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 Year
Spend (£millions)
Financial Year
Spend (£millions)
17-18
0
21-22
74.4
18-19
8.2
22-23
65.8
19-20
22
23-24
96.6
20-21
35.6
24-25
143.5
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.
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.
*** 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.
*** 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.
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 CO2
Unit:TCO2e
Construction
Modal Shift
Net
Existing Residents
322,500*
-5,403
317, 907
EWR Houses
8,125,714
-18,523
8,107, 191
Total
8,448, 214
-23,926
8, 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
CO2 emissions from the construction of EWR CS3 greatly exceed the reduction from modal transport shift for existing residents.
CO2 emission from the construction of new houses greatly exceeds the reduction from modal transport shift for new residents.
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.
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.
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)
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.
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
*** Health Warning: These drawings date from January 2022 and may not represent the final proposal. ***
On the 10th of May 2021 our lawyers Leigh Day sent a Freedom of Information request to EWRCo. After nearly 3 years of legal and other pressure we received some answers. One of the questions was this. “EWR is asked to provide any report or other analyses it holds which caused it to conclude that embankments and viaducts will be required between Cambourne and Hauxton Junction on the southern approach.“
The response was a series of detailed plans and vertical sections as follows:
(The plans are in PDF format, they can also be downloaded as high resolution PNG images – see at the bottom of the webpage).
These plans date from January 2022 and so may be out of date. Notice the fields marked in purple which will be needed for construction work. If you don’t know what that looks like have a look at this video of EWR CS1 under construction at Calvert.
We also asked about the vertical alignment for the northern approach to Cambridge and the following section diagrams were provided.
Here is a guest post from railway enthusiast and long time friend of Cambridge Approaches Steve Edmondson.
In a recent press release East West Railway Company’s chief executive officer Beth West makes direct comparison of the East West Rail project with a recently re-opened line on the English Scottish border. This line was also discussed during the Transport Select Committee oral evidence sessions on 6 March 2024, which formed part of the committee’s inquiry into Strategic Transport Objectives and featured East West Rail.
The line referred to is the ‘Borders Railway’ that started operating in 2015. It offers a half hourly service between Edinburgh Waverly station and the small town of Tweedbank Monday to Saturday, with an hourly service on Sundays.
Beth West compares the Borders Railway with East West Rail, specifically the Bedford/Cambridge section. In her release she correctly says that passenger numbers on the Borders Railway have exceeded expectations, from a projected 600,000 passengers a year, to 1,789,467 (4,900/day)
Unfortunately for her, such a simple comparison is misplaced.
The new Borders Railway is predominantly single track, 35 miles long, with three passing loops. There are ten stations including the termini. All but one serve substantial communities directly, with park and ride facilities for Edinburgh at two of them. This helps to explain the attraction to passengers, especially tourists, who take advantage of the numerous stations. The full journey takes about one hour. Most importantly, it is a partial reopening of a rail line between Edinburgh and Carlisle which was closed in 1969 and the track lifted. Consequently the amount of new earthworks required was relatively small. In parts, a maximum line speed of 90mph is possible for short sections, but 60mph is the normal maximum. It is essentially what is known as a ‘branch line’ and is neither freight train friendly nor electrified.
By contrast the proposed EWR Bedford to Cambridge section is slightly longer. It is being planned as a strategically important ‘main line’; it would be twin track suitable for 100mph running throughout. It does not follow any part of the earlier Varsity line between Bedford and Cambridge and serves none of the communities along the original route. It would be an entirely new alignment built through unspoiled countryside and have food security implications as it would damage a great deal of Britain’s best and most versatile agricultural land. The major earthworks that would be required for the new line are set to forever change the visual amenity of South Cambridgeshire. Between Cambridge and Bedford, there would be just three stations so it would not serve any of the outlying village communities for whom it would be of little use.
When the Borders Railway was proposed in the early 2000’s and a full business case published (take note Beth West), it was partly linked to construction of 1800 houses, and caused local opposition. The final cost was £353 million at 2012 prices. Compare this to EWR Bedford/Cambridge which is linked to the construction of houses for 213,300 new residents and an up front cost of £8 billion in today’s money.
There is an EWRCo. projection of only 2,090 regular Cambridge commuters derived from reported local rail commuting in the 2011 census, so less than 1% these new residents would use the railway. The rest would instead presumably exacerbate the road traffic congestion in and around Cambridge. This in turn negates the strategic objective of taking the railway to Cambridge which is about unlocking obstacles to growth.
Finally, consider the cost per daily passage, for the Borders railway it is £365million /4900 = £74,500 (comparable with the Elizabeth line) while for EWR it is £8,000million /2090 = £3.83 million which is not.
Thanks to everyone who attended the presentations and discussion on the 26th March 2024 we had around 180 people register for the event. For those of you that could not make it, or those who want to review the material here are the recordings.
