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)
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

EWR CS3 and the Borders Railway myth

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.

 

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
news

EWR Briefing and Discussion

Date: 26th March 2024
Time: 20:00-21:30
Online (see below for how to register)

As we lead up to the planned EWR statutory consultation in June, the CA Working Group will be holding an online Zoom meeting on the 26th March 2024 from 20:00, consisting of several short presentations (see agenda topics below) followed by a discussion. This meeting is targeted at local residents along the proposed route from Highfields Caldecote to Trumpington and others concerned about the justification and construction of this railway, green field housing and loss of green belt land etc. The more the merrier. It is not intended for employees of EWRCo. lovely though they are.

Here is the current agenda (we might tweak it bit before the meeting).

TimingWhoWhat
2000-2005William HarroldIntroductions
2005-2015Leigh CarterHistory
2015-2025William HarroldEconomics
2025-2035Annabel SykesCambridge Biomedical Campus 
2035-2045David RevellConstruction Impact
2045-2055Frank MahonExperience in Buckinghamshire
2055-2130AllDiscussion
Current Agenda

Leigh has been following the EWR story for years and will give an introduction to the history for people not familiar with the topic starting in 2021.

I (William) have been trying to understand the economic justification for building the Bedford to Cambridge section of the railway and some of the wider implications of the project. I also attended the Transport Select Committee oral hearing on EWR on the 6th March 2024 and wrote about my reflections on that here. Its fair to say that I am not entirely convinced about the case for building it.

Annabel has been closely involved in discussions on the proposed development of the Cambridge Biomedical Campus and it’s further expansion into the Cambridge green belt. This turns out to be very relevant to the case for EWR (such as it is). Unfortunately, she cannot attend live, but we hope to record her presentation beforehand.

David is a civil engineer and will give a talk about what we could expect during the construction of the railway and on the great wall of South Cambridgeshire. See our previous posts (here and here) on this from 2021. These were before we had really thought about what it would look like during construction.

Frank is a councillor from Buckinghamshire who has experienced EWR construction over the last several years and he will share his thoughts. He met the CA working group recently and told us that “he would not wish it on his worst enemy”.

To take part in the meeting you will need to register in advance:

  1. Sign up for a free Zoom account here.
  2. Click this registration link and register for the meeting by providing your name and email address. We would appreciate it if you use your real name so that we know who is speaking in the discussion.
  3. You should then receive a link to the meeting in an email sent to the email address that you registered. You can also join by phone on the phone numbers provided in your registration email.
  4. What could possibly go wrong?! email info@cambridgeapproaches.org if you are stuck.

Meeting etiquette: The plan is to run through the presentations and then have a discussion at the end. Please stay on mute unless you are speaking. It’s a good idea to register early and arrive for the meeting on time because our zoom subscription limits the number of participants.

Recording: We plan to record the presentations so that you and others can see them later, but not the discussion.

Categories
Business Case news

Transport Select Committee Oral Hearing 6/3/2024

The “Case for Cambridge” and EWR – an aside on the environment.

Yesterday I attended an event in Portcullis House Westminster. The Transport Select Committee (TSC) has chosen to use East West Rail as a case study for interdepartmental working on major infrastructure projects. Of course, this is because the collaboration has been shambolic as exposed by the NAO investigation report last December. They talked a lot about Cambridge, and I had some side conversations with DfT officials as well. Rail Minister Huw Merriman said that the housing between Bedford and Cambridge would be built anyway so we might as well take some cars off the road by building EWR. Nice spin, but, if the houses are going to be built anyway then what exactly is the financial case for this £8billion railway? Dr. Andy Williams of the Oxford Cambridge Supercluster board was unconcerned about the £4million capital cost per Cambridge Commuter for EWR (£8billion/2000 commuters) and told me it was irrelevant. I guess that’s because it’s the taxpayer funding it not business. Similar reaction from Jon Shortland planning officer in Bedford. He said EWR would bring £15million/year to the Bedford economy. I told him the railway would cost £80million/year just to operate, never mind the cost of capital (£8billion at 5%/year is £400million/year). He told me Bedford does not have to pay so who cares? I do.

So, then we get to “the miracle at Tempsford” (and presumably similar places like Cambourne North.) and its interaction with the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC). The CBC has 20,000 employees. EWR supporters at the TSC think there could be another 20,000 with EWR connecting to the south of Cambridge. That of course would mean expansion into the green belt towards Great Shelford – a plan rejected by our local planning people so far due to its high harm to our green belt. The problem is that the analysis presented in the EWRCo. Economic and Technical report only predicts 2000 EWR commuters per day to Cambridge, not 20,000 or anything link it. The site at Tempsford is in the flood plain of the Great Ouse and what has to happen is that the three planning authorities that control the area all agree to sign off the new town and that the “rail mode share” at Tempsford is much higher than seen in say Ely or Royston in the 2011 census. They also have to be happy to sign off a dormitory for Cambridge and sort out the environmental consequences.

If Tempsford were built it would also connect to Cambridge via the new A428/A421 Black Cat – Caxton Gibbet dual carriageway and of course it is also on a main line railway line to London. Why exactly is everyone going to commute by rail to the CBC? However, the DfT official I spoke to was undaunted. Tempsford will be “transformational” for some reason he could not explain and DfT economists could not analyse. Yeah, right. He also said that the trend to work at home more since the pandemic will double the number of jobs supported because two people go to different jobs. One for say the first half of the week and the other for the second half. My experience is that Cambridge roads are much quieter on a Friday because everyone chooses to work from home. I recall a recent presentation from Stagecoach on their bus passenger numbers saying that “Thursday is the new Friday”. 

Dame Bernadette Kelly the Department for Transport Permanent Secretary was asked by the Transport Select Committee why it was that the new HM Treasury led EWR growth board was only now exploring how to deliver the benefits of the railway (she had talked about the 6 new streams of work etc). Why ,they asked, was this not worked out long before the project was inflicted on the general public? She said it was very hard to work out such a business case up front. Evidently much better for local residents to be tortured with years of uncertainty while the DfT use the experience to work out their business case.

Good grief!

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
Business Case

The Elizabeth Line, EWR CS3, Optimism Bias and Housing Finances.

The Elizabeth Line – a sensible public investment.

Figure 1 Elizabeth Line Map. Pretty obvious why it carries so much traffic.

The Elizabeth Line (Figure 1) was built for a capital cost of £20 billion and carries 500,000 commuters to London every day. The capital cost per commuter is therefore £40,000 (20 billion / 500,000). That’s the cost of a fairly expensive new car. The number of Elizabeth Line daily commuters was recently reported to have reached 738,000 which would be £27,100 capital cost per commuter. One can see that this is a sensible use of public money – effectively the commuter is renting their seat on the train through ticket sales.

The UK Rail Finances from the Office of Road and Rail.

The Financial Times recently published the Office of Road and Rail Income figures in graphical form see Figure 2.

Figure 2 Office of Road and Rail Income Figures

The railways have needed a substantial subsidy for a long time.  The changed travel patterns during and since the pandemic have had a huge effect on passenger revenue and hence the subsidy required to keep the network going. Not only have rail passenger numbers dropped, but there has also been a shift from business to leisure travel and hence a reduction in peak rate ticket sales. Part of the discussion about the recovery since the pandemic centres on whether to include the Elizabeth Line which only opened after the pandemic and, despite being mainly a London local transport scheme, is sometimes included in the figures for intercity rail passengers. Figure 3 is up to date and excludes the Elizabeth Line. The passenger numbers are between 75% and 80% of pre-pandemic numbers. But fare revenue will be lower than that due to the shift to leisure travel. EWR is being built for business travel. In February 2023, Mark Harper stated that season ticket sales were at only 28% of pre-pandemic levels.

Figure 3 Rail Passenger use Excl. Elizabeth line c.f. pre-pandemic. Source: Department for Transport. 

It is interesting that both Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and Transport Secretary Mark Harper referred to a permanent shift in post pandemic business travel patterns as part of the justification for cancelling the second phase on HS2 at the 2023 Conservative Party Conference.

Proposed East West Rail Bedford to Cambridge (EWR CS3)

In our previous post on this subject, we explained that the capital cost estimate of EWR CS3 in today’s money is £7.85billion[1] and the number of Cambridge commuters using EWRCo.’s “Theory of Change Trip End Model, Conventional Scenario” would be 472. Not 472,000, but just 472 and this model is calibrated on pre-pandemic behaviour reported in the 2011 census, also ignoring the effect of the new A421/A428 dual carriageway now under construction and running alongside the route and also ignoring the effect of the Cambridge South Station also under construction.

The EWR CS3 capital cost per Cambridge commuter therefore works out at £16.7million (£7.85billion/472). I did look at the most expensive cars in the world to find an equivalent, but it seems that a personal helicopter for each commuter might be a better comparison. One for each day of the week.

Optimism Bias

If you are trying to justify a publicly funded project and know that (a) you will be long gone by the time the project is executed (b) it’s not your money and (c) suspect that there is competition for the same funds from other project proposals; you might as well present the best possible picture. The alternative is that you don’t get funded at all. 

This is a well-known effect and is termed “Optimism Bias”. The National Audit Office recently published a Good Practice Guide where on page 13 we find the following statement:

“optimism bias is a well-established concept, with a substantial body of research showing that forecast costs and benefits are generally highly inaccurate. More recently our work showed over-optimism was still an entrenched problem in government.”

Margaret Thatcher is a marmite figure, but one of her quotes seems appropriate here. “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

Even with all the green field housing, the cost per commuter is still in personal helicopter territory at £3.75million (£7.85billion/2090) although now you would have to make do with using the same helicopter every day. If you think the houses will be built or you believe EWRCo.’s “very aspirational” model parameters, use those. The best capital cost per rail commuter I can get, even taking all EWRCo. optimism bias is around £1 million per rail commuter.

I don’t think it’s reasonable for the taxpayer to subsidize these commuters that much. What would the ticket price have to be to break even without a subsidy? Asking the Cambridge commuter to pay £16.7million up-front is a big ask, but perhaps generations of commuters could pay it back over the 60 year life of the railway. That would be £1,265 per workday but £4,010 allowing for a 5% interest rate on the loaned capital. The assumed subsidy is so high the rail fare is irrelevant. On the other hand, who is going to pay £4,010 a day for a return rail ticket? No one.

We have heard that Beth West recently announced that EWRCo. were seeking reduce the capital cost of the project by reducing the amount of civil engineering. What would the capital cost have to be in order to be comparable with the Elizabeth Line in terms of capital cost per commuter? Let’s give EWRCo. a break and assume that somehow the green-field houses are built and also assume that the target is a capital cost of £40,000 per Cambridge commuter as we saw with the Elizabeth Line. The target capital cost for EWR CS3 becomes £40,000 x 2,090 = £83.6 million. They would need to cut out 99% of the capital cost. If they can do that, it would be scandalous that they ever proposed the current costs.

EWRCo. assume houses for 213,300 people are built – let’s assume that’s 100,000 houses[2]. Taylor Wimpey Ltd recently reported a gross margin of 25% on their house building. [3] At £300,000 per house that’s a gross profit of £7.5billion. About the same as the capital cost of the railway. Can we offset the cost of the railway with housing profits? Surprise windfall tax on property developers and land owners anybody?

A Possible EWR Timeline and Financial Summary

Here is a prediction of what would happen if this project went ahead.

  1. The taxpayer funds EWR CS3 for £7.85billion
  2. 472 Cambridge rail commuters.
  3. Local authorities grant permission for 100k new houses, which are constructed and sold to new people. {This is a high risk step and may well not happen}
  4. Landowners and property developers make a profit of £7.5billion
  5. Another 1,618 rail and 9,115 road commuters to Cambridge
  6. Railway shut down because the subsidy required to keep it running is too high.

The net transaction is a transfer of £7.5billion from the taxpayer to property developers (steps 1 and 4), new towns on green field sites and more road congestion. The government will claw back some of the profits of the property developers through taxation. However, if you really want to supersize Cambridge, there are less financially daft transport schemes. Such as busways and light rail networks. 

[1] EWRCo. and DFT quote numbers in the £5-6billion range, and it depends on how much of the risk estimate is included and also whether inflation is allowed for. There is a huge problem even at £5 billion capital cost

[2] Economic and Technical Report Appendix 4 Table 4.1. 99% of these people do not use the railway to commute to Cambridge.

[3] See Companies House Taylor Wimpey UK Limited Account to 31st December 2022, p.26