Category: Route Alignments

Categories
Route Alignments

MORE BENEFIT, LESS COST

A turnback near Little Shelford would provide greater benefits to the project

In this blog we look at whether a Northern Approach could serve all three Cambridge stations (North, ‘Central’ and South) and so improve any economic benefits there are for the project.

East West Rail Company (EWR Co) have repeatedly claimed that passengers approaching Cambridge on a Northern Approach would need to change at Cambridge Central to get to Cambridge South. This change, they say, would hinder the economic growth of Cambridge Biomedical Campus as it increases commuting time between affordable housing and jobs.

What we show below is that a Northern Approach would directly serve all three Cambridge stations with the simple addition of a turnback[1] facility beyond Cambridge South, near Little Shelford.

Meanwhile the latest consultation, in November 2024, admits that a Southern Approach would only serve two Cambridge stations (Cambridge South and Cambridge Central but not Cambridge North).

This blog has not been written to score points from EWR Co in the North vs South Approach debate but to offer a solution for their consideration. We believe that this option, by significantly increasing the benefits of the project, would greatly improve the strategic and financial business cases. It would do this even if they stopped their current surveys for a Southern Route.

[1] An empty length of track which a train can be driven into, and ‘reversed’ from, to change its direction of travel. Required beyond, or at, any terminal station.  

Northern and Southern Approaches. Note the number of stations connected by each option. Northstowe station is an option for the Northern Approach.

Why is this so important?

EWR Co’s claim is critical because it forms the cornerstone of their argument that a Southern Approach is superior. They claim that only a Southern Approach could serve the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) directly without requiring a train change. Linking the CBC with affordable housing is, they say, key to unlocking transformational growth in the region.

While we totally reject the premise that any railway linking Oxford and Cambridge would transform the local economy, it is clear that a railway approaching from the north would provide better connectivity between housing and employment sites than one from the south, not only because it would connect directly to three Cambridge stations rather than two, but also because it would include in its catchment already Permitted Developments such as Northstowe. Consequently, any economic benefits from the project would be magnified by stopping at Cambridge North with its proximity to science parks which primarily serve the same sectors that the government is keen to promote (life sciences and information technology).

There are obviously other factors to consider in selecting the preferred option for the route, especially cost, construction time and environmental damage. While this article is not intended to address these points in detail, it is important to briefly consider them in order to provide context for the choice. EWR Co state:

‘Our high-level investigations since the 2021 consultation indicate that a northern approach may potentially be cheaper to build and quicker to construct, and have less potential environment impact, …’  

Route Update Announcement 2023, Route Update Report, Ch. 7, ‘Confirming our preference for the southern approach’

See also the more specific statements made in a document only recently revealed by EWR Co (and only when ordered to do so by the Information Commissioner’s Office under the Freedom of Information Act), namely version v03 of the “Affordable Connections Project” report and its appendices, which we will comment on in detail later in the year. Its Executive Summary includes such misleading statements as (1.4.9):

‘Routes into Cambridge from the south provide direct access to the biomedical campus and the Astra Zeneca site via the proposed Cambridge South station. Routes into the city from the north provide good access to Cambridge Science Park (via Cambridge North station) but serve the biomedical campus less well.‘

This labours under the delusion that trains from the north cannot travel directly to Cambridge South.

In the interest of balance, we should point out that our northern route solution would narrow the cost and construction time differences between the approaches. This is mainly because the track between Cambridge and Shepreth Junction would likely need to be 4-tracked, as it is for the Southern Approach. However, the remaining differentiating factors for cost and construction time (such as the magnitude of new infrastructure required, including embankments, cuttings, tunnels, bridges and proximity to residential property) still strongly favour the Northern Approach. And it remains a less damaging alternative environmentally.  It also largely avoids two entirely foreseeable and unresolved major areas of difficulty for EWR Co – the potential impact of construction and operation of a southern approach on the precious barbastelle maternity roost in the Eversden and Wimpole Woods SAC and its surrounding core sustenance zone and separately on the world-class Mullard Radio Astronomical Observatory (see Cambridge University’s response of 24 January to EWR Co’s recent consultation).

EWR Co’s claims in detail

Below are extracts from a sample of reports that EWR Co published during the 2023 Route Update Announcement, thought to be [2] the last time EWR Co assessed the route options into Cambridge  (with my emphasis):

Reference 1

‘We considered whether it would be possible to serve Cambridge South station taking the Northern Approach but concluded that this would reduce the frequency of trains and extend journey times, including likely requiring passengers to change trains, to an unacceptable level. It would make it harder for people living in Bedford, the Marston Vale or near St Neots/Tempsford to access the jobs at the Biomedical Campus – and therefore it wouldn’t deliver the economic opportunity that underpins the case for EWR.’

Route Update Announcement 2023, Route Update Report, Ch. 1, ‘Connecting more people with opportunities in Cambridge’

Reference 2

‘8.3.30 … Whilst there is better accessibility for journeys through Cambridge from the North to the Cambridge Biomedical Campus this is not likely to be an available option in infrastructure terms. This is because if a Northern Approach were to be selected, EWR services would not be able to serve Cambridge South directly, which is situated adjacent to the Biomedical Campus. The location that is heavily constrained, with the Biomedical Campus to the east side and Hobson’s Park to the west side. To achieve direct connectivity for EWR trains from a NATC, infrastructure upgrades would be needed on the WAML south of Cambridge station to enable EWR trains to run through to Cambridge South station, or significant changes to existing services would be needed – this is described below.

8.3.31 This means that all EWR services would have to terminate at Cambridge station and would require passengers to change trains to complete their journeys, introducing an interchange penalty for passengers:

  • It would significantly increase the journey time to Cambridge South compared to a southern approach. For example, from the new EWR station at Tempsford/St. Neots, the journey time would nearly double from an estimated 21 minutes via a Southern Approach to at least 39 minutes using a northern approach. The estimated journey time from Bedford would increase from 32 minutes to over 50 minutes.’

Route Update Announcement 2023, Economic and Technical Report, Ch.8 ‘Identifying a Single Preferred Route between Bedford and Cambridge’

Reference 3

‘We have considered how the revised Northern Approach and Southern Approach to Cambridge performed in terms of short distance connectivity to support commuting travel into key employment hubs. Both routes would provide direct connectivity between housing centres and employment hubs. …

‘The need for passengers [approaching from the north] to change trains to access Cambridge South would cause greater inconvenience and mean that journey times are further extended compared to the Southern Approach to Cambridge.

‘By comparison, EWR trains using a Southern Approach could be extended to Cambridge North station – calling at all three stations in the Cambridge built-up area – subject to relatively minor upgrades to the track and platforms at and near the current station.’

2021 Consultation Feedback Report: Ch.3 The approach to Cambridge, 3.2.9

These extracts clearly demonstrate EWR Co was claiming that a Northern Approach would require changing trains at Cambridge station to access Cambridge South station. Interestingly, the last extract states that a Southern Approach could call at all three Cambridge stations: this has been shown not to be the case in the 2024 Non-statutory Consultation with the introduction of the Cherry Hinton turnback facility.

[2] That is, until their forced revelation of the ACP Report and Appendices

Feasibility

How are we so sure that a Northern approach could serve Cambridge South when EWR Co say that passengers need to change trains?

While there are a number of options for the location of the turnback (including on the West Anglia Main Line), we have considered a location south of Cambridge South station near Little Shelford to demonstrate feasibility. Other locations can be reviewed by EWR Co during their own feasibility design stage.

The turnback allows trains to park in a siding off the main line so that passing trains are not blocked. Passengers approaching from the north would alight at Cambridge South, the driver would drive the empty train to the turnback facility and ‘reverse’. In practical terms, reversing simply means that the train driver walks to the cab at the other end of the train to allow it to be driven back towards Bedford. Alternatively, a relief train driver could step straight into the cab at the Cambridge end of the train.

In their Affordable Connections Project report, which compared a number of route options, EWR Co considered a Northern Approach terminating at Cambridge South. This was rejected primarily on the grounds of affordability as, they say, it would require a grade-separated junction, four-tracking between Cambridge Central and Cambridge South, major works at Cambridge Central and Cambridge South stations, signalling and the cost of the turnback facility itself. There are no options presented with a turnback south of Cambridge South station. We offer no explanation why EWR Co have failed to mention our proposed solution. The figures below show our suggested location and indicative details of the turnback facility.

Satellite image of turnback location. Note line of trees to S of tracks

In our turnback layout, the siding is located between the main line tracks as indicated graphically below. This is to avoid conflicts of train movements which would occur if there were a siding to the side of the main lines. The bridge over the River Cam may need to be widened, depending on the length of sidings required. The new track would be on the east side of the existing line to avoid the scheduled monument on the west side. A narrow band (approximately 5-6m) of the existing wood may need to be cut back depending on the railway boundaries and detailed design. The facility would include a new train crew accommodation building providing messing, toilets, lockers and car parking for the train crews. A train crew walking route would incorporate a new footbridge over the main line and fencing between the walking route and the main line for safety reasons. Services for this facility including electricity, water and sewerage, would be accessed from the Hauxton Road. The turnback facility would be situated in a less built-up area than the one in Cherry Hinton (proposed by EWR Co for a southern approach) and so would have less impact on local residents. It would be largely hidden from residents’ houses by the existing band of trees along the length of the siding.

Indicative plan of turnback siding. Note central location of siding to avoid train movement conflicts

Looking E towards Cambridge from Hauxton Road level crossing. Note the thicket of trees on the R

The current proposal for a Southern Approach shows that EWR Co are currently considering this area for an infrastructure maintenance depot (see figure 149 of the 2024 Technical Report). If this site is selected, the development would be on an altogether different scale to a turnback facility. EWR Co’s Technical Report (14.6.2.1) describes an infrastructure maintenance depot: ‘This 24-hour facility would operate year-round and provide accommodation and welfare for up to 150 staff, parking, unloading areas and storage for spare parts, tools and materials. The IMD would consist of an office building of no more than two storeys, covered stores and outdoor storage for large equipment.’ This could take the entire field bounded by the rear gardens on Hauxton Road and Bridge Street, the railway line and Manor Farm.

Importantly, the turnback proposed by EWR Co at Cherry Hinton involves land-take from Coldham’s Common, a local nature reserve and a city wildlife site. Four EWR trains would pass the site in each direction during the day. Currently there is about one an hour in each direction. The exceptionally tight radius rail-track bend on the common would generate high volume wheel noise, disturbing the existing relative tranquillity of Coldham’s Common to a far greater extent than of Little Shelford by a northern route.
EWR Co accept the adverse impacts of the Cherry Hinton turnback in their statements:
‘EWR Co recognises that the impacts on the common in this area may cause concern for the local community…’

‘For the Cherry Hinton turnback location, residential receptors would be likely to experience increases in noise levels both during construction and operation due to the stopping and starting of trains at this location.’

November 2024 Non-statutory consultation, Technical Report, Ch.13, 13.6.5 ‘Option analysis to date’

Conclusion

We have seen that EWR Co acknowledge that the Southern approach is more expensive, would take longer to construct and would cause greater harm to the environment than a Northern approach.

But they attempt to justify their preference for a southern route by stating that:

  1. rapid rail journey times between anticipated new housing developments and the Cambridge Biomedical Campus are required to unlock transformational growth in the area, and
  2. only a Southern Approach would allow these direct and rapid journey times and that a train change/reversal at Cambridge station would be required for a Northern Approach.

On the contrary, we have shown that a Northern Approach can easily provide a direct connection to Cambridge South and the CBC by incorporating a turnback such as the one considered near Little Shelford. A Northern Approach would also serve the northern science parks by stopping at Cambridge North, thereby significantly increasing any economic benefit the project would bring to the region.

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 Cambridgeshire” campaign, 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
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.

Great Shelford to Cambridge StationDownload
Track Alignment around Shepreth Branch JunctionDownload

Track Alignment around Cambridge South Station (.jpeg format)

Track Alignments around remodelled Cambridge StationDownload

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.

Clapham to RavensdenDownload
Ravensden to WybostonDownload
Wyboston to East Coast Mainline ***Obsolete***Download
Wyboston to East Coast Mainline (Tempsford Variant 1A)Download
East Coast Mainline to CroxtonDownload
Croxton to Caxton GibbetDownload

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

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)
EWR_CS3-COS-CL-XX-PP-Y-000005Download
EWR_CS3-COS-CL-XX-ST-Y-000002-rev-D00Download
EWR_CS3-COS-CL-XX-ST-Y-000003-D00Download
EWR_CS3-COS-CL-XX-ST-Y-000004-D00Download
EWRCS3-COS-CL-XX-RP-Y-000012-Appendix-IDownload

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?

EWRCS3-COS-CL-XX-RP-Y-000001-D01-14.06.23-1Download
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.

all-four-maps-google-maps-backgroundDownload

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

Categories
Route Alignments

Cambourne to Great Shelford Maps

*** 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:

Cambourne to Highfields CaldecoteDownload
Highfields Caldecote to Little EversdenDownload
Little Eversden to HarstonDownload
Harston to Great ShelfordDownload

(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.

Northern Approach SectionDownload
Northern Approach Milton JunctionDownload

***************************************************************

The same first four plans can be downloaded in high resolution PNG image format below (as an alternative to PDF).

Cambourne to Highfields Caldecote (PNG)Download
Highfields Caldecote to Little Eversden (PNG)Download
Little Eversden to Harston (PNG)Download
Harston to Great Shelford (PNG)Download
Categories
Business Case news Route Alignments

EWR Briefing and Discussion – Recordings

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.

  1. Introductions – Dr. William Harrold
  2. Brief History – Dr. Leigh Carter
  3. Business Case – Dr. William Harrold
  4. Cambridge Biomedical Campus Expansion – Annabel Sykes
  5. Construction disruption – Cllr. David Revell
  6. Discussion part 1
  7. EWR experience in Buckinghamshire – Cllr. Frank Mahon
  8. Discussion part 2

There was also a presentation from Cambridge Approaches at the Harston EWR meeting held on the 14th January 2024. Here is a recording of that.

EWR Business Case

Categories
Business Case Route Alignments

Will EWR make it quicker to get out and about across the UK?

I am grateful again to Annabel Sykes for this guest post assessing recent claims from EWRCo. as they continue to their increasingly desperate search to find a compelling use for completing EWR to Cambridge.


I read the “where would you go?” article in EWRCo’s recent “Keeping you connected” newsletter and watched the accompanying video with interest.  There is also a section on EWRCo’s website, which includes the map below, recently reproduced in the Cambridge Independent.  The website says “EWR will have intersections with the UK’s key railway routes, meaning some of the nation’s most loved destinations would be within easier reach of local communities in Oxford, Bletchley, Bedford and Cambridge – offering more options and shorter journey times.”

I feel reasonably well-qualified to comment on how much substance there is to the ease and speed of travel claims EWRCo is making from Cambridge, as I live a short walk from Shelford station on the West Anglia Main Line (WAML) and my children are (or were) at Edinburgh and Bristol universities. We all like, and regularly use, trains.

EWRCo’s current proposals and journey times along EWR

The Route Update Report (“RUR”) proposes four trains per hour to Cambridge.  Two will originate in Bedford and two in Oxford.  From information in the RUR and accompanying Economic and Technical Report (“ETR”), respective station-to-station to journey lengths are expected to be 23 minutes (between Cambridge and Tempsford), 35 minutes (between Bedford and Cambridge) and 89 minutes (between Oxford and Cambridge).  

No journey time is given between Cambridge and Bletchley in these documents, but the 2021 Economic and Technical Report suggests that it will be approximately 60 minutes.   It may now be expected to be longer than this because the RUR says “we’re also suggesting capping the line speed [on the Marston Vale Line] below the 100mph originally proposed”. 

EWRCo tends to merge Bletchley and Milton Keynes when talking about journeys, although a person travelling from Cambridge and other places east of Bletchley will need to change trains at Bletchley to reach Milton Keynes Central. The journey time between the two stations is 5 minutes, making no allowance for changing platforms or waiting for a train.  There are currently four trains per hour between Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central.  This will presumably increase to six when the proposed two EWR trains per hour between Oxford and Milton Keynes Central are running.   By contrast, EWRCo seems to regard Cambridge North station as on a different planet from Cambridge station, even though there are five trains an hour between them and the journey time is 5 minutes.  

Where can I already get to by rail from Cambridge?

Anyone who lives in or near Cambridge is already lucky, because it is a city that is very well-connected by rail.  Looking at the EWRCo map, I can already catch a direct train from Cambridge to Ipswich, Norwich, King’s Lynn, Peterborough, Birmingham and Thameslink destinations such as Gatwick Airport and Brighton.  I can reach Birmingham International (for the airport) by changing at Birmingham New Street.

Peterborough gives me access to fast trains on the East Coast Mainline (“ECML”) to Leeds, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh (and, via Edinburgh, to Glasgow).  By contrast, Network Rail indicated in its East West Rail Main Line Strategic Statement (“the Strategic Statement”) that it was unlikely that ECML fast trains would stop at any new EWR station[1].   Network Rail also looked at the rail journey between Cambridge and Peterborough in the Strategic Statement using generalised journey times[2] and concluded that using EWR would add 21 minutes to the journey time between Cambridge and Peterborough.  This is despite the fact that the Strategic Statement also says “Rail connectivity … is …circuitous to Cambridge along the East Coast Main Line branch”[3].  From the perspective of a resident of Cambridge, EWR will not change the position as regards destinations on, or beyond, the ECML.

I can also catch a direct train from Peterborough to Nottingham and Sheffield.  Despite what the map reproduced above implies, there are no direct trains from Bedford to Nottingham or Sheffield.  It seems vanishingly unlikely that it will be quicker to travel from Cambridge via Bedford to these places, rather than via Peterborough.

As regards the journey to Birmingham, my rough estimates suggest that the journey time using EWR and changing at Bletchley (and possibly again at Milton Keynes Central) will be roughly the same length or likely slower once train changes and waits are taken into account.  It is possible that the journey to Birmingham International might be slightly faster via Bletchley, but it seems unlikely to be materially faster or more convenient.

If I take a train to Ely (a journey of roughly 18 minutes with a very regular service) I can catch a direct train to each of Manchester and Liverpool.  I accept that there is no direct train from Ely to Blackpool, Oxenholme, Carlisle or Glasgow but nor is there from Bletchley – as noted above, no direct Cambridge to Milton Keynes train is planned for EWR.  In any event, there are not many direct trains to these places from Milton Keynes.  There is also no direct train to Worcester or  Hereford, but I can get one from Birmingham to which (as noted above) I can travel directly from Cambridge.   It seems unlikely that a journey via Oxford to either place will be materially more convenient or quicker.

As regards Cardiff, Bath, Exeter and Penzance, even with EWR, it appears that each of these places would require two changes from Cambridge – there is no direct train from Oxford.  I think I will stick with WAML to  London Liverpool Street (or a Thameslink train to Farringdon), a short walk to the Elizabeth Line which goes directly to Paddington and a train from Paddington.  I simply don’t believe that travelling via Oxford will be measurably faster or more convenient.   This tallies with the conclusion that Network Rail reaches in the Strategic Statement.  Using generalised journey times, it concludes that journeys from Cambridge to Bristol and Cardiff will be slower on EWR (by 8 and 59 minutes respectively)[4].  

Cambridge to Watford might be slightly quicker via Bletchley than travelling into London and out again.  However, the proposed HERT (Herts Essex Rapid Transit), linking Hemel Hempstead to Harlow (and communities in between, including Hatfield), may prove a competitive alternative when combined with a rail journey to Hatfield.  In addition, neither seems likely to be particularly competitive with a direct journey by car. 

Airport journeys

EWR makes some claims about journeys to Gatwick, Birmingham, Luton and Stansted airports.  I have considered the position as regards travelling from Cambridge to Gatwick or Birmingham airports above.

Stansted airport is on the WAML.  I live close to a WAML station and about 30 minutes’ drive from the airport.  There are two direct Cambridge to Stansted airport services per hour, which are reasonably fast (around half an hour). However, they are at roughly 10 to the hour and 10 past, so I could have a long wait if I arrived in the 40 minute interval.  Neither train calls at Shelford station and only one of them calls at  the reasonably close alternative of Whittlesford Parkway.  The journey from Shelford station itself involves a change and takes around an hour.  As a result, I don’t generally travel to or from Stansted airport by train.  Perhaps this situation will improve when Cambridge South station opens, but I still think there are too few trains between Cambridge and Stansted airport for the service to be a useful one.  May be EWRCo would like to consider a northern approach to Cambridge and carrying on through to the airport?

Luton airport is a roughly 50 minute drive from my home.  The Strategic Statement gives a generalised journey time to Luton of 110 minutes, using EWR.  First, this is likely to Luton station, rather than Luton Parkway, and secondly, it is necessary to change onto the Luton Dart to get to the airport from Parkway.  So, catching an EWR train to Luton airport will involve two changes and (estimating) have a generalised journey time of about 120 minutes.  Alternatively, I could catch a National Express coach from the Trumpington Park and Ride, with an estimated journey time of 55 minutes or I could catch a train to Hitchin (slightly over half an hour) and take that same National Express coach from the station to Luton airport (estimated journey time of 20 minutes), with the alternative of a more frequent, but slower bus leaving from the centre of Hitchin (about ten minutes’ walk from the station).

Conclusion on travel from Cambridge

EWRCo claims that EWR “will bring you closer to towns and cities across the UK by connecting with the country’s main north to south railway lines and linking into wider existing services, allowing you to easily explore the north of England and Scotland…or head west to cosy up in the Cotswolds, the West Country or Wales”.

My personal conclusion, from the parochial perspective of a Cambridge resident is that, save for stations actually on EWR, it will make very little difference to getting out and about across the UK.  Even for EWR’s stations, I personally remain to be convinced.  If I am going to Ikea in Milton Keynes or Bicester village, I am still likely to choose to go by car and not only because I won’t want to lug my purchases home on the train.  

Conclusion on travel from other EWR stations

But what about getting out and about across the UK from other EWR stations?   The Strategic Statement concludes that rail journeys from Oxford, Milton Keynes or Bedford to Peterborough using EWR will be materially faster than the alternative.  It is therefore true that a link to the ECML might well result in some journey time benefits from these stations on journeys to Edinburgh and places  between it and Peterborough.    However, as the Strategic Statement shows, a detailed exercise is needed to determine whether these benefits are more illusory than real.  For example, an Oxford resident can already travel by rail to Edinburgh with a change at Wolverhampton or Birmingham New Street. Someone living in Milton Keynes already has a direct rail link to Edinburgh.

Network Rail has already looked at this in some detail

Those making bold claims about the increased ease of getting out and about as a result of EWR would do well to read pages 30 to 37 of the Strategic Statement.  Network Rail’s generalised journey time analysis suggests that the journey time to Cardiff will be worse using EWR from all of Cambridge, Bedford and Milton Keynes (it is obviously unchanged from Oxford).  The Strategic Statement notes an improvement in journey time  between Bedford and Bristol using EWR, but a worse journey time to Bristol from Milton Keynes and Cambridge.

Network Rail’s conclusion in the Strategic Statement is “three broad generalisations can be inferred from the data [we have analysed]:

1. East West Rail services will radically improve rail connectivity within a ‘core’ geography between Oxford, Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Aylesbury….,

2. East West Rail services will offer marginal or no improvement … between key locations within that ‘core’ geography and those further to the east and west [later, the Strategic Statement gives an example of a 16 minute improvement between Milton Keynes and Ipswich]

3. East West Rail services will not offer a viable alternative for longer distance journeys between the extremes of the given geography, where interchange at London remains more efficient.”

The Strategic Statement goes on to say “The use of high frequency, fast services via existing main lines effectively cancels out the advantage accrued from the shorter physical distance travelled using East West Rail. This is due to the need to interchange repeatedly and the potential for misalignment between existing and East West Rail services (which are of a lower frequency, particularly west of Bletchley)… For those journeys where either the origin or destination, or both, lie off the core route, travel by road is likely to remain a more efficient and convenient option given the length of existing journey times and the marginal improvement offered by East West Rail. To return to the previous example, generalised journey time between Bedford and Swindon would – when using East West Rail services – drop from just under four hours to just over three and a half hours. Travel by private car would typically take between two and two and a half hours for the same journey. Improvements on present generalised journey times by rail would need to be greater if East West Rail were to offer a competitive alternative to road in this instance.”

Final thoughts

So why did EWRCo make the poorly verified claims about EWR’s usefulness through this map and accompanying articles and video?  It seems to me that this reflects an unresolved schizophrenia about its purpose and possibly also project inertia[5].  It is not sure whether it is supposed to be providing a fast end-to-end service between Oxford and Cambridge or a commuter service taking workers into each of these relatively small cities and the somewhat larger Milton Keynes.  The RUR and related documents seem to make clear that it is the latter, but EWRCo is nevertheless attempting to be all things to all people.  This may not be surprising given its apparent lack of strategic focus[6]  – why does freight have such a low profile, for example, when it seems critical to achieving net zero – and unconvincing business case[7].

EWRCo  has a good deal of homework still to do.  Even in its own backyard, as William’s 13 May 2022 “Will the EWR compete with Road?” makes clear, any advantage it may have is by no means overwhelming.  When the really significant cost of rail travel and station parking is taken into account, together with the first mile/last mile issue (which EWRCo appears slow to address), that advantage may well melt away.

[1] This is because of the potential for unacceptable detriment to journey times or capacity of these services if they were to do so.

[2] The concept is explained at 4.1 of the Strategic Statement.

[3] My own personal experience is that this journey does not compete well with road.

[4] The Strategic Statement also says “The opening of the Elizabeth Line will improve connectivity between Paddington and Liverpool Street for long-distance journeys to East Anglia”, so the difference may be even greater now (the Elizabeth Line opened after the Strategic Statement was published).

[5] The continuing preference for southern approach may also be a consequence of project inertia. EWRCo accepts in the RUR that “a northern approach is potentially quicker to construct and is likely to cost less than a southern  approach. The extent of work required is less, including less disruption to the existing network…[it]…may have less potential environment impact”.  The  ETR gives more detail on  the environmental impact  question saying “there are higher presence of higher value habitats and higher embodied carbon than for a northern approach”.   The Cambridge Independent of 3 August quotes EWRCo’s chief executive as saying “quite honestly, when I started, I didn’t think that the northern approach was viable at all”.  It is a pity that she did not start the job with an open mind regarding the approach to Cambridge.

[6] The Strategic Statement says “The statement outlines a vision for an East West Main Line …which is aimed at gaining the most from the investment made in the new infrastructure and providing a railway that delivers for passengers and freight users into the future.”  It goes on to make six suggestions, which include optimisation for freight,  provision of a strategic route for service re-routing, planned diversions, and operational flexibility in times of perturbation and electrification. 

[7] EWRCo has a singular focus on transporting workers to theoretical job growth at or near the Cambridge Biomedical Campus.  Its Theory of Change is not based on the years of detailed and recent work and public consultation carried out by Greater Cambridge Shared Planning in preparing the draft Local Plan, but on a 2017 National Infrastructure Commission (“NIC”) report “Partnering for Prosperity: a new deal for the Cambridge-MiltonKeynes-Oxford Arc” and an earlier Cambridge Econometrics report, “Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Northamption Growth Corridor,” commissioned by the NIC.  Both reports are pre-pandemic and so take no account of really significant changes in commuter travel patterns and rail revenue or the lack of a centralised housing plan envisaged by the now-defunct central Government Ox-Cam Arc proposals.

Categories
news Route Alignments

Outstanding Information Requests to EWRCo. August 2022 Update

File Containing Reasons for EWRCo. Chosen Approach To Cambridge and the Business Case.

The previous version of this saga was provided in this post back in February 2022. Here is an update.

Recap

During the EWRCo. 2021 consultation, we wanted to understand the fundamentals of how EWRCo. had arrived at their proposed approach to Cambridge. If an approach that required a Great Wall to be built through our villages, severing communities etc. was the best option, then so be it, at least we would understand why that was so. We have the same issues with the business case, but the FOIs for that are another story.

Previous experience with freedom of information requests indicated that we needed the request to be carefully written as any mistake might be used by EWR Co.’s legal team as a reason not to release the information. The Freedom of Information Act and the Environmental Information Regulations contain many exceptions and no doubt for good reasons. We had also noted that EWRCo. tended to refuse requests that other public bodies had accepted. This was in cases where people had asked EWRCo. and another public body for the same information.

We engaged our lawyers at Leigh Day to write a limited FOI request for the most important information. Separately we sent a less formal letter asking for information that did not fit the criteria for the Leigh Day letter. Leigh Day were asking for information already referred to in the 2021 consultation, but not provided.  As always EWRCo. waited the full 20 working days before responding to Leigh Day. They then threw the book at us. They went through all the requests CA had made and bundled that with the Leigh Day Letter. They worked out exactly how many hours they had spent responding to our requests. We would view that as time spent providing information that should have been available in the first place. Noting the association between CA and local parish councils, they even went through parish council minutes looking for statements they felt were unreasonable.

In their lengthy refusal letter, the request was labelled “manifestly unreasonable” and “vexatious”. We were a bit surprised, since all we were doing was asking for information that they must have had to support their 2021 consultation and preferred approach to Cambridge. They also accused us of deliberately timing the letter to land when they were busy with the consultation.

Maybe they were a bit stressed. Maybe their supporting information was not all that it should have been. After all who worries about documents that are never going to be published.

We then asked Leigh Day to write an appeal letter for an internal review, explaining in legal terms why the request should be answered including case law supporting that (especially the Dransfield case on vexatious requests).

To their credit EWR asked another senior member of staff to look at the case, he was an Engineer rather than a lawyer. In any event when the pressure of the consultation was over and they had time to look again at our request … they decided to stick with the decision not to disclose and for the same reasons as before. It was still in their view manifestly unreasonable and vexatious.

At this point we decided to refer the matter to the information commissioner’s office (ICO) along with another letter from Leigh Day explaining legally why the request should have been accepted. The ICO accepted that there was a case to answer but did not have anyone available to properly look at it. 

Update since February 2022

Time passed and we published a post on this blog setting out the information we had requested and our experience up to that point in getting it.  As a result of that, local MP Anthony Browne took up the case and wrote words to the effect that whatever issues EWRCo. had with Cambridge Approaches, he would like to see the answer to those questions.

EWRCo. refused that request as well on the grounds that the matter was now with the ICO. Clearly, it’s not about who asks for the information or when.

I note that the recent Lib Dem Statement on EWR, read out at the last SCDC meeting and kindly copied to us by Cllr Bridget Smith, contains the following paragraph.

“EWR is a Government scheme being delivered by a private company resulting in poor accountability and little transparency. It has been an enormous frustration that government has kept residents completely in dark for years now about their intentions. This is a pitiful way of delivering a major piece of public transport infrastructure.”

It seems that locally at least, there is some crossparty agreement on EWRCo.’s lack of transparency.

Months later and about a year after the original FOI request, the ICO looked at the case. They started by asking us if we still wanted the information. We did. They also asked EWRCo. if they would now provide it. They would not.

Time passed and eventually the Information Commissioner ruled that EWRCo. could not use the argument that the request was vexatious etc and they should respond again within a certain number of days without using that exemption.

We waited, were EWRCo., actually going to supply the information? 

Well, the latest news is that EWRCo. have appealed the Information Commissioner’s decision, so the saga continues and we will provide evidence to the tribunal next month.

Stay tuned for the next gripping instalment.