It does sound good. On detail, however the biggest issues to Sth Cambs residents include: 1. Tens of thousands of residents between Cambourne and Sth Cambs will NOT be able to use the route as no stations are planned. That’s across Bourne, Toft, Highfield Caldecote, Comberton, the Eversdens, Harlton, Haslingfield, Chapel Hill, Barrington, Harston, Hauxton, Newton, the Shelfords, to name a few! 2. The proposed route E design includes miles and miles of embankments that are 75meters wide by 11m high , that is wider and higher than the Great Wall of China! In some instances, coming within single digit distances from people’s homes. 3. Food producing land is being severed and taken up by the preferred Route E. 4. Diesel locomotives will be used to run instead of being electrified from the outset. 5. With a cost of £8billion in current costs, and with an estimated 2000 passengers commuting per day, it is a disproportionate spend relative to the benefit it claims. Especially when EWR has published that Route E is much more expensive than alternatives
@@phillipphan1394 1. It's planned to be an intercity line that will run at 125mph, not a regional stopping service. If it stopped at every town and villages en route, then it'd slow down journey times for those living in the more populous and productive large towns and cities the route is designed to serve. Just because a piece of infrastructure doesn't personally benefit you, it doesn't mean it's a flawed project. 2.11m is approximately 1.5-2 houses tall. So the embankment won't be that high at all. 3. It's a two track railway, the area of farmland it'll impact will be negligible. 4. Diesel trains are better than no trains at all, and the line will still likely be electrified eventually. 5. The Ox-Cam arc is one of the most productive economic corridors in Britain, so the business case sounds pretty good to me.
@@thedemographicschannel611 1) Ah yes, it's a 125mph intercity route - that's why it doesn't cost in. Just because a piece of infrastructure benefits you (who doesn't have to live with it) doesn't mean it's a good idea.
2) The embankment will be 1.5 - 2 houses tall in one of the flattest parts of England, and you think that's OK? I guess it will be if you don't live within a few km of it. It's not just about the sight of wall that divides the landscape - it's the noise that will carry for miles. But again, shouldn't worry you if not close to it, so no problem. 3) I think you need to do your sums mate - add in the embankment at the height of 1.5 - 2 houses, and the maximum gradient on either side of the tracks , you'll find the land it consumes is enormous. And in the most fertile land in the country, a country which is rapidly running out of agricultural capital. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good prejudice.
4) "Diesel trains are better than no trains at all" - yes, that's a genius argument - clinched it. But wait - tell that to the people who live nearby breathing diesel exhaust fumes - I think you'll find they think no trains are better. Oh, I don't suppose net zero means anything to you, because, after all, that's long in the future when oldies won't have to worry about the planet burning up.
I mentioned it on the last video but as a St Neots resident I'm glad to see this progressing, though while I'm not an engineer or planner by any stretch it still feels a little disappointing to see the line avoid the town completely. I get that having junctions south and north of the town and running services on the ECML through St Neots station may have posed capacity problems but it would've been much more convenient for journeys between St Neots and Cambridge - the main road is regularly congested but having to change at Tempsford just won't be convenient for a lot of people.
My only guess would be to serve St Neots the ECML would have to be widened, which may mean more property loss. But agree it is a bit inconvenient for St Neots residents.
@@Rail_Focus true, I hadn't known about the MML widening until you mentioned it. I was going off the current 2tph usage of the Slow lines between Peterborough and Hitchin (freight notwithstanding of course) and had assumed there'd be additional capacity if the junctions could be built.
At least in St Neots there's the 905 bus which isn't awful, but it could do with not being screwed around with (the route it took the last couple of years into Cambridge was bizarre to say the least, thankfully it's been restored to its pre-pandemic state now). So from that perspective the case for making the EWR pass through St Neots station is less strong. On the flipside, changing at Tempsford (assuming they actually put the effort in to make the trains line up well enough) is still an improvement on the current situation of changing at Hitchin...
@@frislander4299 I agree that the 905 is a decent link, but it follows the same congested road out towards Cambridge so it's not uncommon to be stuck in traffic anyway. It's ironic that we used to have the X5 bus which followed more or less the same route as EWR (Oxford-Bicester-MK-Bedford-Cambridge) until it was cut back to Bedford and the 905 introduced. As for connections, Thameslink will obviously have to fiddle with timings somewhat to accommodate the extra stop, but I don't know how common it is for different operators to coordinate connection times (assuming GBR or otherwise is still in limbo by that time...)
Tempsford should be an ECML station as well. Its not mandated but it will be eventually. It makes no sense in its current form the EWR line gets even closer to St Neots before drifting away without a halt/station.
Me: why on earth does it take that route? Internet: the initial proposed route that closely followed the Varsity line was heavily lobbied against by the RSPB. Me: Ah
Wish they would hurry up and finish it so i can visit my family in the west without having to change trains in London. It would also be useful for getting to elstree if i ever find work in a studio
@@Rail_Focus I stand corrected although I thought that the closure of the eastern part of the line was a piece of Beeching vandalism. I look forward to more videos please.
The old varisty line was safeguarded by planners for many years. Just as the will to live was lost EWR came along but the old line had been built over at key locations.
Barbara Castle was Transport Minister in 1968, She was the cause of the old original varsity line between Cambridge and Bedford to be close under the Labour Government.
Thanks for sharing but there’s an error. Using the Varsity line wasn’t discounted because of the country park near Bedford. That park only gained recognition after the controversial route E selection was announced and the protests started. Investigate who supported route E in 2019 and was involved in granting the country park status in 2021 …
I moved to the UK a few years ago and always wondered why the hell i had to travel from oxford to London in order to get to Cambridge by train. This seems like a good idea in theory.
It existed until 1967. Bletchley park was chosen in world war 2 to decode the nazi enigma machines as it sat roughly half way between Cambridge and Oxford on the line. But the car took precedence in the 1960's and train travel wasn't popular anymore hence the line closed. The only section which doesn't exist today is the Bedford to Cambridge section. Oxford to Bletchley existed in a dire state, the rest remained in service. The UK has poor connectivity going east to west except where its in alignment with London. This goes for roads and rail and its because London is the prime focus of everything. Further up north there is a great deal more east west connectivity but that stops south of Peterborough, Leicester, Nuneaton and the west.
I remember reading about a civil servant who retired about 15 years ago. At his farewell party he was asked what he thought the greatest achievement of his career had been. He answered that he had delayed Crossrail for 25 years.
@@BoogiesTrains What hypercrite and whoever in charge of East West Rail causing more delayed, i probably be dead by the time this line gets up and running from Bedford to Cambridge.
@@strummer6642 It ok for those who have cars, but what about people who do not have a car, Where i live in North Hertfordshire, reaching Bedford is a nightmare, i have to catch a train to Hatfield, then a bus over to St Albans Rail station then a train to Bedford,
The EWR plan needs to be reviewed since this video went up Univeral Studios have bought land in Kempston Hardwick for a new Universal Studios Great Britain Park. This means that there is potential for Stansted to be a requirement for those international guests that want to attend (Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton are more suitable airports which are already well connected). The Marston Vale services along with EWR trains will be insufficient for those services in its current state. Wixams station would likely be a better suitor to the park but it is slightly further away. Depends on what Universal plans are on the connectivity to the park which they will be funding themselves. Regardless of all that, the potential for EWR to be the main carrier of tourists is there. You could argue Heathrow connectivity to EWR is also a major consideration going forward. As for the plans that are here and now, I'm not in agreement with the snakey mid section. Compared to the victorian alignments that pre exist its very curvy giving a distance of 1.5x times its actual distance I don't see how this is fast, efficient or economical. As a Bedfordian I feel the plans north of Bedford are ridiculous. With Universal in the mix, I feel my original thoughts on a Tamworth style upper/lower tier station would be more suited are even more justified at Wixams which will be the main attraction of Bedford. If Kempston hardwick is the nearest station it will be required to be upgraded no end with full electrification on the Marston Vale. After all, if you have a theme park attracting the world you don't want to be advertising diesel traction.
@@scottpeacock5492 Depends if your in the camp that likes the final verdict or not. Personally I am not liking it much, it does the job but thats it. As a Bedfordian myself, the final route verdict has many shortcomings and the only consideration around it is the building of homes that will align the route. The justifications for taking that route state the other routes have less value. The best route is the quickest, shortest with the least interuption to those around it, whilst making it the best railway it can be. I agree on money though, but if money has to be spent at least spend it wisely and in a manner that the locals will appreciate the most.
@@atomiswave1971 The money is being spent wisely, it only £8 Billion to build a rail link from Bedford to Cambridge not quite as much as what the Government spending on HS2 since the nimby brigade demanded a tunnel under the Chiltern Hill, When it could be built on land, but the reason the Route E was choosen by East West Rail as the prefer route was so Rail companies whoever will run the line could run service all the way to Norwich, Imagine if they choosen the Northern route trains would have to terminate at the new Cambridge South then reverse to Norwich or Passengers would have to change trains at Cambridge main station to continue there journey onto Norwich, i believe Cross Country will take on this route.
@@scottpeacock5492 I see benefits approaching fromnorth and south of Cambridge. But when I found out Stansted was not going to support more than 1 platform (I think this is negative as the trains that go in and out of there can take turns) it does leave just the southern approach to go north east as a viable option. As usual we get the least benefits at the highest cost. My main issue with EWR is Wixams. I would prefer it to be a double tier MML/EWR station near the car auction place, you could even move the car auction somewhere else and have a car park ready made for 1000's of cars. Just because I Believe the station there would serve customers better than at Bedford which has limited space. And although folk say Bedford will get a refurb they make it sound like its going to be a space station on top of the platforms like Birmingham New Street. That ain't happening. By making Wixams a much bigger station there is provision for freight loops/middle roads so that tracks are not congested in and around Bedford as they are now. But they are ignoring that completely which will mean stopping trains north and south of Bedford. You could do it at Bedford if the station is pushed right out to Ashburnham road but again your starting with limited space its running out fast. Universal has somewhat helped with my visualization of what I want from the railway. The governments main issue is that it doesn't move passengers from cars to trains, it seems to do the opposite with high prices. As for all the bridges and road closures coming up, thats an issue as well. All so good old Bedford can have its EWR through the main station.
@@atomiswave1971 What would be the point of running trains from all the way from Bedford to Stansted Airport. When you already have trains running directly to London Gatwick Airport, if it for work how many passengers would actually use it. if you that desprate to get to Stansted Airport, you can always change train at the new Cambridge South being built right now, As Greater Anglia trains run there. As for pushing Bedford main station to Ashburnham road how much that going to cost on top of the £8 billion already on offer, only solution to stop the houses being knock down for the line is either do de tour round the housing estate or run a tunnels under it, job done.
I do think that the Bedford-Cambridge section should still be given the go ahead and to go between Sandy/Tempsford with a new railway bridge to cross over the ECML, A1 and the River Great Ouse.
I'm on the understanding that the original St Johns station and part of the route east, at least in Bedford, was mothballed for future re-opening. So, use St Johns for east west services with the line heading east past the bus garage and country park where it could head towards St Neots. The current halt at St Johns could be upgraded so some services to/from the Midland to gain destinations like Oxford and beyond without going through Birmingham or London. Equally, if the original Midland Road station was kept, or the current one built using the original as a template, it would have the potential of terminating services in the bay platforms either end of the station from the north south, east and west. In a nutshell, Midland Station for North/South services, St Johns ( first site ) for East/West services. Should some local stations between Bedford and Leicester reopen services, including via Corby means the three stations in Bedford could cope rather than focusing on one main station. Hope this makes sense 🙂
The old St Johns will never be reopened. East of Bedford was closed because the car was faster in 1967 and nobody used it. The line is proposed to be 100mph speed you can't honestly tell me you want 100mph trains going past Cardington road, through the priory marina etc. It would require all manner of bridges and crossings. The cheapest and most effective way to get to Cambridge is via the older Hitchin route. Most of that line is still unused by anything else. New homes went up on Elstow road blocking its path out of Bedford but once outside of bedford its just flat fields. Once you get to Hitchin you already have a fully electrified railway via Roxton to Cambridge. So half of the journey is already in service. It would be approximately half the distance of the proposed route via Cambourne. They want to go via Camborne because there is potential to build homes along the line, as currently there are no homes in the proposed area. Thats the unquoted selling point of EWR, homes that can be built with a price tag which includes subsidy for the railway.
@@richardstringer6162 Hoiya. Some very good and valid points made. Regarding the speed of trains running east of St Johns, most if not all trains would call at St Johns. Cardington Road could revert back to being a bridge as it was. To be honest, I used to live at Priory Marina where a 100mph would be an issue. With the route using the olde Midland route towards Hitchin means finding a route out of Bedford for reasons that you have made. There is still a clear route going through St Johns heading in the right direction. Thinking out loud here, a route via Cambourne could head north. Now, if the guided busway went back to being a railway then the line from Cambourne could tap into that. Blessed be Hagar
@@fenpikey The powers that be have chosen to use Bedford Midland station as the main hub for Bedford. I'd rather the railway miss Bedford completely than the current plans.
@@richardstringer6162 The other problem by using Midland Road Station as a hub is that it could prove a bottleneck for improving services from aforementioned staion heading north..
@@fenpikey Its a bottleneck throughout. Parking, access, platform space, terminating trains and possibly now a major hub for Universal studios park if it opens.
I don't think local opposition would be strong enough to stop the line, the biggest risk is ensuring it actually receives funding. A lot can happen between now and 2026
With the present 'government' all but ready to mothball HS2 (a network having been whittled down to the weakest of links), the idea that they would not mothball this as well is quite possible - all in name of vote-winning and 'fiscal responsibility', I too can see it as a scheme in stasis and a basis for the Ministry of Roads to incorporate it into a motorway...both schemes. This is 1960 isn't it?
With an estimated 95 minute journey time between Oxford and Cambridge, that's going to make it harder for trains to hit a 30 minute service pattern (without trains sitting around for 25 minutes). If the service patter is one train per fifteen minutes, that wouldn't be so bad, as the trains would only be sitting around for 10 minutes. However, it would have been better all round, if the government had provided the investment for the line to be electrified. Electrified trains have better acceleration and braking and that would reduce the time needed to stop and start the train at each station. The overall journey time would be reduced and less journey time means that the train can be making the return journey faster and carry more passengers per day.
Why do EWR think that it should go through the centre of Bedford when every other town/city on the route have 'parkway' stations keeping traffic congestion and pollution out of the town centres?
It's always best where possible to try and provide connectivity with existing stations that already have regional and local rail links and usually established bus connections.
Parkways are usually a 2nd station for the town or city, not a replacement for the central one. Maybe a 2nd Bedford station near the A1 would be beneficial, providing a park & ride into Bedford. It may even help to promote re-generation of the town? The existing section from Bletchley to Bedford is already there & provides an interchange to the London-Sheffield line.
@@Rail_Focus Disagree, Bedford is the one station that should have been avoided like it was in the victorian era. There is nothing of note in Bedford except bookies, charity shops and a few services. People act like folk don't have cars, other folk act like Bedford needs to be a ULEZ zone. None of which work with Bedford midland, as it will mean heaps more cars through the town centre. Loads. I have asked EWR about the problems it will incur. Such as Jowitt sidings which currently hold 12 car thameslink trains being used for EWR through services, where will the 12 car trains go? They don't know yet. They don't know where the car park capacity which will be eaten by 2 more platforms will go either. They don't know how to handle the traffic burden taking out 3 bridges will cause, 2 of which were taken out for the OHLE Midland mainline project which will need to be taken out again. No joined up thinking, 100% chaos guaranteed and other options which give more potential. There is no east north curve ANYWHERE on the line at all. There is no freight loops on the line ANYWHERE at all. Bedford station uses most of its platforms for terminating trains from the south and its boxed in. Its the most unsuitable location for upgrading that I've ever seen. I wanted a Wixams station with upper tier/lower tier platforms with East west north south connectivity with a triangulation junction near Kempston hardwick giving much more flexibility, no homes destroyed with the only inconvenience being a taxi/bus ride for 15 mins into town. Half of which are Kempston folk who live inbetween Bedford and Wixams. You could build a super huge site for a station at Wixams. On top of that Universal Studios have bought some land in Kempston Hardwick, meaning if the park ever opens most traffic through Bedford will go closer to Wixams than they ever will Bedford itself. They say Wixams route cannot be done because of flooding concerns, yet in the past the Cambridge railway and Hitchin railways went in that general direction. The Hitchin route is mostly still there untapped (on raised land) and half the distance with an already made flyover, fully electrified ready to go you just need to reconnect the 18miles distance between Bedford and Hitchin on which some of the alignment is still there. EWR is a plan with no thought into the consequences. If they had thought of the consequences they would have been able to answer my questions. All they said was "every effort will be made blah blah blah".
I don't know about you, but if I take a train to somewhere, I want to actually get to that place, not some carpark 5 miles away from where I have to take an expensive taxi to actually reach where I'm going.
Thanks for all the really useful detail in one place. The next government will very likely be labor, and the treasury could well cancel the project on cost grounds. If not, all the locals who have been voting torey at national and local level are making route e more not less likely because it's rishy's pet project.
It does seem as if the route beyond Bletchley could be in doubt. It's somewhat ironic to me that, after years of people saying they oppose HS2 because it doesn't serve them, have now turned their gaze to EWR, despite its potential to dramatically improve connectivity between Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
They could do worse than actually implement the spur to connect it to Aylesbury. The amount of traffic between Aylesbury, Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes is at ridiculous levels now, and the rail link would take a great deal of pressure off the local roads.
@@Rail_Focus From what I gather,,,Buckinghamshire Council have been told if they want the link, they have to build it themselves by the cheapest means possible.Even though the infrastructure is there, it probably wouldn't even be double tracked,
It seems crazy. Tracks will be built to the incinerator. So it only requires about 1km of track and a junction onto EWR. Admittedly that'll likely be tens of millions, but in the grand scheme of things it's not expensive. The difficult part would be finding trains and drivers to operate the service.
@@Rail_Focus This is quite true. I fear that the established (and very busy!) services between Aylesbury and Marylebone via Amersham will be affected by the East-West line if Chiltern don't get some much needed funding for rolling stock.
Usual Government dragging its heels. EWR are required to apply for the DCO though, it's not something that can bypassed. I just hope the NAO investigation doesn't give the Government cause to cancel it all together
They're working on the exact route now so you can have your say. Parkway station at Renold/Great Barford would help with traffic congestion and maximise use
I think the line needs to be carried on to Ipswich,,, if money is tight ,,then just slowthe process down ,,but get it done,, In my opinon , HS2 ,the money could have been used in alot better ways ,, this east west rail link could have been compleated in a more timely fashion ,,,and a Hull tp Liverpool link all for the price of HS2 (and then some)I could be wrong,,but suspect not...
No, despite what Sunak said about "diverting funds" that's not how investment works. The benefits and merits for each project have to be identified in isolation own and money borrowed for projects if the DfT and ultimately Treasury decides it's worth investing in. If the DfT thought EWR and NPR were a priority it would've progressed those projects more quickly.
I don’t get the need to widen & add an additional 2 tracks north of Bedford. EMR uses the fast lanes & freight & occasional EMR services use the slow lines so surely no where near capacity
Widening wouldn't be part of the plan if they didn't think it was essential. The problem with having a mixture of fast and stopping services is that it eats into capacity. There are non-stop services, regional Connect services and Thameslink services which have high platform occupancy rates and freight. So separating the EWR services is a wise decision.
Because why not? Why does there always seem to be this feet dragging around spending money on railways? If it was a road, it'd be no expense spared, and then some. What makes railways so different?
@@mattevans4377 Because they are accounted differently. Railways are always judged by their profit, but how many sections of road do we pay tolls for & how much does it cost to keep roads maintained & upgraded? Nobody ever talks about how much roads cost or considers them on a profit & loss basis. I am not arguing that it is good. It just seems to be how things are.
In my opinion the justification for the Bedford to Cambridge route is rather questionable. The northern approach would allow the new Northstowe development to have a train service. By their own admission it would also be cheaper to have a northern approach. The excuse of servicing the biomedical campus at Cambridge South conveniently overlooks the fact that if needed people could simply change trains for Cambridge South. It's also slightly questionable why at Tempsford EWR trains don't join the East Coast mainline, to go through St Neots station, before then departing off towards Cambridge. Instead they're opting for new track, which includes building a viaduct for the line by the St Neots bypass. I'd suggest the East Coast mainline has spare capacity on this stretch, as there's only 2 slow trains per hour each way (and 1 semi-fast during rush hour). By contrast from Hitchin to London it copes with additional slow trains from Cambridge, plus the Great Northern service from Welwyn Garden City. St Neots station also already had four platforms to service both sets of slow and fast line.
I absolutely agree, but I have to wonder if a station in/near the Wintringham development would be feasible in future? St Neots is a not-insignificantly-sized town and in my opinion it'd be silly to not have a direct link to EWR.
One other reason for arriving from the south is the final phase of the project it that the trains run on to Norwich and possibly Ipswich from Cambridge, so the planned routing enables this to happen without reversal at Cambridge. Also there is space for 4 lines into Cambridge from the south, but not from the north.
Perhaps if they built it in the Victorian era, but I'd like to see them contented with all the infrastructure that has been built since then. Slapping down level crossings or single lane stone arch bridges simply won't cut it anymore.
Utterly nuts route. Should put it back on the original track bed which is still mostly there. People would've vaguely expected that because it's sane, and it goes where people live. Instead we get a railway dumped on people in the countryside who would have had more expectation of aliens landing in their back garden than a railway. I mean because who expects anyone to build a railway that doesn't go in straightish line between points a and b, and instead appears wander around trying to hit every gradient, and that'll end up being slower than taking flipping the bus.
@@Rail_Focus working around the county park/cycle track is not hard, the guided busway only exists as a workaround to the destruction of railway, the radio telescope is a bunch of poles and wires in a field (to over simplifiy), it's not Jodrell Bank/Aracebo it would be relatively cheap to move it into another field somewhere else in the country, car park, really are we worried about a car park? Which leaves people who bought property on railway track that many people around here knew was shut as a mistake (even Beeching was against it) - why are they more precious than the others who are now getting their property destroyed or getting the rando railway route dumped in their back garden?
@@jonhume6051 Go and look around the outskirts of London like the M1 M11 and M25, Loads of families properties and busineses were demolished and destroyed to build the motorway network which started in the 1960's which continue well into 80's and they think the nimbys outside of Cambridge and Bedford are the only ones affected.
Original route was the most sensible but much of it is built over so there would be significant compensation costs. Route E will free up development from Bedford to Black Cat, Great Barford will become part of greater Bedford. All in 50 years but part of a wider unannounced Conservative government plan to provide strategic housing. You have been warned, now vote tory lol!
Utterley pathetic timescale. If this project is considered to be in the national interest by Parliament, then there should be no messing with consultations or appeals. Just do it!
Thanks for sharing but there’s an error. Using the Varsity line wasn’t discounted because of the country park near Bedford. That park only gained recognition after the controversial route E selection was announced and the protests started. Investigate who supported route E in 2019 and was involved in granting the country park status in 2021 …
With regards to the country park I just based my wording of the Route Update document which lists what is now a country park as a reason why they chose not to progress the Bedford south route.
@@Rail_Focus I thought these were the main reasons: 1. No interchange with Midland Main Line at Bedford. 2. Alignment blocked by Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory. Another point: EWR intends to close Bedford St Johns - platforms cannot be extended - and build a new station further south. This information was included in a recent EWR video.
Change in the status of the country park is irrelevant, it's been there for 50 years as a country park and was a reason for no re using the varsity line.
If you would like to consider supporting the channel click: www.patreon.com/Chris_Rail_Focus or become a Member here on TH-cam
As someone that lives near Bedford and works in Cambridge this is going to be amazing.
It does sound good. On detail, however the biggest issues to Sth Cambs residents include:
1. Tens of thousands of residents between Cambourne and Sth Cambs will NOT be able to use the route as no stations are planned. That’s across Bourne, Toft, Highfield Caldecote, Comberton, the Eversdens, Harlton, Haslingfield, Chapel Hill, Barrington, Harston, Hauxton, Newton, the Shelfords, to name a few!
2. The proposed route E design includes miles and miles of embankments that are 75meters wide by 11m high , that is wider and higher than the Great Wall of China! In some instances, coming within single digit distances from people’s homes.
3. Food producing land is being severed and taken up by the preferred Route E.
4. Diesel locomotives will be used to run instead of being electrified from the outset.
5. With a cost of £8billion in current costs, and with an estimated 2000 passengers commuting per day, it is a disproportionate spend relative to the benefit it claims. Especially when EWR has published that Route E is much more expensive than alternatives
@@phillipphan1394
1. It's planned to be an intercity line that will run at 125mph, not a regional stopping service. If it stopped at every town and villages en route, then it'd slow down journey times for those living in the more populous and productive large towns and cities the route is designed to serve. Just because a piece of infrastructure doesn't personally benefit you, it doesn't mean it's a flawed project.
2.11m is approximately 1.5-2 houses tall. So the embankment won't be that high at all.
3. It's a two track railway, the area of farmland it'll impact will be negligible.
4. Diesel trains are better than no trains at all, and the line will still likely be electrified eventually.
5. The Ox-Cam arc is one of the most productive economic corridors in Britain, so the business case sounds pretty good to me.
@@thedemographicschannel611 1) Ah yes, it's a 125mph intercity route - that's why it doesn't cost in. Just because a piece of infrastructure benefits you (who doesn't have to live with it) doesn't mean it's a good idea.
2) The embankment will be 1.5 - 2 houses tall in one of the flattest parts of England, and you think that's OK? I guess it will be if you don't live within a few km of it. It's not just about the sight of wall that divides the landscape - it's the noise that will carry for miles. But again, shouldn't worry you if not close to it, so no problem.
3) I think you need to do your sums mate - add in the embankment at the height of 1.5 - 2 houses, and the maximum gradient on either side of the tracks , you'll find the land it consumes is enormous. And in the most fertile land in the country, a country which is rapidly running out of agricultural capital. But don't let the facts get in the way of a good prejudice.
4) "Diesel trains are better than no trains at all" - yes, that's a genius argument - clinched it. But wait - tell that to the people who live nearby breathing diesel exhaust fumes - I think you'll find they think no trains are better. Oh, I don't suppose net zero means anything to you, because, after all, that's long in the future when oldies won't have to worry about the planet burning up.
Thanks for superimposing the A428 works on top of the proposed route.
The A428 map was just from the National Highways website, I hadn't altered it 🙃
I mentioned it on the last video but as a St Neots resident I'm glad to see this progressing, though while I'm not an engineer or planner by any stretch it still feels a little disappointing to see the line avoid the town completely. I get that having junctions south and north of the town and running services on the ECML through St Neots station may have posed capacity problems but it would've been much more convenient for journeys between St Neots and Cambridge - the main road is regularly congested but having to change at Tempsford just won't be convenient for a lot of people.
My only guess would be to serve St Neots the ECML would have to be widened, which may mean more property loss. But agree it is a bit inconvenient for St Neots residents.
@@Rail_Focus true, I hadn't known about the MML widening until you mentioned it. I was going off the current 2tph usage of the Slow lines between Peterborough and Hitchin (freight notwithstanding of course) and had assumed there'd be additional capacity if the junctions could be built.
At least in St Neots there's the 905 bus which isn't awful, but it could do with not being screwed around with (the route it took the last couple of years into Cambridge was bizarre to say the least, thankfully it's been restored to its pre-pandemic state now). So from that perspective the case for making the EWR pass through St Neots station is less strong. On the flipside, changing at Tempsford (assuming they actually put the effort in to make the trains line up well enough) is still an improvement on the current situation of changing at Hitchin...
@@frislander4299 I agree that the 905 is a decent link, but it follows the same congested road out towards Cambridge so it's not uncommon to be stuck in traffic anyway. It's ironic that we used to have the X5 bus which followed more or less the same route as EWR (Oxford-Bicester-MK-Bedford-Cambridge) until it was cut back to Bedford and the 905 introduced.
As for connections, Thameslink will obviously have to fiddle with timings somewhat to accommodate the extra stop, but I don't know how common it is for different operators to coordinate connection times (assuming GBR or otherwise is still in limbo by that time...)
Tempsford should be an ECML station as well. Its not mandated but it will be eventually. It makes no sense in its current form the EWR line gets even closer to St Neots before drifting away without a halt/station.
Me: why on earth does it take that route?
Internet: the initial proposed route that closely followed the Varsity line was heavily lobbied against by the RSPB.
Me: Ah
Joys of trying to plan anything in the UK.
Thank you for such detailed information which has greatly improved my ignorance on this topic.
Wish they would hurry up and finish it so i can visit my family in the west without having to change trains in London. It would also be useful for getting to elstree if i ever find work in a studio
Won't be long now
‘Beeching’ … a name to all succeeding ages cursed.
I don't believe the Varsity line closure was a result of Beeching to be fair.
@@Rail_Focus I stand corrected although I thought that the closure of the eastern part of the line was a piece of Beeching vandalism. I look forward to more videos please.
I thought it was a Beaching Closure, but apparently the report recommended it remain open, only for the government to reverse the decision later on.
The old varisty line was safeguarded by planners for many years. Just as the will to live was lost EWR came along but the old line had been built over at key locations.
Barbara Castle was Transport Minister in 1968, She was the cause of the old original varsity line between Cambridge and Bedford to be close under the Labour Government.
Thanks for sharing but there’s an error. Using the Varsity line wasn’t discounted because of the country park near Bedford. That park only gained recognition after the controversial route E selection was announced and the protests started. Investigate who supported route E in 2019 and was involved in granting the country park status in 2021 …
I moved to the UK a few years ago and always wondered why the hell i had to travel from oxford to London in order to get to Cambridge by train. This seems like a good idea in theory.
It existed until 1967. Bletchley park was chosen in world war 2 to decode the nazi enigma machines as it sat roughly half way between Cambridge and Oxford on the line. But the car took precedence in the 1960's and train travel wasn't popular anymore hence the line closed. The only section which doesn't exist today is the Bedford to Cambridge section. Oxford to Bletchley existed in a dire state, the rest remained in service. The UK has poor connectivity going east to west except where its in alignment with London. This goes for roads and rail and its because London is the prime focus of everything. Further up north there is a great deal more east west connectivity but that stops south of Peterborough, Leicester, Nuneaton and the west.
Nice video, shame it would take a long process to get the line from Bedford to Cambridge built
Cheers Simon, it is frustrating how long it take to build things in this country.
I remember reading about a civil servant who retired about 15 years ago. At his farewell party he was asked what he thought the greatest achievement of his career had been. He answered that he had delayed Crossrail for 25 years.
@@BoogiesTrains What hypercrite and whoever in charge of East West Rail causing more delayed, i probably be dead by the time this line gets up and running from Bedford to Cambridge.
It only takes about 40 mins to drive from Cambridge to Bedford i thought. at least without traffic
I just used Google, which can provide estimates based on time of day
Oh well. Never mind all the other journey opportunities then!
Is that to central cambridge though? It can take me 30 minutes to get from the A1/A505 roundabout to the biomedical campus some days due to traffic
Correct at non peak times Cambridge is remarkably easy to reach.
@@strummer6642 It ok for those who have cars, but what about people who do not have a car, Where i live in North Hertfordshire, reaching Bedford is a nightmare, i have to catch a train to Hatfield, then a bus over to St Albans Rail station then a train to Bedford,
there should be a station from comberton a lot of people have to rely on buses which keep almost getting removed
The EWR plan needs to be reviewed since this video went up Univeral Studios have bought land in Kempston Hardwick for a new Universal Studios Great Britain Park. This means that there is potential for Stansted to be a requirement for those international guests that want to attend (Heathrow, Gatwick and Luton are more suitable airports which are already well connected). The Marston Vale services along with EWR trains will be insufficient for those services in its current state. Wixams station would likely be a better suitor to the park but it is slightly further away. Depends on what Universal plans are on the connectivity to the park which they will be funding themselves. Regardless of all that, the potential for EWR to be the main carrier of tourists is there. You could argue Heathrow connectivity to EWR is also a major consideration going forward. As for the plans that are here and now, I'm not in agreement with the snakey mid section. Compared to the victorian alignments that pre exist its very curvy giving a distance of 1.5x times its actual distance I don't see how this is fast, efficient or economical. As a Bedfordian I feel the plans north of Bedford are ridiculous. With Universal in the mix, I feel my original thoughts on a Tamworth style upper/lower tier station would be more suited are even more justified at Wixams which will be the main attraction of Bedford. If Kempston hardwick is the nearest station it will be required to be upgraded no end with full electrification on the Marston Vale. After all, if you have a theme park attracting the world you don't want to be advertising diesel traction.
Don't you think EWR it been review enough you just adding more to the cost of getting the line up and running.
@@scottpeacock5492 Depends if your in the camp that likes the final verdict or not. Personally I am not liking it much, it does the job but thats it. As a Bedfordian myself, the final route verdict has many shortcomings and the only consideration around it is the building of homes that will align the route. The justifications for taking that route state the other routes have less value. The best route is the quickest, shortest with the least interuption to those around it, whilst making it the best railway it can be. I agree on money though, but if money has to be spent at least spend it wisely and in a manner that the locals will appreciate the most.
@@atomiswave1971 The money is being spent wisely, it only £8 Billion to build a rail link from Bedford to Cambridge not quite as much as what the Government spending on HS2 since the nimby brigade demanded a tunnel under the Chiltern Hill, When it could be built on land, but the reason the Route E was choosen by East West Rail as the prefer route was so Rail companies whoever will run the line could run service all the way to Norwich, Imagine if they choosen the Northern route trains would have to terminate at the new Cambridge South then reverse to Norwich or Passengers would have to change trains at Cambridge main station to continue there journey onto Norwich, i believe Cross Country will take on this route.
@@scottpeacock5492 I see benefits approaching fromnorth and south of Cambridge. But when I found out Stansted was not going to support more than 1 platform (I think this is negative as the trains that go in and out of there can take turns) it does leave just the southern approach to go north east as a viable option. As usual we get the least benefits at the highest cost. My main issue with EWR is Wixams. I would prefer it to be a double tier MML/EWR station near the car auction place, you could even move the car auction somewhere else and have a car park ready made for 1000's of cars. Just because I Believe the station there would serve customers better than at Bedford which has limited space. And although folk say Bedford will get a refurb they make it sound like its going to be a space station on top of the platforms like Birmingham New Street. That ain't happening. By making Wixams a much bigger station there is provision for freight loops/middle roads so that tracks are not congested in and around Bedford as they are now. But they are ignoring that completely which will mean stopping trains north and south of Bedford. You could do it at Bedford if the station is pushed right out to Ashburnham road but again your starting with limited space its running out fast. Universal has somewhat helped with my visualization of what I want from the railway. The governments main issue is that it doesn't move passengers from cars to trains, it seems to do the opposite with high prices. As for all the bridges and road closures coming up, thats an issue as well. All so good old Bedford can have its EWR through the main station.
@@atomiswave1971 What would be the point of running trains from all the way from Bedford to Stansted Airport. When you already have trains running directly to London Gatwick Airport, if it for work how many passengers would actually use it. if you that desprate to get to Stansted Airport, you can always change train at the new Cambridge South being built right now, As Greater Anglia trains run there. As for pushing Bedford main station to Ashburnham road how much that going to cost on top of the £8 billion already on offer, only solution to stop the houses being knock down for the line is either do de tour round the housing estate or run a tunnels under it, job done.
I do think that the Bedford-Cambridge section should still be given the go ahead and to go between Sandy/Tempsford with a new railway bridge to cross over the ECML, A1 and the River Great Ouse.
I'm on the understanding that the original St Johns station and part of the route east, at least in Bedford, was mothballed for future re-opening. So, use St Johns for east west services with the line heading east past the bus garage and country park where it could head towards St Neots. The current halt at St Johns could be upgraded so some services to/from the Midland to gain destinations like Oxford and beyond without going through Birmingham or London.
Equally, if the original Midland Road station was kept, or the current one built using the original as a template, it would have the potential of terminating services in the bay platforms either end of the station from the north south, east and west. In a nutshell, Midland Station for North/South services, St Johns ( first site ) for East/West services. Should some local stations between Bedford and Leicester reopen services, including via Corby means the three stations in Bedford could cope rather than focusing on one main station.
Hope this makes sense 🙂
The old St Johns will never be reopened. East of Bedford was closed because the car was faster in 1967 and nobody used it. The line is proposed to be 100mph speed you can't honestly tell me you want 100mph trains going past Cardington road, through the priory marina etc. It would require all manner of bridges and crossings. The cheapest and most effective way to get to Cambridge is via the older Hitchin route. Most of that line is still unused by anything else. New homes went up on Elstow road blocking its path out of Bedford but once outside of bedford its just flat fields. Once you get to Hitchin you already have a fully electrified railway via Roxton to Cambridge. So half of the journey is already in service. It would be approximately half the distance of the proposed route via Cambourne. They want to go via Camborne because there is potential to build homes along the line, as currently there are no homes in the proposed area. Thats the unquoted selling point of EWR, homes that can be built with a price tag which includes subsidy for the railway.
@@richardstringer6162 Hoiya. Some very good and valid points made. Regarding the speed of trains running east of St Johns, most if not all trains would call at St Johns. Cardington Road could revert back to being a bridge as it was. To be honest, I used to live at Priory Marina where a 100mph would be an issue.
With the route using the olde Midland route towards Hitchin means finding a route out of Bedford for reasons that you have made. There is still a clear route going through St Johns heading in the right direction.
Thinking out loud here, a route via Cambourne could head north. Now, if the guided busway went back to being a railway then the line from Cambourne could tap into that.
Blessed be
Hagar
@@fenpikey The powers that be have chosen to use Bedford Midland station as the main hub for Bedford. I'd rather the railway miss Bedford completely than the current plans.
@@richardstringer6162 The other problem by using Midland Road Station as a hub is that it could prove a bottleneck for improving services from aforementioned staion heading north..
@@fenpikey Its a bottleneck throughout. Parking, access, platform space, terminating trains and possibly now a major hub for Universal studios park if it opens.
Will we ever see this line open during our lifetimes
There seems to be a lot of opposition from the NIMBYs unfortunately
I don't think local opposition would be strong enough to stop the line, the biggest risk is ensuring it actually receives funding. A lot can happen between now and 2026
With the present 'government' all but ready to mothball HS2 (a network having been whittled down to the weakest of links), the idea that they would not mothball this as well is quite possible - all in name of vote-winning and 'fiscal responsibility', I too can see it as a scheme in stasis and a basis for the Ministry of Roads to incorporate it into a motorway...both schemes. This is 1960 isn't it?
With an estimated 95 minute journey time between Oxford and Cambridge, that's going to make it harder for trains to hit a 30 minute service pattern (without trains sitting around for 25 minutes). If the service patter is one train per fifteen minutes, that wouldn't be so bad, as the trains would only be sitting around for 10 minutes. However, it would have been better all round, if the government had provided the investment for the line to be electrified. Electrified trains have better acceleration and braking and that would reduce the time needed to stop and start the train at each station. The overall journey time would be reduced and less journey time means that the train can be making the return journey faster and carry more passengers per day.
Why do EWR think that it should go through the centre of Bedford when every other town/city on the route have 'parkway' stations keeping traffic congestion and pollution out of the town centres?
It's always best where possible to try and provide connectivity with existing stations that already have regional and local rail links and usually established bus connections.
Parkways are usually a 2nd station for the town or city, not a replacement for the central one. Maybe a 2nd Bedford station near the A1 would be beneficial, providing a park & ride into Bedford. It may even help to promote re-generation of the town?
The existing section from Bletchley to Bedford is already there & provides an interchange to the London-Sheffield line.
@@Rail_Focus Disagree, Bedford is the one station that should have been avoided like it was in the victorian era. There is nothing of note in Bedford except bookies, charity shops and a few services. People act like folk don't have cars, other folk act like Bedford needs to be a ULEZ zone. None of which work with Bedford midland, as it will mean heaps more cars through the town centre. Loads. I have asked EWR about the problems it will incur. Such as Jowitt sidings which currently hold 12 car thameslink trains being used for EWR through services, where will the 12 car trains go? They don't know yet. They don't know where the car park capacity which will be eaten by 2 more platforms will go either. They don't know how to handle the traffic burden taking out 3 bridges will cause, 2 of which were taken out for the OHLE Midland mainline project which will need to be taken out again. No joined up thinking, 100% chaos guaranteed and other options which give more potential. There is no east north curve ANYWHERE on the line at all. There is no freight loops on the line ANYWHERE at all. Bedford station uses most of its platforms for terminating trains from the south and its boxed in. Its the most unsuitable location for upgrading that I've ever seen. I wanted a Wixams station with upper tier/lower tier platforms with East west north south connectivity with a triangulation junction near Kempston hardwick giving much more flexibility, no homes destroyed with the only inconvenience being a taxi/bus ride for 15 mins into town. Half of which are Kempston folk who live inbetween Bedford and Wixams. You could build a super huge site for a station at Wixams. On top of that Universal Studios have bought some land in Kempston Hardwick, meaning if the park ever opens most traffic through Bedford will go closer to Wixams than they ever will Bedford itself. They say Wixams route cannot be done because of flooding concerns, yet in the past the Cambridge railway and Hitchin railways went in that general direction. The Hitchin route is mostly still there untapped (on raised land) and half the distance with an already made flyover, fully electrified ready to go you just need to reconnect the 18miles distance between Bedford and Hitchin on which some of the alignment is still there. EWR is a plan with no thought into the consequences. If they had thought of the consequences they would have been able to answer my questions. All they said was "every effort will be made blah blah blah".
Nice for Bedford but difficult to get to at peak hours
I don't know about you, but if I take a train to somewhere, I want to actually get to that place, not some carpark 5 miles away from where I have to take an expensive taxi to actually reach where I'm going.
Thanks for all the really useful detail in one place. The next government will very likely be labor, and the treasury could well cancel the project on cost grounds. If not, all the locals who have been voting torey at national and local level are making route e more not less likely because it's rishy's pet project.
It does seem as if the route beyond Bletchley could be in doubt. It's somewhat ironic to me that, after years of people saying they oppose HS2 because it doesn't serve them, have now turned their gaze to EWR, despite its potential to dramatically improve connectivity between Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Bedfordshire and Cambridgeshire.
They could do worse than actually implement the spur to connect it to Aylesbury.
The amount of traffic between Aylesbury, Oxford, Bicester and Milton Keynes is at ridiculous levels now, and the rail link would take a great deal of pressure off the local roads.
Absolutely. Considering HS2 are doing a lot of work to enable the link it wouldn't cost NR to build the last bit of track needed.
@@Rail_Focus From what I gather,,,Buckinghamshire Council have been told if they want the link, they have to build it themselves by the cheapest means possible.Even though the infrastructure is there, it probably wouldn't even be double tracked,
It seems crazy. Tracks will be built to the incinerator. So it only requires about 1km of track and a junction onto EWR. Admittedly that'll likely be tens of millions, but in the grand scheme of things it's not expensive. The difficult part would be finding trains and drivers to operate the service.
@@Rail_Focus Definitely. Chiltern 100% need new trains. Jam-packed 2-car trains on the busy Aylesbury-Marylebone route is a joke!
@@Rail_Focus This is quite true. I fear that the established (and very busy!) services between Aylesbury and Marylebone via Amersham will be affected by the East-West line if Chiltern don't get some much needed funding for rolling stock.
EWR has been a thing now for at least ten years - it feels as if the DfT is dragging its heels over the planning stages.
Usual Government dragging its heels. EWR are required to apply for the DCO though, it's not something that can bypassed. I just hope the NAO investigation doesn't give the Government cause to cancel it all together
Looking realistic after the GE, new govt committed to national infrastructure schemes and boosting the economy
Only in this country could we design a train line that closer resembles a meandering river than a train line
It is what is needed to maximise the benefits.
They're working on the exact route now so you can have your say. Parkway station at Renold/Great Barford would help with traffic congestion and maximise use
I think the line needs to be carried on to Ipswich,,, if money is tight ,,then just slowthe process down ,,but get it done,, In my opinon , HS2 ,the money could have been used in alot better ways ,, this east west rail link could have been compleated in a more timely fashion ,,,and a Hull tp Liverpool link all for the price of HS2 (and then some)I could be wrong,,but suspect not...
No, despite what Sunak said about "diverting funds" that's not how investment works. The benefits and merits for each project have to be identified in isolation own and money borrowed for projects if the DfT and ultimately Treasury decides it's worth investing in. If the DfT thought EWR and NPR were a priority it would've progressed those projects more quickly.
I don’t get the need to widen & add an additional 2 tracks north of Bedford. EMR uses the fast lanes & freight & occasional EMR services use the slow lines so surely no where near capacity
Widening wouldn't be part of the plan if they didn't think it was essential. The problem with having a mixture of fast and stopping services is that it eats into capacity. There are non-stop services, regional Connect services and Thameslink services which have high platform occupancy rates and freight. So separating the EWR services is a wise decision.
Because why not? Why does there always seem to be this feet dragging around spending money on railways? If it was a road, it'd be no expense spared, and then some. What makes railways so different?
@@mattevans4377 Because they are accounted differently. Railways are always judged by their profit, but how many sections of road do we pay tolls for & how much does it cost to keep roads maintained & upgraded? Nobody ever talks about how much roads cost or considers them on a profit & loss basis.
I am not arguing that it is good. It just seems to be how things are.
In my opinion the justification for the Bedford to Cambridge route is rather questionable. The northern approach would allow the new Northstowe development to have a train service. By their own admission it would also be cheaper to have a northern approach. The excuse of servicing the biomedical campus at Cambridge South conveniently overlooks the fact that if needed people could simply change trains for Cambridge South.
It's also slightly questionable why at Tempsford EWR trains don't join the East Coast mainline, to go through St Neots station, before then departing off towards Cambridge. Instead they're opting for new track, which includes building a viaduct for the line by the St Neots bypass. I'd suggest the East Coast mainline has spare capacity on this stretch, as there's only 2 slow trains per hour each way (and 1 semi-fast during rush hour). By contrast from Hitchin to London it copes with additional slow trains from Cambridge, plus the Great Northern service from Welwyn Garden City. St Neots station also already had four platforms to service both sets of slow and fast line.
Like I said it seems to be a compromise, rather than optimal solution
I absolutely agree, but I have to wonder if a station in/near the Wintringham development would be feasible in future? St Neots is a not-insignificantly-sized town and in my opinion it'd be silly to not have a direct link to EWR.
One other reason for arriving from the south is the final phase of the project it that the trains run on to Norwich and possibly Ipswich from Cambridge, so the planned routing enables this to happen without reversal at Cambridge. Also there is space for 4 lines into Cambridge from the south, but not from the north.
Just get on with it as it is obvious it is required.
I bet the new section from Bedford - Sandy - Cambridge will never be built !
Wishful thinking I'm afraid, remember it was approved by Borris!
@@strummer6642 Bullshit it was !
@@Sam_Green____4114 Yea plenty of BS involved. Has the penny dropped, Route E was a tory scheme that came out of the blue (literally).
@@Sam_Green____4114 No BS, a conservative government which took back control after 2016 and gave you this gift
@@strummer6642 Didn't give me nowt mate ! I don't live in the UK ! Gave it to you more like !
The Victorians would have had this done in a couple of years easily with picks, shovels and squeeky wheelbarrows.
Perhaps if they built it in the Victorian era, but I'd like to see them contented with all the infrastructure that has been built since then. Slapping down level crossings or single lane stone arch bridges simply won't cut it anymore.
Utterly nuts route. Should put it back on the original track bed which is still mostly there. People would've vaguely expected that because it's sane, and it goes where people live. Instead we get a railway dumped on people in the countryside who would have had more expectation of aliens landing in their back garden than a railway. I mean because who expects anyone to build a railway that doesn't go in straightish line between points a and b, and instead appears wander around trying to hit every gradient, and that'll end up being slower than taking flipping the bus.
Mostly there apart from a country park, housing, houses, car park, guided busway oh and radio-telescope array 😁😉
@@Rail_Focus working around the county park/cycle track is not hard, the guided busway only exists as a workaround to the destruction of railway, the radio telescope is a bunch of poles and wires in a field (to over simplifiy), it's not Jodrell Bank/Aracebo it would be relatively cheap to move it into another field somewhere else in the country, car park, really are we worried about a car park? Which leaves people who bought property on railway track that many people around here knew was shut as a mistake (even Beeching was against it) - why are they more precious than the others who are now getting their property destroyed or getting the rando railway route dumped in their back garden?
Look at Sandy on Google Maps. Lots of housing would have to be demolished to put the old route back.
@@jonhume6051 Go and look around the outskirts of London like the M1 M11 and M25, Loads of families properties and busineses were demolished and destroyed to build the motorway network which started in the 1960's which continue well into 80's and they think the nimbys outside of Cambridge and Bedford are the only ones affected.
Original route was the most sensible but much of it is built over so there would be significant compensation costs. Route E will free up development from Bedford to Black Cat, Great Barford will become part of greater Bedford. All in 50 years but part of a wider unannounced Conservative government plan to provide strategic housing. You have been warned, now vote tory lol!
Utterley pathetic timescale. If this project is considered to be in the national interest by Parliament, then there should be no messing with consultations or appeals. Just do it!
It's how the democratic process works unfortunately.
potty idea
Building a new railway, bonkers! 🤷
Thanks for sharing but there’s an error. Using the Varsity line wasn’t discounted because of the country park near Bedford. That park only gained recognition after the controversial route E selection was announced and the protests started. Investigate who supported route E in 2019 and was involved in granting the country park status in 2021 …
With regards to the country park I just based my wording of the Route Update document which lists what is now a country park as a reason why they chose not to progress the Bedford south route.
@@Rail_Focus I thought these were the main reasons:
1. No interchange with Midland Main Line at Bedford.
2. Alignment blocked by Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory.
Another point: EWR intends to close Bedford St Johns - platforms cannot be extended - and build a new station further south. This information was included in a recent EWR video.
The country park was one of the reasons
Change in the status of the country park is irrelevant, it's been there for 50 years as a country park and was a reason for no re using the varsity line.
What do you want me to say, the loss of public amenity was stated as a factor 🤷