East West rail, Bletchley to oxford line

[Mike Storey]

10 minutes ago, 1E BoY said:

From the BBC piece above

 

Mr Harrold said the East-West company had yet to publish a business case to justify the southern route, but also questioned the continuation of the entire scheme.

He said: "At this time with a lot of cost pressures on government spending, they should be asking, is this value for money?

"Without big cities between Oxford to Cambridge, you've got to question the amount of passenger traffic it will receive, plus the huge subsidy UK rail receives from the taxpayer.

"I don't think the government should be funding something that will be haemorrhaging money."

 

In response

 

The quote from Dr Harrold of Cambridge Approaches is interesting. I am not sure what constitutes a big city but from where I am sitting, the one slap bang in the middle of the project looks quite big to me! Of course, it has now been recognised as a City in its own right, rather than “the designated new city of” which has appeared on signs since the late 1960s as seen here

 

The quote from Dr Harrold of Cambridge Approaches is interesting. I am not sure what constitutes a big city but from where I am sitting, the one slap bang in the middle of the project looks quite big to me! Of course, it has now been recognised as a City in its own right, rather than “the designated new city of” which has appeared on signs since the late 1960s.

 

The quote from Dr Harrold of Cambridge Approaches is interesting. I am not sure what constitutes a big city but from where I am sitting, the one slap bang in the middle of the project looks quite big to me! Of course, it has now been recognised as a City in its own right, rather than “the designated new city of” which has appeared on signs since the late 1960s.
 

As both South Cambridgeshire and Milton Keynes are both served by BBC East and Anglia Television, I cannot believe that Dr Harrold is not aware of it! 

 

Populations between Oxford & Cambridge (using latest available internet data)

Bicester                 33,154 (2020 estimate) Major developments taking place
Islip                        652 (2011 Census)
Winslow                 4,407  (2011 Census) 
City of Milton Keynes*        287,821   (2021 Census for current Borough)
Bedford                 174,687 (2019 estimate for Borough)
{St Neots^             32,489 (2020 estimate) development area
{Sandy ^                11,657 (2011 Census)
Cambourne **        8,186 (2011 Census)

 

*Awarded City Status as part of Queen Elizabeth II Platinum Jubilee Celebrations
^Original route via Sandy with St. Neots area the preferred option for Bedford – Cambridge
** Preferred option for Bedford – Cambridge 

If the preferred route is followed, then the line will serve over half a million people outside of the populations of Cambridge and Oxford.
The City of Oxford had a population of 162,100 (2021 Census) whilst the City of Cambridge recorded 145,700 (2021 Census) = 307,800. The combined figures for the two university cities are some 19,979 more than that of Milton Keynes.

We should not of course forget that both Oxford and Cambridge have several thousand students in residence during each academic year many of which use public transport to travel to and from university several times a year.
 

 

 

 

Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, the 2021 census numbers are now available, and you would also normally use the catchment of a town or city, rather than just the borough limits, for the purposes of assessing transport demand. That would effectively double most of the numbers you have posted, except perhaps for MK.

 

Mr H is making a case, for what purpose we are not entirely clear. But, as indeed exists in much of these sorts of protests/reactions over the last several years, he ignores/omits some key facts, to favour his own selection. Perhaps he has learnt from our finest?

 

[KeithHC]

Mr H comments very much in the nimby vein. But surely the plan is not solely about the population points on the route but from a much wider area. Or do the nimbys want to work on Beeching economics.

 

Keith

[Ron Ron Ron]

1 hour ago, Mike Storey said:

 

Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, the 2021 census numbers are now available, and you would also normally use the catchment of a town or city, rather than just the borough limits, for the purposes of assessing transport demand. That would effectively double most of the numbers you have posted, except perhaps for MK......

 

 

In addition to the population figures being reported in the 2021 Census, it has to be remembered that looking forward, those figures will be historical and not a reflection of future transport needs over the next 20, 30 or 40 years plus.

Also bear in mind that the Aylesbury Vale and most of the area between Bicester and MK, has long been considered suitable for an increase in population of anything up to another 1 million people, by the mid part of the current century.

The equivalent of another 3 MK's !!!

Both the East-West rail programme and the now cancelled Oxford- Cambridge Expressway, were seen as early enablers to facilitate that population growth.

 

 

.

[stewartingram]

Not forgetting of course, the use of the route as a connection between the lines radiating out of London - a point omitted in the days of closing the earlier line.

[corneliuslundie]

There seems to have been no mention of freight in our friend's pronouncement. Is that because he doesn't realise that rail has such a role? I assume that there could be considerable use of the line for cross-country freight flows.

Jonathan

[Mike Storey]

28 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

There seems to have been no mention of freight in our friend's pronouncement. Is that because he doesn't realise that rail has such a role? I assume that there could be considerable use of the line for cross-country freight flows.

Jonathan

 

He doesn't really "get it", but there is (I recall) an allowance for one freight path an hour in each direction, during the day, throughout the route (if it is built and used that way).

 

But I am not sure what the flows would be, other than the existing bin liners and so on. Felixstowe is the only major source of freight in Anglia now (unless you count Thamesport and maybe Harwich), but most of that traffic heads north by north west. Perhaps there could be a use for the E-W line's connections to the WCML, once paths are relieved by HS2, and maybe there are flows to be had to the new East and West Midlands logistics centres via that route. But then, that would rather obviate the works already committed (or at least planned) for the ECML, Trans-Pennine and the Peterborough - Birmingham routes.

 

However, it can only be a good thing for the future to have such capacity available for any new flows, which may well come, if a load of other things do or don't pan out.

[Davexoc]

Perhaps he thinks this is the future,

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-62177614

 

and wants the continuous drone of UAVs flying over his house....

[corneliuslundie]

Interesting but I didn't know aeroplanes were exactly environmentally friendly, with or without a pilot.

My feeling is that there is a role for EWR freight because it should as a matter of policy be removed from the roads to a more environmentally friendly mode - as should private car travel. In a densely populated area like the northern home counties there should be no problem providing adequate public passenger transport and rail freight facilities. But it needs a change of mindset.

But I am not really worried about the pronouncements of politicians who are trying to gain votes, since usually as soon as they are in power they forget most of what they promised. What is needed is a well researched and written assessment of the whole EWR project, not shooting from the hip by people who know or care little about the subject. If the EWR team f=does not do that then they will be walked all over by those with vested interests.

Jonathan

[Mike Storey]

13 minutes ago, corneliuslundie said:

Interesting but I didn't know aeroplanes were exactly environmentally friendly, with or without a pilot.

My feeling is that there is a role for EWR freight because it should as a matter of policy be removed from the roads to a more environmentally friendly mode - as should private car travel. In a densely populated area like the northern home counties there should be no problem providing adequate public passenger transport and rail freight facilities. But it needs a change of mindset.

But I am not really worried about the pronouncements of politicians who are trying to gain votes, since usually as soon as they are in power they forget most of what they promised. What is needed is a well researched and written assessment of the whole EWR project, not shooting from the hip by people who know or care little about the subject. If the EWR team f=does not do that then they will be walked all over by those with vested interests.

Jonathan

 

They did :

 

https://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Rail-Expertise-EWR-wider-economic-case-refresh-18-11-15.pdf

 

But what has happened since is that DafT have insisted on separate business cases for each phase, a la:

 

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/latest-news/project-updates/report-the-case-for-east-west-rail-western-section-phase-2

 

All that has done is to allow both local resistance based on next to nothing at all, and the ability of twats our esteemed elected representatives to defecate all over it reflect on further continuation, a propos sweet FA.

Edited July 18, 2022 by Mike Storey
original wording censored

[melmerby]

1 hour ago, corneliuslundie said:

Interesting but I didn't know aeroplanes were exactly environmentally friendly, with or without a pilot.

Apart from noise pollution they are emission free.

(Most are electric)

[1E BoY]

5 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

Whilst I agree with the gist of your post, the 2021 census numbers are now available, and you would also normally use the catchment of a town or city, rather than just the borough limits, for the purposes of assessing transport demand. That would effectively double most of the numbers you have posted, except perhaps for MK.

 

Mr H is making a case, for what purpose we are not entirely clear. But, as indeed exists in much of these sorts of protests/reactions over the last several years, he ignores/omits some key facts, to favour his own selection. Perhaps he has learnt from our finest?

 

My initial figures were on the cautious side based on available information for towns / cities published on the internet.

 

You only have to drive west of Bicester to see how the town is expanding towards the M40. 

 

I have since looked further into the 2021 Census results for each local authority area through which East - West Rail is proposed to run. I cannot see a way to break down the results into smaller segments such as Winslow.

 

Populations between Oxford & Cambridge - Revised to show 2021 Census results

Local Authority Area                      Population         Including stations

           

Oxford                                                 162,100                  Oxford, Oxford Parkway

Cherwell                                              161,000                  Islip, Bicester

Buckinghamshire                               553,100                 Aylesbury, Winslow

Milton Keynes                                     287,000                 Bletchley, Fenny Stratford, Bow Brickhill, Woburn Sands

Central Bedfordshire                         294,200                 Aspley Guise, Ridgmont, Lidlington, Millbrook

Bedford                                               185,300                 Stewartby, Kempston Hardwick, Bedford

South Cambridgeshire                      162,000                 St. Neots, Camborne (projected route not confirmed)

Cambridge                                          145,700                 Cambridge

 

= 1,950,400 (1.9m) which suggests four times my initial figures as the possible catchment potential.

 

Opponents would argue that the route should not include large parts of Buckinghamshire etc. as it will not be directly served.

 

The schemes supporters would counter argue that that the line will interchange with Chiltern Railways at both Bicester Village and Aylesbury allowing connections for those wishing to travel from say Milton Keynes to High Wycombe without going in and out of London. Similar situations occur at Bletchley (West Coast Main Line) , Bedford (Midland Main Line), where the line crosses the East Coast Main Line and Cambridge (access to Greater Anglia routes). 

 

I am sure that those promoting the lines various phases are fully conversant with such details.

 

[Metropolitan H]

On 07/07/2022 at 23:28, melmerby said:

I wonder what percentage of the energy used climbing one hill @ 1 in 29 is regenerated when coming down the 1 in 29 on the other side?

I can't help you with that number, but when I was on an ORE committee regarding efficient use of traction energy - circa mid / late 1980s - SNCF arranged a meeting in Paris to then take use to Lyon for lunch and back to show us how they had saved energy by raising the speed limit on the LGV - which saved the braking at the bottom of the downhill sections and gained more coasting uphill before traction was reapplied. It was a very good lunch.

 

Regards

Chris H

[Tony Teague]

Whichever way you look at it the business case for EWR far outweighs that for HS2, whilst the costs because of existing land ownership) are way lower.

So I'd want to see HS2 scrapped before EWR is tampered with.

[KingEdwardII]

The section from Bedford to Cambridge should be a vital part of the development of the Cambridge area. Cambridge is a rapidly growing tech hub but its road system belongs in the medieval period, so there is a big need for alternative transport. This has already spawned two new stations - Cambridge North (science park area) and the proposed Cambridge South (Addenbrooks and biotech area). Meanwhile, Cambourne has mushroomed as a new town to the west and the whole area generally has a growing population and pressure for new housing.

 

The favoured route of EWR is a southern one, but still connecting to Cambourne. I don't fully understand why this is the best option - I consider that a norther route would be better, although the obvious route there would be over the current guided busway. There may be political objections to that, although to my way of thinking, converting the guided busway to a railway to St Ives would make more sense in the long term. However, there may be other ideas for new communities along the line of the southern route, to the west of Cambridge. In which case, the nimbies may have a better case than we realise!

 

Yours, Mike.

[Rugd1022]

13 hours ago, Mike Storey said:

 

He doesn't really "get it", but there is (I recall) an allowance for one freight path an hour in each direction, during the day, throughout the route (if it is built and used that way).

 

But I am not sure what the flows would be, other than the existing bin liners and so on. Felixstowe is the only major source of freight in Anglia now (unless you count Thamesport and maybe Harwich), but most of that traffic heads north by north west. Perhaps there could be a use for the E-W line's connections to the WCML, once paths are relieved by HS2, and maybe there are flows to be had to the new East and West Midlands logistics centres via that route. But then, that would rather obviate the works already committed (or at least planned) for the ECML, Trans-Pennine and the Peterborough - Birmingham routes.

 

However, it can only be a good thing for the future to have such capacity available for any new flows, which may well come, if a load of other things do or don't pan out.

 

It will very handy for routing ballast trains to and fro when needed, that's for sure.

[Edwin_m]

3 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

The section from Bedford to Cambridge should be a vital part of the development of the Cambridge area. Cambridge is a rapidly growing tech hub but its road system belongs in the medieval period, so there is a big need for alternative transport. This has already spawned two new stations - Cambridge North (science park area) and the proposed Cambridge South (Addenbrooks and biotech area). Meanwhile, Cambourne has mushroomed as a new town to the west and the whole area generally has a growing population and pressure for new housing.

 

The favoured route of EWR is a southern one, but still connecting to Cambourne. I don't fully understand why this is the best option - I consider that a norther route would be better, although the obvious route there would be over the current guided busway. There may be political objections to that, although to my way of thinking, converting the guided busway to a railway to St Ives would make more sense in the long term. However, there may be other ideas for new communities along the line of the southern route, to the west of Cambridge. In which case, the nimbies may have a better case than we realise!

 

Yours, Mike.

If it followed the busway then it would need a very slow all-stations service (and the extra stations for it to stop at), otherwise the people who use the buses now would end up back in cars on the busy A14.  The railway is more suitable for larger but more separated clusters of development, allowing the same trains to serve a limited number of stations and still provide fast enough times to be competitive for inter-urban travel as well as commuting.   

Edited July 19, 2022 by Edwin_m

[cctransuk]

3 minutes ago, Edwin_m said:

If it followed the busway then it would need a very slow all-stations service (and the extra stations for it to stop at), otherwise the people who use the buses now would end up back in cars on the busy A14.  The railway is more suitable for larger but more separated clusters of development, allowing the same trains to serve a limited number of stations and still provide fast enough times to be competitive for inter-urban travel as well as commuting.   

 

Like it or hate it - Cambridge's Guided Busway does, to some extent, serve Cambridge city centre.

 

Cambridge station is, at the insistence of the University, a long walk / inconvenient bus-ride / expensive taxi ride from most destinations within the city. (Historically, the University was opposed to railways per se, on the grounds that they would bring immoral influences to tempt the cream of the aristocracy).  😉

 

It might well be possible for EW Rail to roughly follow the old Huntingdon Branch - or to reroute the Busway to free-up the old trackbed for EW Rail.

 

The southern approach is bound to be more strongly resisted / politically controversial - that is where most of the more expensive properties are located!

 

John Isherwood.

[31A]

4 hours ago, KingEdwardII said:

The section from Bedford to Cambridge should be a vital part of the development of the Cambridge area. Cambridge is a rapidly growing tech hub but its road system belongs in the medieval period, so there is a big need for alternative transport. This has already spawned two new stations - Cambridge North (science park area) and the proposed Cambridge South (Addenbrooks and biotech area). Meanwhile, Cambourne has mushroomed as a new town to the west and the whole area generally has a growing population and pressure for new housing.

 

The favoured route of EWR is a southern one, but still connecting to Cambourne. I don't fully understand why this is the best option - I consider that a norther route would be better, although the obvious route there would be over the current guided busway. There may be political objections to that, although to my way of thinking, converting the guided busway to a railway to St Ives would make more sense in the long term. However, there may be other ideas for new communities along the line of the southern route, to the west of Cambridge. In which case, the nimbies may have a better case than we realise!

 

Yours, Mike.

 

The southern approach would allow EWR to serve the new Cambridge South station before arriving at Cambridge station, and any future services towards Ipswich or Norwich (including potentially any future freight to Felixstowe etc) would be able to continue through Cambridge without needing to reverse.

[Davexoc]

21 hours ago, melmerby said:

Apart from noise pollution they are emission free.

(Most are electric)

 

Depends what powers the chargers. The last couple of weeks we've been utilising coal quite a bit, to make up for the shortfall in either/and/or imports from France and lack of wind power. We are still quite a long way off emission free electricity....

[Ron Ron Ron]

41 minutes ago, Davexoc said:

 

......The last couple of weeks we've been utilising coal quite a bit, to make up for the shortfall in either/and/or imports from France and lack of wind power. ......

 

Over the last week and last month, coal fired electricity generation has only provided 1.6% and 1.3% of total demand.

 

As for the interconnector links with France.

We have been exporting electricity to France, everyday for 3 or 4 months, almost continuously and during that time, apart from the occasional short peaks, we haven't imported any electricity from them.

 

Wind generation has been down by a few % over the last week, on average meeting around a quarter of our generating needs, as opposed the the last month's and last 12 month's averages of around 28%.

It does of course go up and down, quite markedly at times...for obvious reasons.

 

 

 

.

Edited July 19, 2022 by Ron Ron Ron

[The Pilotman]

On 18/07/2022 at 22:41, Metropolitan H said:

I can't help you with that number, but when I was on an ORE committee regarding efficient use of traction energy - circa mid / late 1980s - SNCF arranged a meeting in Paris to then take use to Lyon for lunch and back to show us how they had saved energy by raising the speed limit on the LGV - which saved the braking at the bottom of the downhill sections and gained more coasting uphill before traction was reapplied. It was a very good lunch.

It’s virtually impossible to have a bad lunch in Lyon.

[lmsforever]

I do worry if the Bedford to Cambridge section is built due to the DFT etc are losing interest in this part of the project due to the problems surfacing every week. Likewise  the Aylesbury connection is under ever increasing aprobation from the DFT why they are so anti as MK is a popular place for us to go to ,as years go on cars will not be an option and a trip by bus is a mind numbing experience!   At least the first section is making excellent progress with track being laid and stations also appearing from their foundations .I look forward to riding Oxford to Bletchley and of couse back to Aylesbury.

[Nearholmer]

DfT have been itching to slap a big, upgraded road right across, to complete the business they started by upgrading the A421  from MK to Bedford to near motorway standard, so maybe the roads bods have Schapp’s ear, and the rail bods don’t. But, if he thinks the railway is a vote-loser, he may get an even nastier surprise if the road plans are trotted out again! In fact, I think MK Council’s position was “we will fight the road tooth and nail unless you do the railway first, ‘cos we hope that will soak-up enough demand to make the road unnecessary”.

 

 

[lmsforever]

Totaly agree there are plans emerging for a dual carriageway through the middle of Buckingham ,more desicration by the road lovers.

[KingEdwardII]

9 hours ago, lmsforever said:

dual carriageway through the middle of Buckingham

?!? I thought that they already put a bypass around the south side of Buckingham? I even think I drove on it last time I went up that way. It was single carriageway (which I thought at the time was lacking in foresight) - is an upgrade proposed?

 

Yours, Mike.