we demand local benefits for the many residents of our villages who otherwise face an “all pain no gain” scenario.

If elected I am committed to working tirelessly alongside our MPs Pippa Heylings and Ian Sollom to ensure the best possible outcome for the villages of Hardwick Division.

Hugh Thorogood

Name: Hugh Thorogood

Party: Reform

Electoral Division: Papworth & Swavesey (Childerley Boxworth Knapwell Elsworth Papworth Caxton Eltisley Croxton)

From my perspective the East West Rail project raises significant concerns for our local communities, particularly regarding its financial viability and the sizeable adverse impact it will have on the local community. It will cause the loss of valuable agricultural land, people’s homes, and also some established businesses. I worry that housing pressures in our already constrained area will be exacerbated making small villages like Caxton get devoured and become part of Cambourne. I think it will have a negative impact on our environment and damage the natural aesthetic of our Cambridgeshire landscape. We need to ask serious questions concerning EWR’s viability and whether less impactful alternatives were fully explored here.

Terry Mannock

Name: Terry Mannock

Party: Reform

Electoral Division: Hardwick (Harlton Eversdens Toft Comberton Caldecote Hardwick)

I am somewhat concerned and confused as to how EWR believe they have the authority or the power to propose the construction of housing for 213,300 people to run alongside the EWR .

If these houses were to be built who would be the residents of these properties.

Is this whole scheme yet another instance of the property and construction industry running roughshod over the wishes of the residents of these beautiful Cambridgeshire villages seriously affected by these proposals.

It would indeed be very interesting to put into the public domain the names of the Companies and individuals that are making large donations to EWR in order that this railway is completed.

Although I have some sympathy for a rail connection between Oxford and Cambridge, I believe in its current form it will incredibly damaging to the environment, huge amounts of quiet residential villages would be impacted forever.

Therefore all further construction should stop and a full and complete investigation should be carried forward with the involvement of a selected group of local residents working with officials from EWR to examine in detail the full implications of this important infrastructure project.

Tagl

Name: Tagl

Party: Green

Electoral Division: Papworth & Swavesey (Childerley Boxworth Knapwell Elsworth Papworth Caxton Eltisley Croxton)

I have yet to be convinced of the need for any proposal by EWR for either the northern or the southern options.

The plans seem to be guided by the greed of property developers rather than by local need.

If new rail links were deemed to be necessary for local travel, then light rail would be the most economically and environmentally viable option.

The current needs of the people here are generally already met by current public transport access in the larger towns, but the smaller villages are very underserved.

To be sure, local and wider integrated transport needs are a massively complicated and involved issue, and it requires clear reasoned thinking. But the aim must always be to the greater benefit of the public, not profiteers.


 

Categories
news

Mayoral Election – Candidate Positions on EWR

Background

There is an election for the Mayor of Cambridge and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) on 1 May 2025. This role has considerable influence on transport in Cambridgeshire and while other parts of local government are to be re-organised / consolidated over the next few years, the Westminster government are talking up the importance of the Mayors.

We think it’s important to understand the position of the candidates on East West Rail. Although it is a central government project, the attitude of the CPCA Mayor should have a significant influence on EWR.

It would have been good to have met all the candidates, but one way or another we at Cambridge Approaches only managed to meet two of them. We met Lorna Dupré, the Liberal Democrat candidate on 28 February 2025 for an hour and half in Ely and briefed her on what we have found out about the financial case for taking EWR to Cambridge. We also met the Conservative candidate Paul Bristow in Haslingfield on 7 March 2025 and went over the same material. We recently asked for a meeting with the Labour candidate Anna Smith but are still awaiting a reply. We have not yet asked for meetings with Bob Ensch the Green candidate or Ryan Coogan the Reform candidate although we have exchanged emails with them as explained below. We would like to meet them too.

The Cambridge Approaches position on EWR has not changed for a while and is explained here. We drew the attention of all candidates to that.

On 10 April 2025* we formally emailed all five candidates asking for their public position on taking EWR to Cambridge asking for a response by close of play on 17 April 2025. We also chased them for a response once. *We formally emailed Bob Ensch 11 April after getting some help with his contact details from Miranda Fyfe.

Well it’s the 18th April 2025 and this is what we have received!

Candidate Positions

Paul Bristow – Conservative

I want to build light rail in Cambridge. That opens up a new option for East-West rail, which is still predicated on the need for a station at Cambourne. Light rail can connect Cambourne to Cambridge years before East-West rail could arrive. Instead of going via Cambourne, the mainline could take a quicker and cheaper route, much further to the south. This is a potential win-win solution for everyone. It removes the need for the planned route on high embankments through villages like Hardwick and Comberton, while still allowing East-West rail to go directly to Cambridge South. Because it saves money and time, it’s also a credible option for the Government, Network Rail and the EWR Company to consider. As Mayor, I will get this option investigated from day one. With the ambition for things like light rail, we can get solutions and get moving.

I wanted to know what was meant by the route “much further south” and asked him if he meant the route in the sketch below (but there was also a railway from Bedford to Hitchin closed in 1964):

Paul Bristow clarified: “Without wanting to be publicly explicit, as the feasibility work needs to be done, yes – this isn’t a call to revive option A.

Bob Ensch – Green

I have said publicly in my campaign several times that if EWR is to be built, it should go north of Cambridge rather than south of it.  The Green Party locally agrees with Cambridge Approaches assessment that routing it north of Cambridge would be “cheaper, less environmentally damaging, easier to construct, and better for freight at all levels”.

It is understandable from CBC’s perspective that they’d like the route to connect with Cambridge South Station.  However, the argument for getting freight off the A14, is more compelling in my view, especially given that commuters to CBC could still get from Cambridge North to Cambridge South in only a few minutes if the connections are made to work.

These decisions should be made based on long-term benefits for the wider community, not short-term profits for developers!

You have my support.

Anna Smith – Labour

We did receive acknowledgement of the request for a statement on EWR from Anna Smith after chasing. However, we have yet to receive a statement from her. If we get anything before the election we will aim to update this post.

*** Update *** We received this statement from Beth McKinlay and confirmed by email from Anna directly on 19 April 2025. “I believe that East West rail has the potential to deliver investment and create new opportunities for Cambridge and Cambridgeshire.

Connecting Cambridge with Oxford, Bedford and Milton Keynes, is a key part of developing the Oxford Cambridge Growth Corridor – creating jobs, homes and opportunities across Cambridgeshire. I believe that as Mayor, it would be my job to ensure that East West Rail works for us here in Cambridge. 

I’m pushing for EWR to be fully electric from day 1, and for every effort to be made to make sure those living near the route experience as little impact as possible.

That means that the stations are in the right places for where people live and work and that stations are properly connected to the rest of our transport network.”

Lorna Dupré – Liberal Democrat

We have not yet received a statement or acknowledgement from Lorna Dupré. Again, if we get anything before the election we will aim to update this post.

Ryan Coogan – Reform

To Whom It May Concern,

RE: East West Rail Link to Cambridge – Ongoing Engagement and Strategic Considerations

I am writing in relation to the ongoing dialogue surrounding the East West Rail Link to Cambridge. As you are undoubtedly aware, this project represents a complex and multi-layered initiative that sits at the confluence of regional connectivity, long-term economic growth, and integrated transport solutions.

I fully acknowledge the breadth of views expressed from all corners of the community, and indeed beyond, as we continue to reflect upon the multiplicity of factors that must be taken into account. In such matters, it is imperative to maintain a holistic perspective—one that is as inclusive as it is forward-looking.

While it is still premature to comment on any one definitive pathway, we remain committed to a rigorous and transparent process that gives due consideration to all possibilities, no matter how wide-ranging or nuanced. In doing so, we are mindful of the evolving nature of infrastructure priorities in the current landscape, and how these must be balanced with the diverse aspirations of the communities we serve.

It is not simply a question of engineering or route alignment; rather, we must recognise the broader tapestry of regional development, intermodal potential, and long-term sustainability. It appears the current routing has issues failry broadly and we need to look at addressing those, As we continue to engage with stakeholders at every level, from parish councils to strategic transport forums, the dialogue remains both ongoing and iterative. I am committed to a fully integrated, sustainable, economically viable mass transit system for Cambridgeshire and Peterborough.

I greatly value all contributions to this important conversation and would like to reassure you that every view plays a vital part in informing the shape of things to come. Indeed, it is only through such robust and meaningful engagement that we can hope to arrive at a solution that is not only technically sound but also socially resonant.

In conclusion, we appreciate your continued interest and understanding as we work towards an outcome that, while not yet fully defined, remains firmly within our collective vision for a better-connected future.

With warm regards,

Ryan Coogan

Please add your thoughts in the comments and vote wisely!

P.S. We are also working on some responses from County Council Candidates and aim to publish those soon.

Categories
Business Case Environment news Route Alignments

2024 Non Stat Consultation on EWR- HS2’s Badly-Behaved little Brother whose Parents have learnt no Lessons for his Upbringing.

Chapel Hill Site of Lord Scales’ 14th Century Chapel of the Blessed Virgin Mary and pilgrimage site is on tree line.
Chapel Hill chalk ridge between photographs above and below.
Chapel Hill Near proposed Eastern Tunnel Entrance and deep cutting, destroying 3,000 year old remains of ancient Britain’s in Bronze Aged Cemetery

The position of Cambridge Approaches on EWR is set out here and has not changed. With the release of the NSC on 14 November we have an opportunity to point out problems for our local communities – and there are many. More people formally asking for something probably increases the chances of it happening. There has been movement on the proposal since the 2021 consultation and our “Great Wall of South Cambridgeshirecampaign, but nothing like enough. For many people it would still be hideous and we would all be affected by the years of construction. I try not to look at this video of Calvert too often and definitely not the section starting around 8:50. It shows what haul roads, construction compounds and balancing ponds actually look like. Something you will never find in EWR documentation. I then imagine the view from Chapel Hill across the Bourn Valley described in one of the most famous poems ever written about Cambridge. Then (in 1912), as now, a sea of wheat fields and one of the defining views of Cambridge that the architects of our green belt wanted to preserve in the mid 20th century.1 They would be turning in their graves. Anyway, here is the section of Rupert Brooke’s poem.

“Is dawn a secret shy and cold
Anadyomene2, silver-gold?
And sunset still a golden sea
From Haslingfield to Madingley?
And after, ere the night is born,
Do hares come out about the corn?
Oh, is the water sweet and cool,
Gentle and brown, above the pool?
And laughs the immortal river still
Under the mill, under the mill?
Say, is there Beauty yet to find?
And Certainty? and Quiet kind?
Deep meadows yet, for to forget
The lies, and truths, and pain? . . . oh! yet
Stands the Church clock at ten to three?
And is there honey still for tea?”

Here are some people who care about that view being interviewed by ITV Anglia as the consultation came out.

There is a story in government about how building this railway will create some sort of economic miracle around the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and they are not letting mere facts get in the way of a good story, but remember this chart.

To quote a recent article about the dire water situation in our area. “You can send your legions to war with reality, but eventually we all lose.” The East West Rail Company are one of those legions, who think there are building a Net Zero Railway.

Bizarrely the Transport User Update which also came out with the NSC only seems to refer to the local plans for housing. Without large amounts of EWR dependent housing we are on £14.88million per Cambridge Commuter and no new Cambridge jobs supported. But hey, it’s only taxpayers money being poured down the drain. Who cares? They don’t seem to.

Well, I feel a bit better after that polemic, so back to the purpose of this article: how to fill in the NSC feedback form. If you care about our area (and I know you do), please have your say.

Key Consultation Documents Cambourne to Cambridge

  1. Detailed maps
  2. Description (Technical Document)
    • §11 Croxton to Toft
    • §12 Comberton to Shelford
    • §13 Cambridge
  3. Online Consultation Questions in Online Feedback Form. The online form allows much more space for answers than the downloadable form.
    • Croxton to Toft (Question 16)
    • Comberton to Shelford (Questions 17 to 20)
    • Cambridge (Question 21) 
    • Route-wide matters (Question 22)
    • About our consultation (Questions 23 to 25)

I suggest having a look at your relevant map note: there are plans and elevations; read the relevant section or subsection of the Technical Document and start writing in your favourite word processor. When you are ready, go through the dialogue for the online feedback form.3

We have until 23:59 on Friday 24 January 2025.

Some Issues Identified So Far (last updated 8 Dec 2024)

[We hope to update this as we go on but here is a starter for 10.]

  1. Purple construction fields are way too close to houses they should be at least 150m away.
  2. The railway should go under the A603 not over it, and the same is true of the Bourn Brook.
  3. There is no evidence that Green Bridges, and Bat Underpasses work for Barbastelles. The proposed route crosses the Core Sustenance Zone of the Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC, which is a maternity roost.
  4. Why is the route so close to southern Harston – why not push it a few hundred metres further south? (Hoffer’s Brook permitting)
  5. Having identified the Bronze Aged Cemetery on Money/Chapel Hill, and that it doesn’t even cost more to save it, why is your preferred option to wipe it out? Those people’s remains have been lying in the chalk for 3,000 years, and its one of the most beautiful places in South Cambs (ask Rupert Brooke).
  6. Why was there a mined tunnel through Bourn Airfield in the Feedback Report, but a more destructive cut and cover in the current proposals? You have not withdrawn your ridiculous claim that associates EWR with £163billion GVA increase by 2050 so there can’t be a cost problem, surely?
  7. Why not do a 16km bored tunnel from north of the A428 to the southern entrance to Cambridge? (Same length as the Chiltern Tunnel on HS2 so the precedent is there). The net cost increase would not be that much (see (6) above), it’s 3km shorter (so all those scientists can get to Oxford more quickly). It would reduce local objections considerably, save a lot of farmland and the Wimpole SAC. It would also reduce congestion on the Royston Line.
  8. Given that you have chosen a route that is ill suited to rail freight why not save money and remove support for it?

As we all work on our consultation responses do add your ideas and issues in the comments so other people can see. The more this project gets the criticism it deserves the better. Don’t feel you can only give feedback on the defined questions, you can use Question 22 or even Question 24 to give general feedback like, why on earth are you still working on this project?

  1. https://www.cambridge.gov.uk/media/2538/green-belt-study-2002.pdf p.48 ↩︎
  2. *I had to look it up, it means rising from the sea. ↩︎
  3. If you want to look at the downloadable, non extensible feedback form it’s here. The downloadable form might still be useful to look at the questions and prepare the answers in advance ↩︎

Categories
Business Case

Is EWR CS3 a Boondoggle? -Update

1.      Background

Back in 2020, we wondered whether EWR Bedford to Cambridge was a Boondoggle. Google it! Four years on, that question just hasn’t gone away has it?

Readers of this blog will perhaps be familiar with some of the flaws we see in the case for EWR set out in the May 2023 Economic and Technical Report especially Appendix 4. Appendix 4 arrives at the conclusion that EWR to Cambridge would lead to 28,200 new Cambridge commuters daily. 20,000 of these are non-rail (thus clogging up the roads). The 7,990 rail commuters come from, in their words, a “very optimistic” set of model assumptions. With assumptions based on behaviour actually reported in the 2011 census, it would be only 2,090 commuters. Furthermore, those 2,090 depend on large scale new developments at the Cambridge Biomedical Campus, Cambourne and Tempsford which are beyond any local plan, indeed specifically rejected by local plans. We calculate, using their model, that without the new EWR dependent housing and using the EWR 2011[1] census based model, the number of Cambridge Rail commuters would be only 472. A capital cost of £17million each.

The National Audit Office (NAO) put it politely in December 2023 that “it 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”. 

Nearly a year later, it’s still not clear and yet EWR have sent out around 4,000 Land Information Questionnaires telling people that their homes are likely to be affected by the project, but they cannot say why.

East West Rail say that “East West Rail is at the early stages of project development”[2] However, the company was formed 6 years ago in 2018 and that came after many years of previous study dating back to at least 2013. How can it still be at an early stage?

2.      So How much have they spent?

It is interesting to see how much public money has been spent on the development of EWR plans for CS2 and CS3. The NAO reported that it was £185million. We decided to have a look.

Financial YearSpend (£millions)Financial YearSpend (£millions)
17-18021-2274.4
18-198.222-2365.8
19-202223-2496.6
20-2135.624-25143.5
Table 1 Non-Capital Spend at East West Rail Company

Table 1 shows what we found. The figures up to financial year 22-23 come from annual reports on Companies House. None of this includes the £1.2billion capital spend on building CS1 from Bicester to Bletchley. 

The figure for 22-24 is from §2.1 of the DfT Supplementary Estimate dated 6 March 2024. EWRCo. were 17% over their earlier estimate for FY23-24 due to “Re-baselining of the programme and the impact on timescales for subsequent decisions.”[3] 

The FY24-25 number comes from a DfT forecast to the end of 24-25.[4]

Adding up these figures it seems that by 5 April 2025, EWRCo. will have spent £446.1 million of public money on planning CS2 and CS3.

How has this project been allowed to get this far when there are still fundamental questions unanswered about its viability and route choice?


[1] EWR chose not to use the 2021 census date, probably because the commuter numbers were much reduced by COVID lockdowns.

[2] https://eastwestrail.co.uk/planning/our-business-case

[3] https://committees.parliament.uk/publications/43713/documents/216921/default/ §2.1

[4] https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/66968ec1fc8e12ac3edafdca/HMT_Main_Supply_Estimates_24-25__print_.pdf, p.242

Categories
Business Case Environment

EWR – our latest views.

We had the opportunity to set out our latest views on East West Rail on Huntingdon Community Radio on Friday 26 July 2024

Many thanks to the interviewer Norman Knapper, the producer Linda Oliver and Alan James of CPRE Cambridgeshire for getting us the slot at short notice.

Rachel Reeves statement to parliament on 29 July 2024 made clear that major transport projects are under careful scrutiny at the moment and it’s quite possible that taking EWR to Cambridge will not make it to the 30 October 2024 budget. If (hopefully after listening to the interview) you have a view on whether the project should proceed, now might be a good time to write to the contacts at the department for transport listed here. You might also consider writing the the Mayor, Dr. Nik Johnson who we recently met on this subject.

If you prefer a two page written summary of our position on EWR that you can share see here.

Categories
Route Alignments

Cambridge Maps

*** Health Warning: These drawings date from early 2022 and may not represent the final proposal. ***

Having established the principle that EWRCo. should release these maps, a follow on Freedom of Information request and some encouragement from the Information Commissioner’s office has produced these additional maps. Land Information Questionaires sent by EWRCo. to many residents in the Cherry Hinton / Fulbourn area of Cambridge indicate that EWR Co. propose changes to the line to Newmarket, but so far we still have no details of those.

The earlier release between Caxton Gibbet and Great Shelford is available here. See also the maps between Clapham and Caxton Gibbet here.

Track Alignment around Cambridge South Station (.jpeg format)

Categories
Route Alignments

Clapham to Caxton Gibbet Maps

*** Health Warning: These drawings date from early 2022 and may not represent the final proposal. ***

Having established the principle that EWRCo. should release these maps, a follow on Freedom of Information request and some encouragement from the Information Commissioner’s office has produced these additional maps. The earlier release is available here. So we now have a complete set of the “core section” or new track from Bedford to Cambridge as the proposal stood in early 2022.

***It is clear that the section from Wyboston to the East Coast Mainline had changed by May 2023 *** (map 0412) to the “Tempsford Variant 1A” which runs south of the Black Cat roundabout. A map of this has also been released by EWRCo. and is included. Unfortunately, is does not include details of land required for construction and biodiversity net gain shown in the other maps and dates from November 2021.

Here are the maps.

The final map from Croxton to Caxton Gibbet connects to a map in the previous release here.

Categories
Environment

EWR Bedford to Cambridge: Does it reduce CO2 emissions?

*** Updated 2nd June 2024 ***

Summary

This article looks at the CO2 from construction of EWR Bedford to Cambridge (CS3), estimated by EWRCo.’s technical partner, but also, as a cross check, scaled from government HS2 Phase 2a estimates. We also look at that for the new housing assumed by the EWRCo. Economic and Technical report from May 2o23. We compare those CO2 emissions with the savings likely from modal shift from road to rail over a 60 year period. The CO2 from construction exceeds that saved from modal shift by orders of magnitude. Although the analysis here is approximate, it is very unlikely that the EWR project would reduce CO2 emissions. If you just want the answer have a look at table 1 below.

EWR CS3 CO2Unit:TCO2e
 ConstructionModal ShiftNet
Existing Residents322,500*-5,403317, 907
EWR Houses8,125,714-18,5238,107, 191
Total8,448, 214-23,9268, 424, 288
Table 1 Summary of CO2 Emission estimates in Tonnes discussed in this article. *EWRCo. figure 5x less than equivalent HS2 figure of 1,510,000 and excludes important aspects of the construction.

If you want to know more about where these numbers came from, read on.

Which transport schemes have the lowest carbon emissions per passenger mile?

Table 2 below is taken from this article and shows that electric trains especially when heavily used (like Eurostar) and perhaps powered by French nuclear reactors have really low emissions per passenger mile. The average figure for Network Rail is also good, as are electric cars. We clearly need to decarbonise transport and switching to electricity is a good way to do that especially if the electricity comes from renewable sources or nuclear. Recall that the previous UK government wanted to decarbonise all transport road and rail: net zero rail by 2040 and only electric cars sold on the new car market after 2035.

Table 2: CO2 Emissions per passenger kilometre

Based on the EWRCo. trip end model (ETR appendices table 4.1, repeated in Table 3 below) EWR would transport 2,090 people daily to Cambridge. Using this model we estimate 472 of these people would be existing residents shifting their mode of transport to rail while the remaining 1,618 would be new residents. Assuming an average journey length of 30km, 220 days per year, EWR CS3 could reduce CO2 by 37.4 tonnes per year by switching from electric cars to rail (47-35 =12 gCO2/passenger mile). Over the normal assessment period of 60 years this would become 2,243 tonnesCO2. for existing residents (and a further 7,689 tonnesCO2 for the new residents of EWR dependent housing). For those of you that believe EVs will never happen, even over the next 70 years (I am not one of them) the figures for diesel/petrol cars to Network Rail trains would be (171-35)/(47-35) = 11.3 times higher and still would not affect the conclusions of this article.

In discussion with an activist from the local green party, we came up with a rather conservative transition to electric vehicles which assumes a linear transition from 2010 to 2065 and that EWR would start service in 2035. This leads to an average car figure of 63.91 gCO2 per passenger mile and it is this figure that has been used in the summary. As we see with Eurostar, we can expect the emissions from EV’s to drop with time as electricity generation moves away from fossil fuels. This would also be true for rail and I have not allowed for this in the comparison.

For convenience I have copied the EWRCo. housing table below in Table 3.

Table 3 EWRCo. Trip End Model ETR Appendix 4 table 4.1 May 2023
Construction CO2 for HS2 Phase 2a and EWR CS3

The Government published an assessment of this for the now cancelled HS2 Phase 2a here. In section 7.1 we find this table.

Table 4 CO2 emissions from Construction of HS2 Phase 2a

The main figure here is the 1.451 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) and an assessment of the CO2 savings that are likely from modal shift to rail. Unfortunately, in the case of HS2 Phase 2a the CO2 from construction is much bigger than any saving from modal shift. This is despite the modal shift CO2 saving from the replacement of internal flights (presumably between London and Manchester) with rail.

HS2 Phase 2a was planned to run for 37 miles from north of Birmingham to Crewe (see here §1.1.4) a rather similar distance along the track (called chainage) as planned for EWR CS3 which we learn from the recently released Costain constructibility study is around 38.5 miles. So if we make the assumption that construction CO2 from HS2 phase2a is similar to EWRCS3 and just scale for the slightly different route length, we can estimate the construction CO2 for EWR CS3 to be 1.51MTCO2e

EWRCo’s Assessment of EWR CS3 Construction CO2

EWRCo. released under FOI an assessment of construction CO2 for a southern approach to Cambridge as also one for a northern approach. The figures are considerably lower than the estimates for HS2 Phase 2a and here they are:

Document no:133735-MWJ-Z0-XXX-RCD-EEN-000001 Document Title: Technical Partner Development Phase Environmental Assessment Factor Analysis for ACP7: Worksheet Part 1 Revision: P01. 3rd Column is “Baseline Cambridge South”, 4th column is titled “Cambridge North”

So the estimate for EWR CS3 with the southern approach to Cambridge is 0.3225MTCO2e which is only one fifth of the HS2 Phase 2a derived estimate described above. Notice how much lower the northern approach to Cambridge is also. Is there really a 5x difference between EWR and HS2?

This entry is the table of limitations in the same document indicates where some of the disparity comes from (see below). They have not included the viaducts and for the earthworks they did not add the carbon from transporting and disposing the soil. These EWRCo. estimates are primarily to compare the southern and northern approaches to Cambridge, the absolute CO2 emissions are likely to be considerably higher and perhaps closer to the HS2 Phase 2a figures.

Let’s go with the lower EWRCo. estimate for now.

Assessment of EWR CS3 for existing residents

Let’s compare those estimates:

  • EWR CS3 construction : +322,500 Tonnes CO2e
  • Modal shift EV to Rail over 60 years: -5,403 Tonnes CO2e

So the CO2 savings are outweighed by the construction by a factor of sixty.

If EWR were to get to the point where people commuting to Cambridge did not need to use the roads or cars at all, then we could talk about saving the construction CO2 of new cars (the roads are already built so too late for that). This does not seem that likely.

Whereas car journeys are often door to door, heavy rail (like most public transport) involves first and last mile legs of the journey. This is one of the reasons that the passenger numbers for short commutes are low for EWR. We have not included CO2 emissions from these first and last mile journeys in this assessment – again being generous to EWR.

Assessment of EWR CS3 with new housing growth.

EWR CS3 is planned to support the growth of “EWR dependent” housing. My quotes are because the percentage of people actually using the railway from these new houses is so low that they are hardly EWR dependent. However, from table 2 above there are assumed to be houses for 213,300 people which equates to around 100,000 new homes at 2.1 people per household. The CO2 emissions from the construction of a small new house were assessed in 2010 and reported in this article to be 80 tonnesCO2e per house. so in total that would be 8.126MTCO2e for these 100,000 new houses.

But of course now there is more modal shift since a further 1,618 people are regularly using EWR to commute to Cambridge. Scaling from the previous result for the modal shift from existing residents, as we saw earlier this would lead to a further 18,523 tonnes of CO2e saved. However, we don’t know where the new people came from, they might have been moving out to a more rural location from a city in which case the benefit from modal shift might be rather less since they might have been using rail in their old job.

Again this is dwarfed by the construction CO2 from the railway and the new houses.

Sunk Costs

Once a railway has been constructed and also whatever new housing and places of work, then from a CO2 perspective, it makes sense to use it as the construction CO2 has become a sunk cost.

Particulates

There are other potential benefits for rail over road and this article has just focussed on CO2 emissions for a new railway built to support new housing.

Road tyres produce particulates which can cause health problems local to those roads. The steel train wheels and rails do not do so. Unlike CO2 which is a gas and spreads everywhere, particulates settle out locally and the larger they are the more local the effect. Consequently road tyres do present more of a long term health hazard on urban roads, especially in large cities and this would be a reason to reduce their use in such places. For heavy rail outside large cities this is much less of a consideration.

Conclusions
  1. CO2 emissions from the construction of EWR CS3 greatly exceed the reduction from modal transport shift for existing residents.
  2. CO2 emission from the construction of new houses greatly exceeds the reduction from modal transport shift for new residents.
  3. If, like the outgoing rail minister, you think that the houses will be built anyway, then there is clearly no business case for the railway, but this analysis also shows that building the railway still makes the CO2 emissions higher than just building the houses.
  4. I find the starkness of this result quite surprising so I would be delighted if someone can tell me where it is substantially wrong.

See table 1 at the start of this article for a summary of the numbers. If you can’t refute these numbers please do not say that building EWR CS3 is a contribution to tackling climate change. It looks like a disaster for climate change.

Categories
Route Alignments

EWR Construction

Heads Up Cambridge

Although following an existing route, the section of EWR from Shepreth Branch Junction (SBJ) (just north of Gt. Shelford) into Cambridge Station (CBG) is £500million project. When we first heard about that, we assumed it would be the end of the southern approach to Cambridge or indeed the straw that broke the camel’s back on CS3. However, the government’s fixation (based on flawed evidence see here and as explained further here) on connecting EWR directly to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus has been used to over ride the recommendation from EWRCo.s own technical partner Arup that the southern approach to Cambridge was really difficult. Not least in terms of how much disruption would be caused during its construction.

Costain performed a “constructibility assessment” for the southern approach to Cambridge and the results of this have been released (at the request of Great Shelford Parish Council). In releasing the information, EWRCo. added the caveat that they are still working on these and that the information provided dates from 2022. These reports (see below) show the many years of disruption coming to Cambridge residents if this project were to go ahead. It involves

  • Major remodelling of Cambridge Station
  • Re-laying all the tracks in the busiest section of the rail network – between SBJ and CBG
  • Temporary closure of Long Road Bridge
  • Whatever delightful feature it is that has caused the LIQs to be sent to Cherry Hinton remains to be revealed. (probably a freight loop)

The Core Section (Hauxton to Clapham Green)

These documents mainly concern Cambridge, but there is a document on the whole core section (the new track from Hauxton Junction to Clapham Green) which includes for example the construction depot on the ECML near Little Barford.

For a general impression of the construction of the core section in South Cambridgeshire listen to civil engineer and CA co-founder David Revell and Frank Mahon who experienced the construction of EWR in Buckinghamshire. Here is a recording of me on local TV talking about the warnings we have received from Buckinghamshire. Will we do nothing until the diggers arrive?

Categories
Route Alignments

2022 Detailed EWR Maps Again

Here are two more accessible versions of the four Arup maps we published in our previous post.

Firstly, for orientation here is a low resolution composite of all four maps together on top of the Google satellite image for the area (many thanks to our map expert Leigh for this).

Secondly, a downloadable a high resolution version of the same map which can be downloaded. It is a 207.5MB file so be patient. Apologies our web server is not up to viewing this on line. After downing the .png file you should be able to zoom in to areas of interest and go back to the maps in the previous post for the key.

The overall picture is a 500 metre wide strip of land 50km long from Hauxton south of Cambridge to Clapham north of Bedford. And then there are the new towns at Cambourne north 53,400 people (Cambourne increases in size by a factor of 6.8*) and Tempsford 44,000 people, bit of these sites will also need biodiversity net gain. The land take is colossal.

How we got the maps and what has happened since they were published.

It took 3 years and multiple legal appeals for Cambridge Approaches (and Leigh Day, and our local MP’s office) to get EWRCo. to release these maps which show the scheme in a level of detail we have not seen before – including the land take for construction and biodiversity net gain (BNG). Oxford Prof. David Rogers confirmed to me that construction land cannot be used for BNG, since that must start from day one of the construction. Consequently BNG land would be compulsory purchased along with the land for the railway. Refer to the previous post for the key to these maps.

Of course, EWRCo. will have been working on these plans since January 2022 when the versions here were completed. One naturally expects to see this level of detail in a planning application for a new house or extension in order to be able to comment on it. Why is it so difficult to get EWRCo. to do the same?

Suspension of Farm Business Interviews

In the same way as some of the thousands of affected home owners between Bedford and Cambridge were sent Land Information Questionnaires, farmers are being offered Farm Business Interviews (FBIs). These interviews (I attended one) are again to collect information but they are much more useful from the farmers’ perspective if they can see the details of the proposal – even if it is out of date. In the light of these maps, another farmer (who wishes to remain anonymous) came forward and said to EWRCo.’s agents that he would, after all, like to have an FBI. Here is the response he received from the EWRCo. representative:

“Many thanks for your e mail and no need to apologies (sic) for the delay in responding.

We are accompanied by another person for the FBI meetings, but only as there is a ‘no lone working’ policy in place at EWR. The other person in attendance is from Ardent who are undertaking the land referencing on behalf of EWR, and, being the company involved with the various surveys, can also answer any questions you may have on the surveys taking place on your land. Although we are all representatives of EWR in some form, unfortunately they will not be able to answer more general questions relating to the project.

Following the publication of the 2022 detailed scheme design plans by Cambridge Approaches, EWR have asked us to pause surveys until further notice. Following re-commencement of the meetings I will be in touch with you to arrange a meeting where we can discuss the impact of the scheme on your holding, and consider ways of mitigating this impact.

If you have any further questions please do not hesitate to contact me.”

We then asked Ardent when the FBIs would resume and why they had been suspended and received the following answer.

“Just writing to acknowledge receipt of your below email.  I am in discussions with the relevant team at EWR and will revert back to you once I hear further.” 13th May 2024

Well I guess we are still waiting for an explanation of why EWRCo. do not want to meet people can who see (albeit out of date) information about how this scheme affects their homes and farms.

Maps in the Statutory Consultation (SC)

With part 1 of the SC due to start sometime “in the summer” we might expect that a full set of up to date construction maps will be published including the land take for construction, biodiversity net gain and a description of the likely impact of the construction project. All the sort of stuff that local residents need to understand about the project. However, at the “Community Conversation Event” held in Cambourne on the 10th May 2024 the following information was displayed.

So it’s just high level information on the environment, traffic and construction considerations. EWRCo. clearly have a lot of detailed design. How much will they actually share? Apparently not much.

*I have taken the base population of Cambourne as 9250 as in the EWR data, but and aware that the 2021 census figure is a little higher. It is assumed here that this is due to different definitions of what is included in the Cambourne population