Making Meaningful Connections Consultation Technical Report
East West Rail Consultation: 31 March – 9 June 2021
This document contains the full Consultation Technical Report, without the Appendices. To access the Appendices, please visit www.eastwestrail.co.uk 01. Introduction 18 - 26 07. Project Section B: Bletchley and the Marston Vale Line 100 - 229 1.1. Chapter Summary 18 7.1. Chapter Summary 101 1.2. East West Rail 19 7.2. Introduction 104 1.3. The Project 19 7.3. Service Concepts 109 1.4. Consultation 23 7.4. Bletchley Station 141 1.5. Technical Report 26 7.5. Fenny Stratford Additional Track 144 02. The Case for East West Rail 27 - 31 7.6. Level Crossings on the Marston Vale Line 146 2.1. Chapter Summary 27 7.7. Marston Vale Line Infrastructure Upgrade 228 2.2. The overall case for East West Rail 28 08. Project Section C: Bedford 230 - 299 2.3. Benefits of railways over road improvements 31 8.1. Chapter Summary 230 03. Project Objectives 32 - 42 8.2. Introduction 234 3.1. Chapter Summary 32 8.3. Bedford St Johns 238 3.2. Introduction 33 8.4. Bedford Station 250 3.3. Safety 34 8.5. North Bedford 268 3.4. Environment 34 8.6. Conclusion 297 3.5. EWR Services 34 09. Project Section D: Clapham Green to The Eversdens 300 - 371 3.6. Connectivity 36 9.1. Chapter Summary 301 3.7. Customer Experience and Stations 37 9.2. Introduction 303 3.8. Powering EWR Services 38 9.3. Option Development 306 3.9. Freight on EWR 38 9.4. Options Considered – Station Locations 310 3.10. Depots and Stabling 38 9.5. Options Considered – Nine Alignment Options 314 3.11. Telecommunications 42 9.6. Comparison of Nine Route Alignment Options 328 04. Additional Works and Construction 43 - 52 9.7. Conclusions - Alignment Short-list for Consultation 360 4.1. Chapter Summary 43 9.8. Conclusions - Emerging Preferred Options 369 4.2. Additional Works 43 10. Project Section E: Harlton to Hauxton 372 - 407 4.3. Construction 45 10.1. Chapter Summary 372 05. Approach to Developing the Designs 53 - 67 10.2. Introduction 373 5.1. Chapter Summary 53 10.3. Option Development 377 5.2. Assessment Factors 54 10.4. Options Considered 379 5.3. Developing Designs in Project Sections A and B: 58 10.5. Conclusions (Project Section E) 404 Identifying the need for upgrade works (Oxford to 11. Project Section F: The Shelfords to Cambridge Station 408 - 423 Bedford) 11.1. Chapter Summary 408 5.4. Developing Designs in Project Sections C, D and E: 58 11.2. Introduction 416 New railway development from Bedford to Cambridge 11.3. Proposed work in the Cambridge area 411 06. Project Section A: Oxford to Bicester 68 - 99 11.4. Hauxton Junction to Shepreth Branch Junction 412 6.1. Chapter Summary 69 11.5. Hauxton Road Level Crossing 413 6.2. Oxford Area 70 11.6. New Shepreth Branch Junction 415 6.3. Oxford Parkway Station 80 11.7. Four Tracking from Shepreth Branch Junction to 417 6.4. Bicester Village Station 82 Addenbrooke’s Road Bridge 6.5. Level Crossing at London Road, Bicester 84
2 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 3 11.8. Four Tracking from Long Road Sixth Form College Area to 419 Cambridge Station and Cambridge Station Alterations 11.9. Cambridge Station 421 12. Next steps and ongoing work 424 - 426
4 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 5 Glossary Term Description C Cambourne North Station Option for a new station to the north of Cambourne Term Description
A A428 Improvement Scheme The scheme promoted by Highways England to upgrade the Cambourne South Station Option for a new station to the south of Cambourne A428 between Black Cat roundabout east of Bedford and Caxton Gibbet roundabout west of Cambourne Cambridgeshire A proposed transit system connecting Cambridge to Air Quality Directive European Directive 2008/50/EC on ambient air quality and Autonomous Metro Alconbury, St Neots, Mildenhall and Haverhill cleaner air for Europe Capital costs Cost incurred during delivery of a project in purchasing Air Quality Management An area designated by a local authority, where it believes buildings, land, construction works, and equipment Area the Government’s objectives for air quality will not be as opposed to the costs of operating, maintaining or achieved without additional interventions decommissioning the project
Alternative In this report, ‘alternative’ is used when referring to a Clearance Space available around a moving train possible solution that has been considered but has been discounted and is not expected to be taken forward Clock-face timetable A timetable arranged so that trains arrive or depart at the Assessment Factors The factors used to assess and compare different options same times in the hour, every hour (for instance at 10, 30 for the Project and 50 minutes past the hour)
Oxford-Cambridge Arc The area between Oxford and Cambridge, incorporating Code of Construction A public document which will provide contractors and (the Arc) the county areas of Oxfordshire, Buckinghamshire, Practice (COCP) suppliers with details of the measures, controls, and Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire and Cambridgeshire standards of work that they must follow
At-grade junction A railway junction where tracks cross at the same level. Also Conflicting movements A movement that requires a train to cross another route on known as a flat junction the railway, at the same level, or trains to travel in opposite directions on the same route, in order to continue a journey B Balancing pond A pond into which water drains, with the intention of ensuring that local watercourses are not overloaded during Congested Infrastructure An element of railway infrastructure for which demand for periods of heavy or prolonged rainfall infrastructure capacity cannot be fully satisfied during certain periods, even after coordination of different requests Ballast Stone or gravel used to form the bed of a railway track for capacity. Defined by The Railways (Access Management and Licensing of Railway Undertakings) Regulations 2016
Biodiversity net gain An approach to development that leaves biodiversity in a Connection stage Work will be divided into three connection stages which better state than before the development took place relate directly to a full journey and not just a piece of track: Connection Stage 1 (CS1): Oxford - Bletchley and Milton Blockade The closure of a rail route for an extended period (typically Keynes (services may be first opened to Bletchley in a two- more than two to three days) phased approach) Connection Stage 2 (CS2) : Oxford - Bedford Bridleway A route over which the public have rights to pass on foot, Connection Stage 3 (CS3): Oxford - Cambridge cycle and on horseback
Business case assessment An assessment to determine the justification for undertaking a project by considering benefits, costs and risks
6 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 7 Term Description Term Description
C Conservation Area An area of notable architectural or historic interest or E East West Rail Company Ltd Company set up by the Secretary of State for Transport to importance in relation to which change is managed by law (EWR Co) develop East West Rail
Core Section The section of the Project between Clapham Green and The Embankment An earthwork construction that allows railway lines to pass Eversdens, also referred to as Project Section D in this report at an acceptable level and gradient above the surrounding ground that is generally composed of soil and rock Critical path The longest sequence of activities in a plan or programme which must be completed on time in order to achieve F Fare revenue Income generated from passenger fares completion of a project on a due date
Crossovers A connection between two tracks where points/switches on Fill Earth and similar material that needs to be placed as part each track allow trains to pass from one track to the other of construction works (for example in new embankments)
Culvert A tunnel carrying a stream or open drain First-mile journey The first part of a journey between the starting point and a railway station, regardless of its actual length
Cut and cover Earth and similar material that needs to be excavated as Flat junction A railway junction where tracks cross at the same level. Also part of construction works (for example to form a cutting) known as an at-grade junction
Cut Earth and similar material that needs to be excavated as Floodplain An area of low-lying ground adjacent to a river, which is part of construction works (for example to form a cutting) subject to flooding
D Development Consent Order Order made by the relevant Secretary of State to Ftph Freight trains per hour (DCO) authorise the construction, operation and maintenance of a nationally significant infrastructure project (NSIP). In relation to East West Rail, this would be the Secretary of G Gauging analysis Analysis to determine the space available (clearance) State for Transport between a moving train and surrounding infrastructure and Department for Transport Government department responsible for the English between two trains on adjacent tracks (DfT) transport network and a limited number of transport Generalised journey time A representation of the total time or cost of travelling, taking matters in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that have account of time spent waiting for or interchanging between not been devolved trains E Earthworks General term for the excavation and placement of soil, rock and other material; or for existing cuttings and Greenhouse gas (GHG) A gas that contributes to the ‘greenhouse effect’ because it embankments absorbs infra-red radiation (for example, carbon dioxide)
East Coast Main Line (ECML) Railway line running from London King’s Cross to Edinburgh Grade-separated junction A railway junction where tracks cross at different levels through Sandy and St Neots
East Midlands Railway Train operator running services between London, the East Great Western Main Line The main railway route between London, Didcot, Bristol and (EMR) Midlands and Yorkshire (GWML) South Wales
East West Rail EWR A proposed new rail link, which would connect communities Govia Thameslink Railway Govia Thameslink Railway, a train operating company between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge (GTR)
8 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 9 Term Description Term Description
H Headway The distance, or time, between one train passing a given L Last-mile journey The last part of a journey, between a railway station and point and the following train passing the same point. the final destination, regardless of its actual length
High Level Station Where a station has platforms at different levels, the parts Level crossing A location at which vehicles and pedestrians may cross of the station at the higher level railway tracks at grade (at ground level). This definition includes accommodation crossings which provide access Highways England (HE) The Government body responsible for managing the to specific properties; and crossings which are operated by Strategic Road Network in England their users rather than automatically Level crossing Risk An assessment undertaken periodically by Network Rail at Her Majesty’s Treasury, a Government Department HMT Assessment level crossings to establish risks and measures required to mitigate those risks
Hotspots Areas where critical engineering or environmental Listed building A building placed on a statutory list, because of its constraints were identified or areas where there were architectural or historical interest, in relation to which multiple constraints in close proximity to the alignment change is managed by law being developed London & North Western Historic British railway company, the original owner and HS2 High Speed 2, the new railway line under construction Railway (LNWR) operator of the West Coast Main Line between London and the West Midlands, and beyond Loading gauge The maximum height and width for railway vehicles and I Impact Risk Zone (IRZ) A zone around a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) used their loads to ensure that they can pass safely through to make an initial assessment of the potential risks posed to tunnels and under bridges and keep clear of trackside that Site by development proposals buildings and structures
Indicative Alignment The indicative, concept alignment within each Route Option M m metres used for the comparison of Route Options A to E in the previous stage of design
Infrastructure Maintenance A depot at which staff and equipment involved in Maintenance Access Plan A plan identifying how the railway will be accessed by Depot maintaining rail infrastructure are based and from which vehicles and staff for maintenance purposes maintenance operations are coordinated Manually Controlled Barrier A barrier at a level crossing whose raising or lowering In-service hazards A potential source of harm arising from the operation of the (MCB) is controlled by a signalman, rather than occurring railway automatically
Interchange A station at which passengers may change between trains Marston Vale Line (MVL) The existing line and services operating between Bletchley serving different routes and destinations and Bedford
Ministry of Housing, UK government department responsible for housing, Island platform A platform between two railway tracks, where passengers Communities & Local community and local government matters in England may board trains on either track Government (MHCLG)
K Km Kilometres Midland Main Line (MML) The main railway route between London St Pancras, Nottingham and Sheffield Kph Kilometres per hour
10 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 11 Term Description Term Description
M Modal shift Change in travel behaviour that results in a journey being O Office of Rail and Road A non-ministerial Government department which is the made by a different, usually more sustainable, mode of (ORR) economic and safety regulator for Britain’s railways transport (for example, a car journey that is now made by cycle) Off-line alignment An alignment that does not follow an existing railway or Mph Miles per hour railway corridor, or in the case of a road, that is diverted from the existing alignment of the road
Overhead Line Equipment The wires, known as catenary, suspended above railway N National Infrastructure Executive agency responsible for providing the government (OLE) lines to provide electrical power to trains, and their Commission (NIC) with impartial, expert advice on major long-term supporting structures infrastructure challenges facing the UK On-line alignment An alignment that follows an existing railway or railway National Policy Statement Sets out the need for, and the Government’s policies to corridor or, in the case of a road, the existing alignment of for National Networks deliver, development of nationally significant infrastructure the road (NNNPS) projects (NSIPs) on the national road and rail networks in England, and is the primary basis against which the Operating costs Costs incurred in the day-to-day running of the railway Secretary of State for Transport will assess and determine DCO applications for new railways pursuant to section 104 Operational resilience The ability of the railway to respond to an adverse event of the 2008 Act (for example flooding or a failure of the infrastructure) while minimising the level of disruption to normal operations Nationally Significant A large-scale development (relating to energy, transport, Infrastructure Project (NSIP) water, or waste) of national significance that meets the Option In this report, ‘option’ is used to refer to a possible solution thresholds set in Part 3 of the Planning Act 2008 that has been considered and is being taken forward for further design and/or assessment Network Rail (NR) Network Rail Infrastructure Limited, the organisation which owns the majority of the railway infrastructure in England Oxford Worcester and The railway route between Oxford and Wolverhampton, Wolverhampton Railway via Worcester (OWWR) Net zero carbon The approach of balancing greenhouse gas emissions, offsets or carbon sequestration (for example tree planting P PA 2008 Planning Act 2008 or carbon capture schemes), to achieve a net zero state Passing loop A section of track used to allow one train to be passed by Non-fare revenue National Infrastructure Commission another train travelling behind it in the same direction
Non-fare revenue Income from sources other than passenger fares Performance allowances Extra time allowed within the timetable to provide a margin for late running Non-motorised users People travelling on foot, by cycle or on horseback; or by any other means which is not motorised Permitted Development Development that may be carried out by certain categories Rights of (for example) statutory undertaker (such as Network Rail) under deemed planning permission (“Permitted Development Rights”), for certain types of work. Permitted Development Rights also benefit other statutory undertakers
Plain line A section of track without points/switches and crossings
Points A junction between two railway lines, that can be set to guide a train to or from either of those lines. Can also be referred to as a switch
12 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 13 Term Description Term Description
P Possession A temporary closure, or partial closure, of the railway to R Route Corridor, Route Route Corridors are the broad areas within which the new allow construction or maintenance works to be carried out Option and Route Alignment railway might be located, identified as part of the initial ‘sift’ of possibilities in 2016. Preferred Route Option E The Route Option previously selected as the preferred area between Bedford and Cambridge in which to seek Within the preferred Route Corridor, several narrower Route alignments in this phase of developing the Project Options were identified and a Preferred Route Option was announced in 2020. Preliminary Environmental A report which provides information about the expected Information Report (PEIR) impacts of the Project on the environment based on The Project is now at the stage of selecting a Route information that EWR Co has available to it at the time of Alignment. the Statutory Consultation S Safety risk The risk of unsafe practices or situations occurring on the Programme-Wide Output A document containing detailed requirements for the railway that may lead to accidents Specification (PWOS) Project, agreed with the Department for Transport Scheme A project or a group of projects being promoted or Programme risk The risk of a delay to the programme for design, undertaken by a party or parties other than EWR Co with procurement, construction and operation for a project objectives which do not directly facilitate, but may be related to, East West Rail The Project The infrastructure, systems, rolling stock and organisational arrangements which need to be created or modified to Scheduled monument A historic building or site considered to be of national deliver East West Rail and its intended outcomes importance, placed on a list kept by the Government and requiring Government approvals for any works which might Project Section The infrastructure, systems, rolling stock and organisational affect the scheduled monument arrangements which need to be created or modified to Siphon A pipe or tube that allows water to flow beneath an deliver East West Rail and its intended outcomes obstruction then up and out the other side Public Rights of Way A way over which the public have a right to pass and repass (PRoWs) Shepreth Branch Royston The line that connects Cambridge to Hitchin via Shepreth (SBR) line R Reference Alignment The alignment option against which the performance of other alignment options is assessed Skew The angle at which a structure passes over or under a railway, road or river Regionally strategic utilities Equipment related to the supply of power, water and apparatus telecommunications which has more than local significance Source Protection Zone SPZs are defined around large and public potable – which may include pipelines, cables, overhead electricity (SPZ) groundwater abstraction sites. The purpose of SPZs is to transmission lines and substations provide additional protection to safeguard drinking water quality through constraining the proximity of an activity Rolling stock Any vehicle which can run on a railway track that may impact upon a drinking water abstraction
Site of Special Scientific The land notified as an SSSI under the Wildlife and Interest (SSSI) Countryside Act 1981, as amended. SSSI include the most important sites for wildlife and natural features in England, supporting many characteristic, rare and endangered species, habitats and natural features
14 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 15 Term Description Term Description
Stabling point A place where rolling stock can be stored when not in T Train path The planned timing and route of a train service
Statutory Consultation A stage of consultation which a promoter of a nationally Turn around allowance Time allowed within the timetable for trains to be prepared significant infrastructure project is required to undertake, after completing one service before commencing another under section 42 the Planning Act 2008 service
St Neots South Option A Option for a new station in the St Neots area. Both St Neots TWA 1992 Transport and Works Act 1992 Station station options would be located to the south of St Neots. This would be in addition to the existing St Neots station Transport and Works Act A Transport and Works Act Order made by the Secretary St Neots South Option B Option for a new station in the St Neots area. Both St Neots Order (TWAO) of State under the TWA 1992 alongside a deemed planning Station station options would be located to the south of St Neots. permission, allowing works to a railway or other transport This would be in addition to the existing St Neots station project to be undertaken Subcatchment divide Topographic ridge or ridges that separate distinct tributary U Utility company A company that owns equipment which carries and areas in a river catchment distributes water, electricity, gas or telecommunications. These commodities are collectively known as ‘utilities’ Switch A junction between two railway lines, that can be set to guide a train to or from either of those lines. Can also be W West Anglia Main Line The main railway route between London Liverpool Street referred to as points (WAML) and Cambridge
T Tempsford Option A Station Option for a new station in the Tempsford area. Both West Coast Main Line The main railway route between London Euston and Tempsford station options would be located to the north- (WCML) Glasgow east of Tempsford
Tempsford Option B Station Option for a new station in the Tempsford area. Both WLC Whole Life Costs Tempsford station options would be located to the north- east of Tempsford WTT Working Timetable Thameslink Train operator running services between the south coast of England, Bedford and Cambridge
Thameslink Core The part of the Thameslink route between London St Pancras and London Blackfriars station
The 2005 Act The Railways Act 2005
The 2020 Order The Network Rail (East West Rail) (Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order 2020 – a TWAO obtained by Network Rail authorising works to the railway to enable EWR services to run between Oxford and Milton Keynes
Tph Trains per hour
16 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 17
01. 1.2 East West Rail 1.2.1. EWR is a proposed new rail link, which would connect communities between Introduction Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. 1.2.2. By increasing connectivity across the Oxford-Cambridge Arc (the Arc) and boosting the local economy, the new railway line is part of the Government 1.1 Chapter summary Agenda to create a range of opportunities for people right across the area and help to spread prosperity across the UK.
1.1.1. This Technical Report contains detailed, technical 1.2.3. The East West Rail Consortium, formed in 1995, brought together local information which supports the Consultation authorities and local enterprise partnerships in a collaborative partnership that has actively made the case for the development and delivery of East Document. It sets out how we have assessed options West Rail for over 20 years. during design development, and how we have considered environmental factors. 1.2.4. The Sponsor of the Project is the Secretary of State for Transport who, through his Department, owns the Project and has overall responsibility for its success. 1.1.2. Each Chapter in the report is introduced by a summary 1.2.5. EWR Co is a government-owned company set up by the Secretary of State that highlights the main points of the section. for Transport in 2018. Previous plans for East West Rail were developed by the Department for Transport, Network Rail and the East West Rail Alliance (formed by Network Rail, Atkins, Laing O’Rourke and Volker Rail). EWR Co is 1.1.3. This Chapter introduces East West Rail (EWR), the work now responsible for: needed (the Project) to deliver EWR and the role of East West Railway Company (EWR Co) in the Project. • Overseeing and developing work already underway between Oxford and Bletchley (delivered by the East West Rail Alliance); • Developing all aspects of the Project between Bletchley and Cambridge. 1.1.4. It explains the Project, which is being delivered in four 1.2.6. In undertaking this role, EWR Co has been given a remit by the Government stages that allow services to run between Oxford and to challenge industry norms including seeking to implement new delivery and Bicester (already completed); then between Oxford operational models.
and Milton Keynes; then between Oxford and Bedford; 1.2.7. Although they are sometimes referred to as being part of EWR, proposals to and, finally between Oxford and Cambridge. improve the railway between Cambridge, Ipswich and Norwich, to enable EWR services to continue eastwards and to improve capacity for freight, are not part of the Project and are not in the remit of EWR Co. 1.1.5 It summarises the scope of, and background to, the non-Statutory Consultation that this Technical Report 1.3 The Project informs and briefly describes the six Project Sections that are used to explain the infrastructure proposals 1.3.1. Delivery of the Project is being promoted in four stages with an ambition for trains to be running the full length of the line between Oxford and Cambridge included in the non-Statutory Consultation. by the end of the decade.
1.1.6. It sets out the purpose and structure of this 1.3.2. The first stage (already in operation) has improved the link between Oxford and Bicester and was completed in 2016. This part of the Project was Technical Report. delivered by the Chiltern Railway Company Limited under the Chiltern
18 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 19 The full proposed East West Rail link
Figure 1.1: Proposed East West Rail Route between Oxford and Cambridge
20 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 21 Railways (Bicester to Oxford Additional works to those being 1.4. Consultation Route Corridor identified in 2016. Improvements) Order 2012, made delivered in the previous stage may These Route Options were still broad under the Transport and Works Act be required between Bicester and 1.4.1. The PA 2008 requires the promoter areas within which the stations and (TWA) 1992. Bletchley. of any NSIP to consult with Route Alignment, i.e. the tracks stakeholders and communities on its and associated infrastructure, 1.3.3. The next stage will extend EWR 1.3.5. The fourth stage would provide an proposals, providing an appropriate might be constructed to connect further north and east, allowing entirely new railway infrastructure level of information to explain the Bedford and Cambridge. Following services to run between Oxford between Bedford and Cambridge. project and its impacts upon the a recommendation made by EWR and Milton Keynes. Creating this This would include two new stations: environment and local communities. Co, having regard to matters link requires the reinstatement of one in the vicinity of St Neots This includes the provision of including feedback provided during an out-of-use railway line between or Tempsford on the East Coast a Preliminary Environmental the consultation exercise, the Gavray Junction at Bicester and Main Line (ECML, the line between Information Report (PEIR). This is Government has since selected Bletchley including a new bridge London, York and Scotland); and carried out through what is known as a Preferred Route Option (Route over High Speed 2 (HS2). It also one at Cambourne. The Government a Statutory Consultation. However, Option E). Further details about requires an upgrade to the existing has directed that the works required EWR Co is committed to early the process to get to and selection Bletchley Rail Flyover and addition between Bedford and Cambridge are and ongoing engagement on its of Route Option E can be found in of two new, high-level platforms at a nationally significant infrastructure proposals as they develop and has Chapter 5 - Approach to developing Bletchley station. In 2020, Network project (NSIP). This means that they therefore chosen to consult at this the designs. Public information Rail obtained the Network Rail (East must be authorised by the process stage on options and alternatives events were held in early 2020 to West Rail) (Bicester to Bedford as set out in the Planning Act 2008 which are being considered, before understand the views, concerns and Improvements) Order 2020 (the (PA 2008). EWR Co will apply to the presenting a more detailed design priorities of communities across 2020 Order), made under the TWA Secretary of State for Transport for a at the Statutory Consultation. The the area, following the Secretary 1992. The 2020 Order authorises Development Consent Order (DCO) current consultation is therefore of State’s announcement of Route the construction, operation and to authorise the works. described as a ‘non-statutory’ E as the Preferred Route Option. maintenance of works to the railway consultation. When Government guidelines between Bicester and Bletchley and 1.3.6. EWR Co will include its proposals to created in response to the Covid major civil engineering construction upgrade the existing railway between 1.4.2. This ‘non-statutory’ consultation crisis made further in-person work has commenced. These works1 Oxford and Bicester, and between includes EWR Co’s proposals for meetings impossible, we reached will enable the introduction of two Bletchley and Bedford, within the the upgrade to the railway between out to parishes across the area trains per hour in each direction DCO application. Works between Oxford and Bicester, and between to understand how best we could between Oxford and Milton Keynes Oxford and Milton Keynes within Bletchley and Bedford, and the communicate remotely, and have plus additional freight capacity and the existing railway corridor may new railway between Bedford continued to work with these groups future EWR service capacity. not require planning permission or and Cambridge (i.e. the third and and local authorities over the past development consent. fourth stages of the Project). It also year. 1.3.4. The third stage would upgrade the considers the way that services may existing railway between Oxford 1.3.7. A potential new ‘Cambridge South’ be operated and accessed across the 1.4.4. Using their advice and feedback on and Bedford to meet the Project station, which the new EWR railway whole Project. how best to gather views, we are now Objectives detailed in Chapter could also serve, is being promoted publishing options for the proposed 3. These works go beyond those by Network Rail2 and will be subject 1.4.3. EWR Co has previously consulted alignment of the railway and station authorised by the 2020 Order to a separate consent process. There on its proposals for works between locations between Bedford and obtained by Network Rail so will are also several schemes being Bedford and Cambridge. A Route Cambridge.. Now that Route Option require a new, separate consent. developed in the Oxford area. EWR Corridor, the broad areas within E has been decided upon, we want Enhancements to the railway Co recognises that a number of which the new railway might be to seek your views on the proposed 1 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/ between Oxford and Bicester, to the these schemes may require further located, was identified as part of alignment of the railway and station running-the-railway/railway- upgrade-plan/key-projects/ Marston Vale Line between Bletchley consultation by Network Rail and the initial ‘sift’ of possibilities in locations between Bedford and east-west-rail/east-west-rail- western-section/east-west-rail- and Bedford, and to Bedford station will be subject to a separate consent 2016. Between January and March Cambridge. western-section-phase-2/ form part of EWR Co’s proposals. process. 2019, EWR Co asked for views on 2 https://www.networkrail.co.uk/ running-the-railway/our-routes/ five potential Route Options for anglia/cambridge-south-station/ the new railway within the overall
22 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 23 1.4.8. Project Section B: Bletchley and the Marston Vale Line (Chapter 7): improvements to the existing railway and stations:
• Options for the pattern of train services between Bletchley and Bedford and possible changes to station locations so that the railway can benefit more people; • Changes to the way vehicles and pedestrians cross the railway in the area, replacing level crossings with safer alternatives to ensure the trains run a faster, more reliable service; • Improvements to track, including the reinstatement of a second Figure 1.2: Project track between Bletchley and Fenny Sections Oxford to Stratford. Cambridge
1.4.9. Pr oject Section C: Bedford (Chapter 8): improvements to the existing railway and a new section of railway:
• Changes to the track alignment south and west of Bedford, including addition of a second track; • Relocated Bedford St Johns station, moved to fit with proposed new track
Figure 1.2: Project Sections alignment; Oxford to Cambridge 1.4.5. This is the first time that EWR Co between Oxford and Cambridge 1.4.7. Project Section A (Chapter 6): • Improvements to Bedford station has consulted on its own proposals once preferred options have been Oxford to Bicester: improvements including to create more platforms for works between Oxford and identified. Figure 1.2 shows the to the existing railway and and a better experience for Bicester and between Bletchley and Project Sections. stations: passengers; Bedford (i.e. the proposals which • Works adjacent to the Midland Main would be the subject of EWR Co’s • Improvements to Oxford, Oxford Line (MML) north of Bromham Road; DCO application, depending on the Parkway and Bicester Village • A section of new railway leaving the outcome of the consultation). Stations, to accommodate more MML and heading eastwards past trains and passengers; Clapham and the northern outskirts of 1.4.6. The infrastructure proposals in • Changes to the way vehicles and Bedford. this consultation are divided into pedestrians cross the railway around six Project Sections. Each of these London Road in Bicester, to improve Project Sections can be considered safety and ensure the trains run a independently with all areas forming faster, more reliable service. a single alignment for the railway
24 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 25
1.4.10. Project Section D: Clapham Green is to present details relating to the to The Eversdens (Chapter 9): new proposals in each Project Section railway and new stations: being consulted upon. The overall case for EWR and its objectives • Construction of a new railway; are presented so that the reasons 02. • A new station in the area near for the options presented and Tempsford and St Neots, in addition any emerging preferences can be to the existing station on the ECML, understood. The Technical Report The case for which could provide an interchange uses Assessment Factors to assist in between EWR and the ECML; identifying which options best meet • A new station at Cambourne. the Project Objectives. East West Rail 1.4.11. Project Section E: Harlton to 1.5.3. The report is structured as follows: Hauxton (Chapter 10): new railway and a new railway junction: • Chapter 2 presents the case for EWR; 2.1 Chapter summary • New railway infrastructure southwest • Chapter 3 and Chapter 4 set of Cambridge including a new out the Project Objectives, and 2.1.1. This Chapter explains the case for East railway junction near Harston and considerations of additional works West Rail (EWR) as a means of enhancing Hauxton. and construction, used to develop the options presented; connectivity, expanding the employment 1.4.12. Project Section F: The Shelfords • Chapter 5 explains the Assessment catchments and supporting housing growth to Cambridge Station (Chapter Factors used to ensure options 11): improvements to the existing are consistent with the Project in the Oxford to Cambridge Arc (“the Arc”). railway and Cambridge Station Objectives and the case for EWR, It draws on work undertaken by the National and it sets out how the design has Infrastructure Commission (NIC), which • Improvements or closure of level been developed to reach the options crossings in the vicinity of The presented; provides impartial, expert advice on major Shelfords; • Chapter 6 to Chapter 11 present long-term infrastructure challenges. • Additional tracks to the West Anglia each of the Project Sections in Main Line (WAML) between Shepreth turn – describing the area, the Branch Junction and Cambridge options being considered, any 2.1.2. The Chapter also summarises the benefits Station and modification of Shepreth options that have been discounted, Branch Junction; the assessment of the options, of new rail connections, rather than road • Additional platforms at Cambridge and a conclusion on the relative connections, to serve this corridor. Station. performance of the options; • Chapter 12 summarises the next 1.5. Technical Report steps in the development of the proposals. 1.5.1. This Technical Report forms part of the ‘non-statutory’ consultation and should be read in conjunction with the Consultation Document and accompanying maps. 1.5.2. The objective of this Technical Report
26 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 27 2.2 The overall case For example, it is Oxford University and AstraZeneca (head-quartered in for East West Rail 2.2.3. Making the case for EWR, the NIC Cambridge) who were two of the world leaders in developing a vaccine concluded that it “will enhance for the virus. EWR will provide better connectivity between these globally 2.2.1. Oxford and Cambridge are centres connectivity across the Arc, significant business clusters. of world-class education and expanding the labour markets of together with Milton Keynes are key towns and cities” and “can 2.2.6. Existing rail connections across the Arc are limited. The only existing east- collectively home to world-leading play a key role in tackling the Arc’s west rail connection is a slow, stopping service between Bletchley and research, innovation and technology housing crisis, unlocking major new Bedford, provided on a branch between the West Coast Main Line (WCML, businesses and institutions. In development locations and enabling the route between London, the West Midlands, Northwest England and addition to being economically transformational growth around Scotland) and the Midland Main Line (MML, the route between London, highly productive, each of these existing towns and cities5.” Nottingham and Sheffield). places has seen considerable growth in recent times. However, the 2.2.4. The NIC reached these conclusions 2.2.7. Currently, for example, the fastest route by rail between economic centres economic success of the Arc has before the recent Covid-19 outbreak. across the Arc is often via London. Travelling from Oxford to Cambridge by led to a demand for homes that is In the short-term, the Covid-19 rail takes almost three hours and requires passengers change trains between not currently being met by supply, outbreak has significantly cut London stations, which involves crossing London using another mode of which has led to high house prices demand for rail travel, but most transport, such as the London Underground or London Busses , adding to the
and is diminishing the ability of of the sections of EWR being Figure 2.1: Oxford to journey’s susceptibility to delay or cancellations as well as its inconvenience. companies to attract talent, which consulted on would not enter service Cambridge minimum and Figure 2.1 compares the average range of journey times between Oxford and is further exacerbated by poor until the end of the decade. The maximum journey time Cambridge using existing modes of transport, to the indicative EWR journey east-west transport connections. long-term impact on rail demand comparison by mode time assumption6. This demonstrates that a less sustainable mode of travel is This problem was identified by the (amongst other uncertainties favoured by the status quo. Journey times would also be improved by longer NIC in their 2017 report “Partnering such as technological change) is distance journeys traversing the Arc using interchange to and from EWR for Prosperity: A new deal for the uncertain and it is possible that some services. Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford people will permanently change Arc”. their travel patterns – this acts as a downside risk to the business 2.2.2. In March 2016, the NIC was asked case. As the purpose of EWR is to to consider how to maximise the enhance connectivity across the Arc
potential of the Cambridge – Milton rather than to provide additional 0h 1h 2h 3h 4h Keynes – Oxford corridor as a capacity on an existing service, single, knowledge-intensive cluster it is expected that the impact of 2.2.8. The benefits of EWR have been identified by the NIC in their report that competes on a global stage, this would be relatively small. “Partnering for Prosperity: A new deal for the Cambridge-Milton Keynes- protecting the area’s high-quality However, EWR Co, working with the Oxford Arc”(2017)7. It states on page 31: “National investment in the East West environment, and securing the homes Department for Transport (DfT), and Rail project…present[s] a once in a generation opportunity.” By improving and jobs the area needs. Recognising will further investigate these risks connections through quicker journey times, the value of EWR rests on the national economic importance of in future business case iterations, enabling it to: the Arc, the NIC found that the Arc’s in particular on the long-term • “Increase the labour market catchment areas for the Arc’s key towns and economic potential is constrained by trends for demand growth once the cities, opening up new opportunities for collaboration and job growth” (page 3 This has been converted into a lack of suitable housing and poor lockdown restrictions are eased. This 31); 2020 prices which is the equivalent of the NIC reported £85m in 2011 east-west connectivity – by around analysis could use scenario planning • “Open up new sites for development, improving the supply of accessible, prices 3 4 NIC (2017) Partnering for £93 billion (2020 prices) each year techniques. developable land and supporting the delivery of new homes at affordable Prosperity: a new deal for the by 2050 without major intervention4. prices for all workers” (page 31) and, if delivered at pace, “tackle the Arc’s Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford 6 The Route Alignment design and Arc, page 25 https://www.nic. The Arc’s economic success is in 2.2.5. In any event, EWR will better connect therefore journey times are still housing crisis…aligned to the development of major new and expanded org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ in development so are subject to Partnering-for-Prosperty.pdf part driven by highly productive Oxford and Cambridge which, change as the Project progresses. settlements” (page 32); and, with other strategic interventions, 5 NIC (2017) Partnering for 7 NIC (2017) Partnering for Prosperity: a new deal for the industries, which cluster in towns with their world-class reputations Prosperity: a new deal for the • “Deliver a step-change in national connectivity, creating truly national Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford and cities across the Arc, providing in life sciences and biotech, are Cambridge-Milton Keynes-Oxford level transport benefits”, used as a link to “create an alternative strategic Arc, page 8 https://www.nic. Arc, pages 31-40 https://www. org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ employment opportunities and both now at the forefront of the nic.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/ connection between East Anglia, southern and central England, as well as Partnering-for-Prosperty.pdf Partnering-for-Prosperty.pdf strengthening the UK’s international global endeavour against Covid-19. competitiveness.
28 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 29 South Wales – each providing the Majesty’s Treasury’s (HMT) National 2.3 Benefits of railways opportunity for passenger and Infrastructure Strategy10, published freight movement at a national in November 2020, additionally 2.3.1. The development of stronger, more integrated transport networks across the scale” (page 40). identified the need for supporting Oxford to Cambridge Arc is a critical driver of economic growth. The East institutions to prioritise growth in West Rail scheme enhances connectivity, links communities and reduces 2.2.9. By supporting local aspirations for, the region – a Spatial Framework journey times. Interchange between road and rail will become easier and and the delivery of, new homes and to develop a plan for long-term more convenient as a result of the scheme. communities, EWR would enhance growth, and up to four Development the economic potential of the Arc. Corporations11. 2.3.2. The particular benefits of providing east-west rail connectivity across the Arc Housing growth in the Arc has include: failed to keep pace with demand, 2.2.12. Moreover, all the local authorities contributing to rapidly increasing in the Arc support EWR as a vital • Providing faster journey times into city centres, particularly for commuters house prices and pressure on firms enabler of transformation in the Arc, and others at peak times when roads are increasingly congested; to increase wages to attract skilled and it sits at the centre of England’s • Providing faster journey times over longer distances, for example for business workers. The NIC’s ‘Partnering for Economic Heartlands’ Transport travel between Cambridge, Oxford, Bedford, and Milton Keynes, as well as Prosperity’ report (page 59) notes Strategy.12 Indeed, the new railway through interchanging to the wider rail network; that, in absence of new interventions, is seen by many stakeholders as a • Enabling commuters and business passengers to spend their travel time on further population growth in totemic strategic commitment by the more productive work; suburbs combined with increasing Government to the wider plans. • Making the labour market more accessible for people who do not drive; and labour demand in the key cities and • Spreading demand for housing outside of towns and cities, particularly towns in the region will place even benefitting younger workers (between a quarter and a third of whom do not greater demands on the existing hold driving license13). infrastructure. 2.3.3. Travelling by train is one of the most carbon-efficient ways to travel14; it is 2.2.10. Well-placed transport links can intended that EWR will help to reduce road congestion and pre-emptively unlock new areas of land for housing help to avoid increases which may otherwise be associated with new housing development that are constrained or economic development, in favour of a more sustainable form of transport, by existing infrastructure at present, as a result of quicker and more reliable journeys over long distances as well as support further housing encouraging modal shift to rail from private vehicles. growth and town centre regeneration efforts in existing settlements. 2.3.4. These factors are reflected in the increasing popularity of rail travel among commuters and businesses passengers, particularly those working in highly 2.2.11. The case for EWR includes its productive industries such as those in the Arc’s industry clusters. As noted important role in supporting the in paragraph 2.2.4, work is still ongoing to understand how the Covid-19 9 Government’s response to NIC wider transformation of the Arc. From pandemic may affect commuter travel patterns over the long-term. report: https://assets.publishing. service.gov.uk/government/ its initial response to the NIC report uploads/system/uploads/ 9 attachment_data/file/752040/ in 2018 , through to the Budget in Government_response_to_ March 2020, the Government has Partnering_for_Prosperity_a_new_ deal_for_the_Cambridge-Milton__ made public its commitment to the Keynes_Oxford_Arc.pdf 10 HMT Treasury (2020), National Arc. The Arc has been designated 13 Driving licence holding and Infrastructure Strategy https:// vehicle availability dataset (from assets.publishing.service.gov. as a key economic priority. The the National Travel Survey), DfT - uk/government/uploads/system/ Government has confirmed its https://www.gov.uk/government/ uploads/attachment_data/ statistical-data-sets/nts02-driving- file/938539/NIS_Report_Web_ support for the NIC’s vision for up to licence-holders#table-nts0201 Accessible.pdf 14 DfT (2020) Decarbonising 11 https://www.gov.uk/government/ a million additional homes and the Transport: setting the challenge, publications/budget-2020- page 26 https://assets.publishing. documents/budget-2020 additional infrastructure (including service.gov.uk/government/ 12 Connecting People, EWR) required to ensure communities uploads/system/uploads/ Transforming Journeys - https:// attachment_data/file/932122/ www.englandseconomicheartland. and businesses are better served decarbonising-transport-setting- com/transport/our-strategy/ the-challenge.pdf and better connected. Her
30 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 31
3.1.3. This Chapter presents pertinent north-south routes and routes objectives from these two documents. beyond Oxford and Cambridge; They include requirements for safety • Maintain current capacity for rail and how the Project will perform freight and make appropriate 03. environmentally. There are various provision for anticipated future operational objectives including the growth; and East West Rail (EWR) train service • Provide a sustainable and value for Project Objectives pattern; connectivity to other money transport solution to support railway routes; the type of customer economic growth in the area. experience; how EWR train services are powered; consideration of freight 3.2.2. These Strategic Objectives services; the need to maintain and underpinned the development of store trains at depots and stabling Route Options that prioritised serving 3.1. Chapter summary facilities; and the provision of locations that could support growth telecommunications. and new homes, over fast end-to-end 3.1.1. D evelopment of the Project is guided by a range journey times, while still resulting of Project Objectives, which are described in this 3.2 Introduction in significantly faster journey times than would otherwise be available Chapter. 3.2.1. Reflecting the findings of the NIC (e.g. connections via London). as referenced in paragraph 2.2 above, the DfT established Strategic 3.2.3. The Sponsor’s Requirements, 3.1.2. The Project Objectives comprise the Sponsor’s Objectives applying both to elements presented in Appendix A, are set Requirements and the Programme Wide Output of EWR between Oxford and Bedford by the DfT and cover the outcomes Specification (PWOS). The Sponsor of the Project and from Bedford to Cambridge. and benefits that the DfT expects The Strategic Objectives set by the EWR Co to deliver as a result of the is the Secretary of State for Transport who, DfT and stated in the consultation Project. through his Department, owns the Project and in relation to Route Options were as follows: 3.2.4. The Sponsor’s Requirements apply has overall responsibility for its success. The to the whole Project and build on the Sponsor’s Requirements are therefore set by • Improve east-west public transport Strategic Objectives that were used connectivity by providing rail links to develop and decide on a Preferred the Department for Transport (DfT) and cover between key urban areas (current Route Option between Bedford and the outcomes and benefits that the DfT expects and anticipated) in the Oxford- Cambridge. EWR Co to deliver through delivery of the Project Cambridge Arc (“the Arc”); • Stimulate economic growth, 3.2.5. The PWOS, presented in Appendix B, (which have built on the Strategic Objectives, as housing and employment through has been developed by EWR Co and reported at the last consultation on the Bedford to the provision of new, reliable and agreed with the DfT. This adds detail attractive inter-urban passenger to the Sponsor’s Requirements. Cambridge section). The PWOS provides a more train services in the Arc; detailed set of objectives. • Meet initial forecast passenger 3.2.6. The versions of the Sponsor’s demand; Requirements and the PWOS • Consider and plan for future presented in the Appendices were passenger demand, making provision drafted to set the direction of the where it is affordable; design and contain draft proposed • Contribute to improved journey requirements on the delivery of times and inter-regional passenger the Project which the Project, as connectivity by connecting with described in this Technical Report,
32 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 33 has sought to meet. As the design is Co intends to work with MHCLG compensate for potential impacts on the environment. Under the Network at an early stage, the PWOS does in order to ensure that the policy Rail (East West Rail) (Bicester to Bedford Improvements) Order 2020, covering not contain formalised requirements reflects the evolution of EWR. As EWR Connection Stage 1, this part of the scheme committed to a 10% biodiversity that must be met, nor does it signify Co continues to develop the Project net gain and consistent with this, as well as current and developing that decisions have already been it will take account of the emerging Government policy for biodiversity net gain, EWR Co will achieve biodiversity taken. Indeed, this Technical Report spatial framework. net gain in the construction of EWR. considers options different from those in the PWOS because other 3.4 Safety 3.5.2. EWR Co also aims to deliver a net zero carbon railway, in line with existing approaches may be desirable and and developing net zero carbon policy, legislation and commitments at a the DfT and EWR Co are evolving 3.4.1. Safety is of vital importance. EWR global, national and local level. These commitments include The Climate the solution to meet the Sponsor’s Co would deliver a safe railway, for Change Act 2008 (2050 Target Amendment) Order 2019 which requires Requirements. As such, there is scope passengers, staff and all those that the UK to reach net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. In 2018, for the PWOS to be amended. would live near or interact with it. the Government challenged the rail industry to produce a vision for the removal of all diesel-only trains from the network by 2040. At a local level, 3.2.7. Similarly, some of the objectives 3.4.2. Level crossings have a significant Bedford Borough Council has pledged to become Carbon Neutral by contained in these documents may impact on the safety of the railway. 2030. Cambridge City Council has also declared similar net zero carbon not be achievable, for example due to The Office of Rail and Road (ORR) aspirations. Any decision to grant development consent for the Project will budgetary or programme constraints (the safety regulator for the railway need to demonstrate that it would not have a material impact on the ability to be decided by the Government, industry) acknowledged, in 201116, of the Government to meet its carbon reduction targets. This will also include and may need to be traded-off that “level crossings account for having regard to the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. against each other. The requirements nearly half of the catastrophic on the delivery of the Project will be train accident risk on Britain’s 3.5.3. EWR Co will consider the importance of environmental sustainability in its confirmed as the design evolves and railways”. For this reason, in line activities and the decisions it makes, as specified in the PWOS in Appendix B. option decisions are made. with ORR guidance (and the need to comply with outcomes of the 3.5.4. EWR Co has followed the environmental mitigation hierarchy and 3.2.8. Particularly relevant objectives from ORR’s consultation), EWR Co is not implemented a decision-making process which seeks to ‘design out’ potential the Sponsor’s Requirements and the proposing to provide any new level for environmental impacts. This has been done at the earliest stage of PWOS are set out in the following crossings. EWR Co is proposing to design to ensure that all aspects of environmental sustainability are robustly paragraphs. close existing level crossings between addressed, through embedding environmental design principles into the Oxford and Bedford and, where design requirements. In implementing this, all alignments have avoided 3.3. Other Government policy required, will provide new rights of direct impacts on key national features including ancient woodland, listed way to replace those affected by buildings, scheduled monuments and registered parks and gardens. Where 3.3.1. In 2021, the Ministry of Housing, these crossing closures. it has not been possible to avoid impacts, design development of the Communities and Local Government alignments has applied a hierarchical approach to minimising and reducing (MHCLG) published its report, 3.5 Environment environmental impacts. “Planning for sustainable growth in the Oxford-Cambridge Arc: 3.5.1. In terms of sustainability, the An introduction to the Oxford- Arc’s attractive natural and Cambridge Arc Spatial Framework”15. built environment is one of its key assets. EWR Co has 15 HM Government (2021): Planning for sustainable growth in the 3.3.2. This document sets out how the taken a proactive approach to Oxford-Cambridge Arc Government proposes to develop a environmental considerations and https://assets.publishing.service. gov.uk/government/uploads/ spatial framework for the Arc. The put them at the core of the Project, system/uploads/attachment_data/ file/962455/Spatial_framework_ document describes how the spatial using environmental data as a policy_paper.pdf 16 Level Crossings: A guide framework will be both a planning fundamental part of developing for managers, designers and policy and a transport policy. EWR proposals that avoid, mitigate and operators, ORR, December 2011 (https://www.orr.gov.uk/ media/10713)
34 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 35 3.6 EWR services target maximum journey times are set out in Figure 3.1. These are based on indicative route and infrastructure studies and are being validated as the 3.6.1. EWR services would be introduced in Connection Stages (CS) as follows, in Project progresses. each direction: 3.6.4. EWR Co aims to provide a reliable service and, to help protect EWR services • CS1: Two passenger trains per hour between Oxford and Milton Keynes; and customers from the impact of wider railway disruption, the new railway Connection Stage 1 will be achieved when the current project to construct lines would be independent from the existing rail network as far as possible, the new railway between Bicester and Bletchley is completed. The works to whilst maximising connectivity. establish this connection stage do not form part of this consultation exercise. • C S2: An additional two passenger trains per hour between Oxford and 3.6.5. Extending EWR services east of Cambridge is not in the remit of EWR Co. Bedford; and However, the development and assessment of options seeks to ensure that • CS3: Extension of the two passenger trains per hour between Oxford and decisions taken now do not create obstacles to this in the future. This is Bedford to Cambridge and an additional two passenger trains per hour important because, otherwise, what EWR Co decides could make it more between Bletchley and Cambridge. difficult to extend EWR services eastwards due to the cost and disruption associated with changing what has been constructed. 3.6.2. EWR Co aims to develop an attractive, predictable ‘clock-face’ service at regular intervals. This means that trains would call at most stations at the 3.6.6. Final decisions on the frequency of services, station calling patterns and same minutes past each hour all day, and that train services would be evenly journey times will depend on further development and consideration of spaced as far as possible. operational issues and the likely demand for EWR services.
3.6.3. EWR Co aims to provide a frequent passenger service through designing 3.7 Connectivity a flexible railway, with two railway tracks for EWR service use throughout, allowing the new services to offer attractive journey times. The indicative 3.7.1. EWR would connect to six north-south routes, including provision for a potential new passenger interchange with the East Coast Main Line (ECML) at either Tempsford or St Neots (as a new station, not replacing the existing station). This would provide passengers going to and coming from destinations beyond the Arc with alternative options to the longer routes via Oxford – Milton Keynes 45 mins London. Oxford – Bedford 60 mins
Oxford –Cambridge 95 mins
Figure 3.1: Indicative target maximum journey times
36 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 37 freight trains that run can be limited of trains that would use EWR is 3.8 Customer experience Objective. by the infrastructure, in particular dependent on market forces and and stations 3.9.3. To inform the next stage of the connections between lines, and Government policy, as well as the design, including potential land the policies of the infrastructure infrastructure. 3.8.1. EWR Co aims to set new standards requirements, the assumption is that operator and the Government. for customer experience. Delivering overhead electrification may be 3.10.6. Whilst the objectives for EWR are a better customer experience has provided for the Project. EWR Co will 3.10.4. The current number of freight focused on provision of passenger been embedded into designing and develop the proposed approach and paths per day, combined with the services, new infrastructure would be developing the Project. The proposed provide more details at the Statutory additional capacity being delivered capable of accommodating freight overall customer journey experience, Consultation. in Connection Stage 1 by works trains with a height and width up including the experience at stations, authorised under the 2020 Order to and including that required to is presented in the ‘Shaping customer 3.10 Freight on EWR between Bicester and Bletchley, is carry full size shipping containers experience and railway operations’ shown in Figure 3.2. The number of on standard height railway wagons, section of the Consultation 3.10.1. EWR is being designed to maintain freight paths per hour is shown as and with a length of up to 775m. The Document. Station locations are current capacity for freight trains on an average to provide an indicator maximum gradient of the railway discussed within the relevant Project the existing railway and the design is of the number of freight trains that would be no steeper than 1 in 80 to Sections below. considering the potential for future could use the railway if they were allow most types of freight train to growth in demand for rail freight spread across an 18-hour operational use the railway without significant 3.9 Powering EWR services both as a result of, and independent day and that level of demand risk of operating at such slow speeds of, EWR. existed. that passenger trains might be 3.9.1. EWR Co is aiming to deliver a delayed. New passing loops would net zero carbon railway and will 3.10.2. The capacity for freight trains is 3.10.5. At this stage of the Project, timetable only be provided if demonstrated to be considering conventional and defined by the number of “freight modelling is not sufficiently be affordable and value for money, emerging technological solutions paths” made available in the advanced to be able to quantify including evidence of future growth for powering trains when all EWR timetable such that freight and the freight paths that might be in demand. services are fully operational. passenger trains can run along the available once EWR is completed Operating electric trains powered same tracks whilst minimising the and no decisions have been made 3.10.7. It is reasonable to expect that there by overhead electric lines is one risk of delay to passenger services. on the times of day that freight will be demand for freight paths on way that carbon emissions can The capacity can be enhanced by (and passenger) trains would the new railway between Bedford be reduced. It is not yet clear if providing additional sections of run. More detailed timetabling and Cambridge. The extent of this other technologies are likely to be track known as “passing loops” to and consideration of the need for demand, and the actual number of sufficiently mature by the time a firm make it possible for passenger trains passing loops will be undertaken at freight trains that would run between decision needs to be taken on EWR’s to overtake freight trains (or slower the next design stage, considering Bedford and Cambridge, would be long term fleet and so it is not yet passenger trains). how the railway would be operated dependent on additional changes to known whether such conventional and maintained, and feedback the existing railway network, such electrification is required. 3.10.3. The capacity for freight trains received from this non-Statutory as alternative connections to and can vary during the day and the Consultation on matters such as from EWR at Bletchley and Bedford, 3.9.2. For the purposes of appraising the number of freight paths available Route Alignment and passenger train which do not currently form part of environmental impacts of each is not necessarily the number of service provision. Engagement has the Project. Network Rail has advised option (and particularly options in freight trains that run. Rail freight is been undertaken and will continue Section D), the reasonable worst- operated on an “open access” basis, with the rail freight industry to help case scenarios of electrification or which means that where freight EWR Co understand the interest in diesel-powered trains have been paths are available, operators such running freight services on EWR. The used. This is to ensure that for as freight operating companies number of freight paths that could each topic the reasonable worst- can seek to take advantage of that be available should be known by the case approach is adopted when capacity when there is demand time of the Statutory Consultation considering the impacts arising for freight to be moved by rail. In but, as explained above, the number from each alignment. The use of addition to demand, the number of diesel-powered trains is not a Project
38 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 39 that, if these additional changes to the existing railway network are made, there may be demand by 2043/2044 for around 24 freight trains per day in each direction, which equates to about 1.3 freight trains per hour in each direction if they were spread across an 18-hour operational day. This is based on unconstrained growth forecasts and it has not yet been decided whether EWR will provide the capability (i.e. necessary infrastructure) to meet this demand. As discussed in Project Section D (9.2.9), the design of the infrastructure has taken a reasonable worst-case approach to considering the number of passing loops that may be required. Passing loops are allowed for at two locations, with a passing loop either side of the main route at each location.
3.10.8. Further detail will be provided on the freight strategy, and the approach to avoiding or reducing potential impacts from freight trains which may run on EWR, at the Statutory Consultation.
Oxford North to Gavray Gavray to Bletchley Bletchley To Bedford Hauxton to Cambridge (sum of both directions) (sum of both directions)* (sum of both directions) (sum of both directions)
Paths/day Paths/hour Paths/day Paths/hour Paths/day Paths/hour Paths/day Paths/hour
49 2.7 23 1.3 5 0.3 9 0.5
Figure 3.2: 2024 Freight 19 Path data provided by Paths17 Network Rail (2020)
40 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 41
3.11 Depots and stabling Train stabling location(s) or sidings 3.11.1. Stabling and depot facilities are required along the Route Alignment 3.11.4. Train or rolling stock sidings provide to facilitate the maintenance and space to store trains when they 04. storage of infrastructure and rolling are not in use, such as overnight, stock. Three types of stabling or and for carrying out light servicing depot site have been identified which activities. These sidings would need Additional works are detailed below. to be connected to the railway and have provision for various activities Infrastructure maintenance for example interior and exterior depot(s) cleaning of the trains, refilling water and construction tanks and servicing the train toilets. 3.11.2. One or more depots could be needed When identifying suitable locations to store materials, equipment and for sidings, potential impacts on local rolling stock needed to maintain the communities and the environment 4.1. Chapter summary railway. These depots would need have been taken into account, as to be connected to the railway. well as operational requirements. 4.1.1. This Chapter outlines the works needed to When identifying suitable depot highways, other Public Rights of Way (PRoW), locations, potential impacts on local 3.11.5. Currently we believe that the most communities and the environment suitable location for stabling some private access roads and utilities as a result of will be considered, as well as of EWR’s trains is in the general construction of the railway, and how EWR Co operational requirements. Cambourne area. We would try to avoid impacts on the existing would construct all elements of the Project. Rolling stock maintenance depot community when we are deciding where this would go. Further details 3.11.3. This depot is needed to carry out will be shared during the Statutory maintenance of the passenger Consultation when the alignment trains for the railway. The current of the Project in that area has been assumption is that Bletchley Train established. Maintenance Depot, an existing depot facility, will be modified and 3.12. Telecommunications used as the main depot location for the EWR fleet. Currently, the scope 3.12.1. Telecommunications masts are likely of work for the depot is being jointly to be placed along the new railway designed, developed and delivered between Bedford and Cambridge with West Midlands Trains, the Depot where essential to support the Facility Owner, and it is assumed operation of the railway. As design that this will be carried out using progresses EWR Co will be mindful existing powers available to Network of the impacts of telecommunication Rail and the Depot Facility Owner masts and would consider (Permitted Development Rights). environmental issues and local communities when choosing where to place them. Details about the placement of telecommunications masts will be provided at the Statutory Consultation.
42 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 43 4.2. Additional works Bedford. Options are outlined in will be discussed and agreed with the effective understanding of the Project Sections A and B (Chapters 6 relevant utility companies and will be critical environmental issues, Introduction and 7) of this Technical Report. set out at the Statutory Consultation much can be done to mitigate the where appropriate. effect of construction works on the 4.2.1. To meet the Project Objectives, the 4.2.4. Provision will be made during surrounding area. Project would need to include further construction to maintain connections 4.3. Construction works in addition to those needed that are intended to be retained 4.3.5. EWR Co will ensure that the needs, to deliver the railway, in particular after the Project is completed, Introduction expectations and concerns of the works to highways, PRoW, private even if they have to be temporarily neighbouring communities and access roads and utilities. As is usual diverted. Arrangements for these 4.3.1. This part of the Chapter explains how businesses are considered at every for this stage of project development, diversions will involve discussion EWR Co would construct the Project, stage in the construction of this consideration of these works is still at with appropriate parties at relevant looking to minimise disruption to railway. This means engaging early, an early stage, so assumptions have stages with the aim of both local people, communities and the during the planning stages, to build been made in developing the options mitigating disruption to the local natural environment whilst ensuring up a clear understanding of what presented in this non-Statutory community and enabling reasonable that the works are carried out in a is important to local people and to Consultation. The need for additional conditions for the progression of the safe, efficient and cost-effective develop an approach to construction works, their extent and design will be works. manner. which addresses the concerns that examined in more detail at the next have been expressed. stage of design and will be contained 4.2.5. EWR Co will consult in more detail on 4.3.2. At this stage in the development in the proposals presented at the proposals for individual highways, of the Project, the construction 4.3.6. EWR Co will employ experienced and Statutory Consultation. PRoW and private access roads at methodology has not been capable contractors to construct the Statutory Consultation. considered in detail, so this Chapter the works and will select as its Highways, PRoW and private focuses on the general principles partners only those companies who access roads Statutory utility works which EWR Co expects would be can demonstrate a mature and applied. considerate approach to delivery, 4.2.2. EWR Co has considered the impact 4.2.6. It is inevitable that in constructing considering people, communities and of the Project on existing highways, a project of this type, existing General principles the environment first when deciding PRoW and private access roads as underground and overhead services how to construct the works. part of the design and assessment (such as electricity, gas, water and 4.3.3. All major construction projects of Route Alignment Options for the communications) will need to be require the movement of people, 4.3.7. EWR Co will prepare a Code of new railway between Bedford and relocated. This work is usually, but equipment, and materials to and Construction Practice (CoCP) which Cambridge. EWR Co is seeking not always, undertaken in advance from the worksite and inevitably this will set out its expectations of those to maintain existing highway of the main construction works. will cause a degree of inconvenience it employs to deliver the works. connections wherever feasible. EWR to people and communities at certain The CoCP will provide contractors Co is not proposing to provide any 4.2.7. EWR Co will engage with utility stages in the delivery of the project. and suppliers with details of the new level crossings, as explained companies with the aim of However, the way in which the measures, controls, and standards in paragraph 3.4.2. Where it is not minimising any disruption that may team delivering the Project consult of work that they must follow feasible to retain existing highways, be associated with utility works. This and engage with those affected to minimise their impacts upon PRoW and private access roads in will cover both existing utility supplies by the works to establish ways of existing railway users, businesses, their current location, EWR Co will to local communities and extension working that minimise inconvenience other people and the natural ensure that a suitable alternative is of services to contractor worksites. and disturbance, can have a very and historic environment. It will available which minimises the impact Any necessary interruptions to significant effect upon communities also set out how they must work on communities. services will involve liaison with and their experience of the works. with local communities and their relevant parties in advance to representatives throughout the 4.2.3. EWR Co is still considering its discuss appropriate mitigation. 4.3.4. Major construction works also construction and testing periods. approach for maintaining highways present potential risks to the and PRoW which cross the existing 4.2.8. Designs for any utility diversions that environment. However, again, railway between Bicester and may be required to deliver the Project through good planning and an
44 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 45 locations. people who are likely to be affected 4.3.8. The CoCP will be a public document This will help to minimise noise, dust by its activities. that all those with an interest in the and vibration whilst also being a 4.3.16. EWR Co will set the working hours Project will be able to access and cost-effective way to deliver. Where within which its contractors and 4.3.19. EWR Co and its contractors will read. operations need to be undertaken on suppliers are permitted to carry out deploy suitably experienced site, EWR Co will consider the noise, construction activities on site, to personnel whose role will be to work Planning and logistics vibration, and other impacts that manage its impact on local people with the community to manage these activities might have and plan and communities. For example, site the impacts of construction. It is 4.3.9. EWR Co will work closely with its the work to minimise these effects. activities may be generally limited important that communications contractors and suppliers to plan the to the hours of 08:00 to 18:00 on between the EWR Co team and construction activities to minimise 4.3.13. Highway routes to and from the weekdays and 08:00 to 13:00 on the community are effective and their impact on people, communities, site will be carefully planned, in Saturdays, excluding public holidays. that EWR Co’s plans and activities and businesses and to mitigate consultation with the local highway Occasionally EWR Co will need to are explained, allowing individuals damage to the natural and historic and planning authorities, and work at other times, but it will always and community representatives environment. permitted routes for construction keep individuals and communities the opportunity to work with EWR traffic will be agreed. Where it informed of any plans to do this. Co in a proactive way to minimise 4.3.10. EWR Co will develop a becomes necessary to temporarily Exceptions to this are likely to be disruption. comprehensive logistics strategy that close or divert a highway or other required where major overnight must be adopted by all contractors PRoW, EWR Co will communicate its possessions of the railway or a 4.3.20. EWR Co and its contractors will and suppliers. This will enable plans well in advance and consult motorway might be needed. Usually, ensure that advance notice is given EWR Co to plan the way in which locally to ensure that suitable there will be start-up and shut-down of the works planned and that the people, materials and equipment options have been considered. periods of no more than an hour scope and expected duration of the are moved to and from the various This will incorporate arrangements at either end of the working day to works will be explained. It will provide worksites along the route of the at level crossings, which will be maximise the productivity of the this information using a variety of proposed railway, working with local managed in conjunction with supply chain. physical and online methods and authorities and other developers to planning construction logistics. a community helpline will be set up ensure that EWR Co’s use of the local 4.3.17. This is a major project which will to deal with queries on the plans. highway network is managed and 4.3.14. Construction compounds, employ a large number of people Information will also be provided to ensure that construction traffic is depots and site offices will be during the course of its delivery. using the local media and a process restricted to those routes which have sited at locations which take A green travel plan will be drawn for handling complaints will be set up the capacity to safely accommodate into consideration not only up prior to the start of main works prior to the start of works. the additional traffic. convenience to the Project but to determine the best way for the also locations which are able to workforce to travel to, from and Impacts on the environment 4.3.11. EWR Co will ensure that, wherever minimise congestion, disruption around worksites. EWR Co will possible, its contractors move and other nuisance for people control the use of offsite parking to 4.3.21. The potential temporary materials and equipment within the and communities. Light pollution minimise the impact on residential environmental impacts associated site itself, constructing temporary from construction compounds can areas and is likely deploy bus with the Project will be controlled access roads to avoid using the sometimes be an issue and EWR services to bring much of the and managed through the CoCP public highway where possible and Co will work with the contractors to workforce to site. as far as is reasonably practicable. using the railway itself as a means of ensure that this is avoided. It will outline the site controls and transporting construction materials. Communities and people monitoring processes that will 4.3.15. Where it is necessary to obtain be implemented to protect the 4.3.12. EWR Co will encourage its materials for constructing railway 4.3.18. EWR Co wants to minimise the environment and limit nuisance. contractors to make use of embankments and other earthworks impact of construction works as far Examples of impacts to be covered components which are manufactured features EWR Co will, where possible, as reasonably possible and will work are construction noise and vibration, at locations away from the obtain materials from locations on with people, businesses and the air quality, contaminated land, construction site wherever possible, or adjacent to the site rather than community to thoroughly understand ecology, historic environment, to reduce the number of activities transporting them from remote the issues and concerns of those construction traffic, tree protection, which have to be carried out at site.
46 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 47 surface and groundwater 4.3.25. Construction sites can often 4.3.28. EWR Co will ensure that measures 4.3.31. In addition to the temporary management, waste management become muddy and EWR Co is are in place to protect the flora measures which EWR Co will and general site operations. In conscious of the need to ensure and fauna of the corridor through enforce during the construction addition, it will state permissible that the surrounding road network which construction works will take of the works, the longer-term contractor working hours. is kept clean and free of mud place. Extensive surveys are already environmental impacts will also be from construction vehicles. It will being undertaken to identify the considered in the design solution. 4.3.22. EWR Co will employ Best Practicable therefore ensure that contractors species which inhabit these areas The design of the works, therefore, Means to minimise noise and deploy wheel-washing facilities at and contractors will be provided will consider specific measures to vibration impacts during the exits from EWR sites and that road- with comprehensive information minimise the impact of the Project construction phase and schedule cleaning equipment is deployed on on the particular species that are on the surrounding environment – activities which are likely to produce surrounding roads. present and the measures that will for example the use of landscaping high levels of noise to weekday need to be taken to protect them and screening to minimise visual daytime hours wherever possible. 4.3.26. Vibration can sometimes be a and their habitats. Often this will intrusion, and bunds or noise barriers Occasionally it will be necessary nuisance, particularly for those involve the use of physical barriers to reduce railway noise. to work at other times and EWR residents and businesses who are and occasionally will require Co will engage with local people closest to the worksite. Again, EWR the relocation of species to an and communities to agree on Co will seek ways to construct the alternative location. arrangements which are least works that minimise vibration but disruptive. inevitably some activities, such as 4.3.29. EWR Co will take all relevant piling (the construction of deep precautions to protect listed 4.3.23. Dust from construction activities can foundations for structures), will be buildings adjacent to the railway, sometimes be a problem, particularly necessary. In such instances, EWR working with associated authorities in dry weather, and EWR Co will Co will ensure that working hours are to ensure compliance with work with its contractors to ensure limited and that where properties are regulations and best practice. that appropriate dust suppression likely to be affected, surveys will be measures are introduced. This will carried out to assess and manage 4.3.30. EWR Co will take all relevant often include the use of bowsers the risk to homeowners. precautions around handling to spray roads which are used materials which may have become by construction plant, but where 4.3.27. Care will be taken to ensure that contaminated, for example from possible EWR Co will find ways of contractors work in ways which avoid previous industrial activities. Relevant working that minimise the amount of risk of pollution to watercourses regulations and best practice will dust which is generated. and groundwater. Contractors be adhered to with regard to safe will need to demonstrate that for disposal of any contaminated or 4.3.24. Other air quality impacts in the each activity in which there is a hazardous waste. vicinity of EWR worksites will also risk of possible pollution, they have be carefully controlled. EWR Co properly assessed the risks and will maximise the use of sustainable introduced satisfactory measures to energy sources to provide on-site manage those risks. This will include power supplies and to minimise the consideration of the methodology for use of diesel for local generation of that activity and the use of physical power. It will require contractors to barriers to prevent the unplanned deploy electric vehicles and plant leakage of contaminants. Monitoring wherever possible. EWR Co will will be carried out to ensure that monitor air quality and emissions water quality is maintained, and throughout the Project and will plans will be drawn up to ensure that prohibit the lighting of open fires to an accidental run-off or discharge dispose of construction waste. can be mitigated quickly and effectively.
48 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 49 Works on existing railways on other parties will be weighed up 4.3.38. There are many factors to consider in deciding the nature with the merits of establishing totally of railway closures for construction works. One aspect is 4.3.32. The Project works will affect new facilities which may have less the time taken to establish a safe working environment and different sections of the existing impact on third parties but possibly then to return it as a safe operational railway at the end railway network to varying extents. attract higher set up or maintenance of the period; another is the level of disruption to railway EWR Co will plan all works at the costs. users if trains are cancelled or replaced temporarily by other major stations including Oxford, transport modes (such as buses, which may themselves be Bedford and Cambridge such that 4.3.35. The impact of all works on the delayed or disrupted by project works on public highways). reasonable and safe access can be live railway is considered for all Noise from construction activities during unsociable hours maintained for the travelling public. construction stages. This is because and various costs are potential factors too. Periods of closure Works are anticipated to make use of it is difficult to carry out works to can be anything from a few hours long overnight to many times when fewer trains are running, a functioning railway line without months and even in excess of a year. One option being for example at night and over effects on safety and the timetable considered for works on the Marston Vale Line is to close weekends and public holidays. of trains that are using it. The much or all of it over an extended period so that works can easiest way to manage these key be carried out as efficiently and quickly as possible and thus 4.3.33. Other examples of works interfacing interfaces is through periods of time minimise the overall period of disruption along the length. with existing railway operations when the railway is closed to public The merits of this are being considered, across many factors, are the likely rearrangement of trains, sometimes just locally. These versus using a number of shorter closures. Multiple parties Thameslink train stabling close to periods are sometimes referred to will be engaged before deciding on the eventual strategy for Bedford station, and the junction as “possessions” or “blockades” temporary closures to undertake works on the Marston Vale with the Shepreth Branch Royston depending upon their duration. Line. (SBR) line (the line between Cambridge and Hitchin via 4.3.36. Studies are being undertaken Working with other scheme promoters Shepreth). The interface with the East to explore the optimum number Coast Main Line (ECML) will also be and length of railway closures 4.3.39. It is almost inevitable that other construction works will be complex and important to manage. bearing in mind the impact on local undertaken in the same general corridor as EWR during Due consideration of relevant communities and overall costs and the period of construction. EWR Co will work with local factors for these and other existing timetable. The following paragraphs authorities and other scheme promoters to ensure that railway activities will be explored outline how the proposals are being works are coordinated and that the combined impacts are and consulted upon with associated developed. minimised. organisations before decisions are made; these plans often need to be 4.3.37. The works on the existing Marston 4.3.40. EWR Co is already engaging closely with High Speed 2 developed well in advance to gain Vale Line between Bletchley and and Highways England (HE) in relation to their schemes in maximum efficiencies with other Bedford consist of an upgrade the region to ensure that works are coordinated and the railway works. to the existing line, potential cumulative impacts of development are controlled. rationalisation and configuration of 4.3.34. Opportunities are being sought to stations, and dealing with existing 4.3.41. HE is promoting a scheme to extend the A428 trunk road establish how best to access the level crossings so that planned train between the A1 Black Cat Roundabout, to the north-east Project works via the existing railway paths and line speed increases can of Bedford, with the existing trunk road at Caxton Gibbet. network and thus reduce the amount be accommodated. These works EWR Co is, as described elsewhere in this report, considering of construction road traffic required. will require access to the railway Route Alignment Options which follow this corridor and As an example, rail-connected infrastructure across one or more is working closely with HE to identify opportunities to materials facilities in the Bletchley significant periods, the length work in ways which reduce the cumulative impact of the area could serve the construction of which will vary based on how two projects. This is likely to include plans to coordinate both east of Bletchley, in Project construction is ultimately planned to works done to relocate statutory utilities and in the overall Section B, as well as to the west in proceed. sequencing of construction activities. Project Section A. The impact of modifying existing trackside facilities
50 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 51
05. Approach to developing the designs
5.1 Chapter summary
5.1.1. This Chapter describes the approach EWR Co has taken to developing the designs for the Project.
5.1.2. It explains the Assessment Factors which form part of the design development process and have been used to assess the performance of options that are presented in this report. They provide a consistent framework and basis for decision-making around design options and a framework for identifying preferred options. The Chapter explains why the Assessment Factors are needed and describes what they cover. It also summarises how the Assessment Factors have been applied in each of the Project Sections A to F.
5.1.3. The Chapter then sets out how options have been developed, discussing first the approach to developing options that upgrade existing railway in Project Sections A and B (from Oxford to Bedford), then the approach to developing options for the new infrastructure (Project Sections C, D and E from Bedford to Hauxton Junction), and finally, the approach to developing Project Section F (from The Shelfords to Cambridge).
Woburn Sands station
52 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 53 5.2. Assessment Factors 5.2.3. Application: The Assessment 5.2.5. Reference Case: Where there are options to choose between, each option Factors can be applied to the is compared on a consistent basis. This requires a reference option against Approach and history new infrastructure and changes which to assess its performance. Where there is an existing scenario such as to existing infrastructure. an existing railway line, then this forms the reference option. However, where 5.2.1. Why and what: In order to ensure Alternatives that do not meet the there is no comparable existing scenario, a reference option is used that is the options being developed and DfT’s Programme Wide Output derived from an initial engineering proposal. A scenario of ‘no railway’ is not consulted on meet the Project Specification (PWOS), a series used to compare against because the comparison across options (the focus Objectives, and that there is a of objectives that ensure the of this stage of project development and this report) would not differentiate robust evidence base and consistent Project meets the DfT’s ‘Sponsor’s between options. Alternatives can be compared with the reference option to approach supporting decision- Requirements’, or that are likely establish whether the alternatives perform better, the same, or less well than making, a range of Assessment to perform worse against the the engineering proposal contained in the reference option. This comparison Factors have been developed. Assessment Factors, may in against a reference option is used in presenting options in Project Section Assessment Factors are a set of some cases be discounted prior D (Clapham Green to The Eversdens) and Project Section E (Harlton to topics in relation to which relative to applying Assessment Factors. Hauxton). performance of options can be Remaining options have been compared. The Assessment Factors assessed against the Assessment 5.2.6. Other schemes in the Reference Case: The options have been assessed (and underlying Considerations Factors to determine how well they on the basis that other identified and planned infrastructure changes will that support them) are listed in perform. All Assessment Factors are have gone ahead (or will be progressing) as planned. For example, it is paragraph 5.2.10, and further details taken into account, although some assumed that the Highways England A428 Improvement Scheme between are available in Appendix C. The may assist to a greater extent than the A1 Black Cat roundabout and Caxton Gibbet will be underway and that outcome of the appraisal of options others in differentiating between EWR infrastructure enabling services from Oxford to Milton Keynes, and the against each Assessment Factor is options. Where that is the case, this Cambridge South Station scheme, are progressed as planned. presented in each Project Section is clearly noted. Chapter (Chapters 6 to 11). 5.2.7. Differentiators: How every Assessment Factor may apply has been or will 5.2.4. Approach to assessment: Where be considered for every option assessed. In many cases, the performance of 5.2.2. Considerations: Each Assessment assessments have been undertaken, alignment options may be closely clustered for a given Assessment Factor. In Factor is supported by a number technical experts have made those circumstances, the appraisal of the Assessment Factor in question does of ‘Considerations’ that represent qualitative assessments of the not assist in differentiating between alignment options. This report focuses particular aspects or issues relating performance of options against on those Assessment Factors that differentiate or will assist in differentiating to that Factor. Each Consideration Assessment Factors using some between options. Therefore, Assessment Factors that do not differentiate is examined individually; for a given supporting quantitative indicators. significantly (i.e. are more or less the same for all options) are not generally Assessment Factor the performance The assessment was undertaken by presented in this report, which is explained in each Project Section Chapter of an option against each of the experts for each Assessment Factor (Chapters 6 to 11). relevant Considerations is considered and were checked by a reviewer. The in the round (with no particular results were then reviewed as a whole 5.2.8. Weight: The Assessment Factors and the Considerations that underpin them weighting applied) and forms the by the multidisciplinary project team will all be taken into account in relation to decisions made in respect of EWR. basis for drawing conclusions on to ensure a consistent approach as In addition, decisions will take account of responses to consultation and other overall performance against that far as possible and proportionality. representations, as well as any other important and relevant considerations Assessment Factor. Further details of In preparing for the Statutory that come to light. When taking Assessment Factors and other matters into Considerations and the assessment Consultation and Outline Business account, some Assessment Factors will be more useful in making decisions approach are contained in Case submission to the Government, – these are differentiators. This is because they allow decision-makers to Appendix C. which will show the case for the distinguish between options where the application of Assessment Factors has preferred option, further quantitative not produced a clear preferred option. Among these, there may be different analysis will be undertaken. performance between options so that one may perform better than another in relation to one Assessment Factor, but less well in respect of a different Assessment Factor. To resolve this, some Assessment Factor results may be
54 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 55 attributed greater weight than others because they are considered to be • Environmental impacts and 5.2.13. In the North Bedford part of Project particularly important. This weighting considers the purpose of EWR, the opportunities; and Section C, the need to balance the Project Objectives and outcomes of previous consultations. A decision-maker • Consistency with Local Plans20. objectives of the railway against (like EWR Co, in making its recommendation) and the Secretary of State (in EWR Co’s aim to avoid or minimise making a decision) can apply weight to Factors in this way, and the amount Application of the residential land acquisition and of weight it decides to apply is a matter of discretion. It may be the case that Assessment Factors the demolition of properties is such lesser or greater weight would be applied to one or more Factors depending that all options are presented and on the element of the Project being considered. Where weighting has been 5.2.11. This Technical Report presents discussed using differentiating applied in decision-making this is explained in the relevant Chapter. options at varying stages of Assessment Factors. Discounted development and Assessment Factors variants of the options are presented 5.2.9. History: The Assessment Factors have been agreed with the Government apply in different ways according to and explained in relation to the and are designed to apply throughout the development of EWR. For the the stage of development. Assessment Factors. A single new infrastructure between Bedford and Cambridge, the same Assessment preferred option is emerging as the Factors were used to decide upon Route Option E (see map in Figure 5.3 5.2.12. In Project Sections A, B and the best performing option. below) as the Preferred Route Option to ensure consistency in decision- Bedford St Johns and Bedford making. As the design for the new infrastructure has moved on a stage, the station parts of Project Section C, 5.2.14. For Project Sections D and E information and Considerations supporting each factor are more detailed designs are at an early stage of (Clapham Green to The Eversdens (for example vertical and horizontal alignment design enabling earthworks development. Although there are and Harlton to Hauxton), the quantities to be estimated which leads to improved cost estimation emerging options and a narrative Assessment Factors have been accuracy). is provided around potential applied to the options presented in performance against differentiating this report and they are discussed in The Assessment Factors Assessment Factors (or what the full in Chapters 9 and 10. differentiating Assessment Factors 5.2.10. The full list of Assessment Factors is given here with further detail in may be where options are far enough 5.2.15. For Project Section F (The Shelfords Appendix C: advanced to do this) a full appraisal to Cambridge Station) Assessment • Transport user benefits – the benefits experienced by passengers particularly against Assessment Factors has not Factors have not been considered in terms of journey time savings and modal shift (where users change the yet been completed. This will take because the option decisions are mode of transport they use to make a journey); place in continuing design of the likely to rest on operating constraints • Contribution to enabling housing and economic growth including best Project, with the outcomes being and the constraints of the existing serving areas benefitting from developable land; presented for consultation when Network Rail infrastructure. • Capital costs – the upfront costs, including consideration of risk, to the Statutory Consultation takes implement each option; place. In respect of those options, • Operating costs – the costs incurred in the delivery of the train service; consultation presents information • Overall affordability – the financial implications of the options in terms of that is available, the initial thinking costs and incomes, over the whole life of the railway, also encompassing developed by EWR Co and the capital and operating costs; Considerations and Assessment • Short distance connectivity to support commuting travel into key Factors that seem likely to inform employment hubs (current and future); differentiation and decision-making • Short distance passenger services; between emerging options. The • Rail passenger connectivity to existing main lines – the ease of interchange; outputs from the further development • Long distance passenger services – the extent to which EWR facilitates long of the options will be presented at distance passenger services beyond Oxford and Cambridge; the Statutory Consultation. • Satisfying existing and future freight demand; • Performance – the ability of the railway to meet or exceed customer 20 This has been expressed expectations in terms of service reliability; previously (in the Preferred Route • Alignment with wider railway strategy / infrastructure; Option Report and the 2019 Consultation Technical Report) as • Safety risk (construction and operation); “Consistency with plans for the location of settlements”
56 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 57 5.3. Developing designs in Project already operating (or proposed to 5.4.3. The remainder of this Chapter covers: Sections A and B: identifying the operate) at key node points along the need for upgrade works (Oxford to Route Alignment, such as at Oxford, • an explanation of how the Preferred Route Option (Route E) for the new Bedford) Bedford and Cambridge; railway between Bedford and Cambridge was selected; • Existing freight services that use the • How an initial proposal for an alignment was identified within Route Option Figure 5.1: Design 5.3.1. EWR Co has examined the Marston Vale Line can continue to E and the process to develop the new railway alignment options presented in Development and DCO capabilities of the existing railway operate; Process Summary for this report. infrastructure between Oxford and • EWR services offer attractive journey Bedford to Cambridge Bedford (including those elements times consistent with the business of it that are currently being case for the EWR Project; and constructed to provide the Oxford to • That stations along the Route Broad Route Corridor options spanning a wide area Milton Keynes services, the subject of Alignment provide appropriate from St Albans and Harlow to Peterborough the 2020 Order) and compared this facilities for the numbers of people to infrastructure required to deliver that are expected to use them, the the level of services that are planned types of journeys those people are between Oxford and Cambridge expected to make and that meet the Network Rail analysis and assessment against scheme objectives reliably and safely. Those services Project Objectives. arrived at Route Corridor C as preferred (2016) are derived from the Project Objectives described in Chapter 3 5.3.4. Using the outputs of this above. consultation, EWR Co will further develop options where needed and Route Options within Corridor C were identified and consulted upon 5.3.2. This work included considering identify a preferred option for each (2019)and a preferred Route Option (E) was announced in 2020 capacity, potential services, Project Section to be presented in the the condition of the existing Statutory Consultation. infrastructure and undertaking safety risk assessments. In addition, 5.4. Developing designs in Project We are Station and Alignment Options based on Route Option E were developed the current use of the railway was Sections C, D and E: new railway here and are the subject of this Technical Report and Consultation (2021) reviewed and potential demand for development from Bedford to rail services in the area that EWR Cambridge will serve was considered. In doing this, planned housing (and other) 5.4.1. The proposed new railway to connect A preferred stations and alignment option will be selected following development in the areas served by Bedford and Cambridge (Project consultation, reported in an Outline Business Case and announced by the the existing railway was taken into Sections C, D and E) has been Secretary of State as the Preferred Route Alignment Announcement account. developed sequentially.
5.3.3. This process has identified the 5.4.2. The option development process Statutory Consultation will be undertaken need for a number of changes to for the new railway from Bedford the railway between Oxford and to Cambridge described above is Bedford, including stations, level summarised in Figure 5.1. crossings and railway infrastructure DCO submission will be made, taking account of the statutory consultation to make it suitable for its future role to ensure:
• The railway has adequate capacity for additional EWR services; Examination of the proposals will be undertaken and the Secretary of • EWR services can operate reliably State will make a decision on whether to grand development consent and not interfere with other services
58 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 59 Process for selecting the Preferred Route Option – Route E 5.4.7. Using the Strategic Objectives for south rather than from the north on EWR and the set of route selection this basis. Responses to this question 5.4.4. Network Rail developed the Project in the earlier stages prior to EWR Co Assessment Factors agreed with the were evenly split both ways and a being established in 2017. Network Rail initially identified twenty potential Department for Transport (DfT) and significant proportion of respondents broad ’Route Corridors’ which could serve a new east-west railway between local stakeholders, eleven potential took a neutral position.22 Bletchley and Cambridge, spanning the broad area between St Albans and Route Option areas within the Harlow to Peterborough. After appraising the potential Route Corridors Preferred Route Corridor C were 5.4.10. EWR Co’s further analysis after the against the initial strategic objectives, five corridors were taken forward identified. Six of these eleven Route consultation focused on how the for further work. A quantitative assessment of the potential costs and Options were not taken forward on Route Options performed against benefits of these five corridors was undertaken before Route Corridor C the basis that they performed less the Assessment Factors that were via the broad area around Sandy, shown in Figure 5.2, was selected as the favourably than the other five Route identified as being most likely to Preferred Route Corridor in 2016 21. Options against the Assessment differentiate between Route Options. Factors and offered no additional They were reported23 in the following
22 https://eastwest- benefits. way in the Preferred Route Option rail-production.s3.eu- Report24: west-2.amazonaws. 5.4.8. The five remaining Route Options com/public/ListsBlock- Media/66959d6763/ were included in EWR Co’s initial • Benefits for transport users Preferred-Route-Op- non-Statutory Consultation between – the potential benefits from tion-Announcement-Pub- January and March 2019. Two improved journey times, lower fares lic-Feedback-Report.pdf of these – Route Options B and and less road congestion; 23 The titles of these Assessment Factors, as E – would serve Cambourne and • Supporting economic growth reported in the Preferred an indicative station location was – the potential wider employment Route Option Report, assumed provided on the south and productivity benefits of improved are slightly different to the Assessment Factors side of the town near Caxton. This east-west connectivity; listed above in paragraph indicative location was identified in • Supporting the delivery of new 5.2.10. However, the Figure 5.2: part because a station location north housing – the opportunity for underlying content of the Route Corridor C of Cambourne would have required stations served by EWR to support assessment was the same, and the outcome is the the railway to cross the A428 – at housing growth within their same, as if they had been least once in order to approach catchment areas; 5.4.5. ‘Route Options’ were then developed within the Preferred Route Corridor. Route titled in the same way Cambridge from the north and twice • Capital and operating costs and as paragraph 5.2.10. The Corridor C covered a wide area (up to 15km) through which the railway would run, “Contribution to enabling in order to approach Cambridge overall affordability – the expected allowing various possibilities to be explored. For example: Route Options to the housing and economic from the south – which would add upfront capital costs, whole life and south via the Bassingbourn area or to the north near Cambourne; potential station growth including best both complexity and cost to the operating costs, and revenue streams locations both north and south of Cambourne; and a choice of approaches to serving areas benefitting Project’s design, construction and associated with EWR; and from developable land” Cambridge which could be from the north, west or south. factor (para 5.2.10) was maintenance. • Environmental impacts divided and reported and opportunities – the key 5.4.6. As part of the Route Option development process, Network Rail and EWR Co under two headings: “sup- 5.4.9. The Technical Report supporting environmental features which fall porting economic growth” considered how the three different potential approaches to Cambridge compared the 2019 consultation also set out within the boundaries of each route and “supporting the and how they performed when considered against the Strategic Objectives at that delivery of new housing”. the reasons why approaches to option and associated challenges stage of the design. This analysis concluded that an approach into Cambridge from This is because there are Cambridge from the north had been and opportunities. the south should be preferred and a final shortlist of Route Options was prepared on two separate approaches previously ruled out by Network to analysing these (as this basis. set out in DfT’s Transport Rail. Respondents were invited to Appraisal Guidance – give their views on whether they 21 The Preferred Route relating to ‘Level 2’ and agreed that EWR Co was right Corridor covered a wide ‘Level 3’ stages of analysis to prioritise Route Options that area (up to 15km) through and benefits capture). which the railway would 24 Preferred Route Option approached Cambridge from the run. Report
60 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 61 XX. Placeholder ROUTE E
HIGHAMBedford Midland – south of St Neots / Tempsford area – Cambourne – Cambridge FERRERS
5.4.11. In relation to costs, the Consultation 5.4.13. This was a conservative approach RUSHDEN A10 Towards Peterborough A Document noted25 that at that which resulted in the indicative 14 early stage, costs estimates were estimates of upfront capital costs Towards Norwich indicative only. The Consultation being revised upwards, ranging from Papworth Everard A1(M) Document relied on estimates £3.6 billion30 (for Route Option A) A14 A 428 ST NEOTS provided by Network Rail based on to £4.3 billion (for Route Option C). Hardwick A 1303 Towards Kettering, Corby and Leicester Cambourne Towards B1040
information that was available at The further development work also M11 Ipswich
A1198 the time26. These indicative upfront resulted in changes to the relative Great Gransden Bourne Comberton Cambridge Barton Grantchester B1046 A1301 construction costs ranged from costs of each option, with Route Tempsford area or A 13 south of St Neots 0 £2.0 billion27 (for Route Option A) Option E now having an estimated 7 Great Eversden to £3.4 billion (for Route Option upfront capital cost of £3.7 billion. Great Gamlingay Great Shelford Barford 3 A4280 60 E). These costs would continue to The five Route Options ranked in the A Bedford Midland SANDY Barrington be developed, as the Consultation same order for both the Network Rail POTTON Sawston B1042 Document explained: “Cost estimates and Atkins sets of estimates. A421 Wrestlingworth will continue to be refined as route Thriplow Cotton End development work progresses 5.4.14. Following consideration of the A421 BIGGLESWADE Guilden Melbourn Towards Stansted Airport and London towards identifying a final Preferred consultation feedback and the A600 Morden
25 A10 5 See page 12 of the 2019 28 50 Route Alignment.” further analysis of each Route A Towards Luton Airport and London A1(M) Consultation Document ROYSTON 26 Option including the most up-to-date See page 59 of the Towards Milton Keynes and Oxford Route E 5.4.12. Following the consultation, the cost estimates, EWR Co identified Preferred Route Option Potential Railway Stations Report cost estimates continued to be Route Option E (shown in Figure Existing Railway Stations Towards Hitchin and London Proposed Station Area 27 These figures are real Towards Hitchin and London updated and revised by Network 5.3) as its recommendation for the Potential Route Alignment Area values (adjusted for Existing Railway inflation) in 2015 prices, Rail. Estimates were also prepared Preferred Route Option for the new by Atkins, an independent consultant section of railway between Bedford and do not account M1 LETCHWORTH Kilometers for discrepancies in A1(M) 0 1 2 3 4 5 retained by EWR Co. In particular, and Cambridge. Having considered Figure 5.3: Broad area for the preferred route between price inflation between they were updated to include29: EWR Co’s recommendation, the Bedford and Cambridge (Route Option E) Esri, HERE, Garmin, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS user community construction and the general economy Secretary of State announced 28 See page 59 of the • More detailed consideration of Route Option E as the Preferred Preferred Route Option how environmental and heritage Route Option on 30 January 2020. 5.4.15. EWR Co’s analysis concluded that when considering differentiating factors, Report risk areas could be avoided, and The analysis and assessment work Route Option E was most likely to deliver against the strategic objectives 29 See page 59 of the Preferred Route Option the potential additional land that led to EWR Co making its for EWR and provide the best overall value for money for the Government’s Report requirements for ecological habitat recommendation was presented in investment in the railway. 30 Preferred Route Option creation and relocation; the Preferred Route Option Report Report see page 15, 31 real values (adjusted for • Consideration of how properties published in January 2020. 5.4.16. The key reasons why Route Option E was identified as being the Preferred inflation) in 2015 prices, and buildings could be avoided to Route Option are presented below, with more detail available in the Preferred and do not account minimise adverse impacts on local Route Option Report32: for discrepancies in communities and land acquisition price inflation between construction and the and compensation costs; • It achieved the highest score based upon responses to the 2019 consultation general economy • An assumption that viaducts would on four out of five key criteria: benefits for transport users, environmental 31 For further detail, please be required to mitigate known areas 32 For further detail, considerations, supporting economic growth and supporting new homes; see the East West Rail please see the East of floodplain risk in advance of • Taking a route via Cambourne offers the greatest opportunity to avoid the Bedford to Cambridge West Rail Bedford to Preferred Route Option detailed flood risk assessments; and Cambridge Preferred most environmentally challenging areas and potential direct impacts on Report, found here: • Seeking to respect existing rights Route Option Report, irreplaceable or sensitive environmental features, including heritage assets, https://eastwestrail- of way by including provision found here: https:// with good opportunities to achieve biodiversity net gain; production.s3.eu-west-2. eastwestrail-production. amazonaws.com/ to maintain access through s3.eu-west-2. public/Preferred-Route- appropriate structures (e.g. bridges, amazonaws.com/ Option-Announcement/ underpasses). public/Preferred-Route- a72dbd2d81/Route- Option-Announcement/ Option-Report.pdf a72dbd2d81/Route- Option-Report.pdf
62 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report 63Consultation | East West Technical Railway ReportCompany East West Rail Consultation:Consultation March – JuneSummary 2021 2021 | 63 • New links to Thameslink and the Midland Main Line (MML) at Bedford, the Generating alignment options • Identification of hotspots and East Coast Main Line (ECML) in the vicinity of Sandy/St Neots and the West from selection of Route Option E opportunities to drive improvements Anglia Main Line (WAML) in Cambridge will provide convenient additional and optimisation of the Route inter-regional connectivity for people, making it easier to get to towns and 5.4.17. Following the identification of Alignment Options; and cities like Kettering, Leeds, Norwich, Ipswich and Nottingham; Preferred Route Option E, alignment • Consideration of potential station • By serving Bedford station it provides easy connectivity into Bedford town options were generated in three locations. centre and provides an opportunity for other bodies such as Bedford Borough stages. Council to bring forward regeneration plans in this area of Bedford; 5.4.21. The development of options included • It also connects the growing population of Cambourne with environmentally 5.4.18. First, an initial design proposal consideration of: sustainable transport and could integrate with proposed improvements to provided a “Route Option E Indicative • Indicative locations and potential the local transport network in south Cambridgeshire such as the busway alignment”. This Route Option E requirements for passing loops, extension and Cambridgeshire Autonomous Metro; Indicative Alignment was developed using design parameters that would • The Route Option could support much needed development of more to test the viability of how to connect facilitate the loops being capable of affordable housing in areas including Bedford, between Sandy and St Neots Bedford to Cambridge within the accommodating freight services; and at Cambourne; and Route Option Area using desktop • Indicative locations and potential • Most responses from local authorities in the Bedford to Cambridge area data that allowed the environment requirements for connections supported this route. and heritage features to be between the tracks to improve understood and taken into account operational flexibility; and early in the design lifecycle. Data on • Indicative track options at the built-up areas was also gathered, interfaces with existing Network as well as the location of roads Rail infrastructure (i.e. junction and Public Rights of Way (PRoW) arrangements). enabling these considerations to inform the Route Option E Indicative 5.4.22. The activity to identify hotspots Alignment. This allowed key risks (areas of critical engineering or and opportunities to be identified environmental constraints or areas early which could then be used as where there were multiple constraints the basis for work in the next design in close proximity to the alignment phase. being developed) and opportunities for improvements resulted in 5.4.19. Second, the Route Option E refinements such as: Indicative Alignment went through a phase of design updates (Value • Reducing skew, which is the angle Management). These updates at which one railway crosses began to improve the alignment’s another, over the ECML and other design in relation to its operational major infrastructure crossings characteristics and impact on the (reducing skew reduces design and landscape. This resulted in a “value construction complexity making it managed alignment”. quicker and cheaper to build); • Providing a sufficient length of 5.4.20. Third, the value managed alignment straight track through the potential was used as a basis to generate new stations to ensure that stepping Route Alignment Options through distances from platforms to trains three key steps: are minimised; • Consideration of clearances over • Consideration of emerging highways and watercourse crossings; requirements for operations and and maintenance, including provision of • Further avoidance of environmental, passing loops; heritage and community assets.
64 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 65 5.4.23. In some cases, addressing hotspots A428 Scheme is largely located on station location to the north of Cambourne. The information continues to was realised through refinement of land just to the north of the Preferred favour a southern approach strongly, and EWR Co remains of the view that the Route Alignment Options. In other Route Corridor. As a result, this land a southern approach into Cambridge is preferable to a northern approach. cases, new Route Alignment Options also lies outside all five of the short- The analysis of the performance of a northern approach to Cambridge and emerged through the process of listed Route Option areas included in the consequences for the design of the Project is contained in Appendix F to identifying solutions to the hotspots. EWR Co’s 2019 consultation. this Technical Report.34 The matters on which EWR Co is seeking views include that the advantages of approaching Cambridge from the south is the better 5.4.24. This process resulted in the 5.4.28. In light of the new information from option and that a number of challenges remain for a northern approach even identification of the Route Alignment Highways England and following with a Cambourne North station. Options described in Chapter 8 comments received from respondents (Project Section C: Bedford), Chapter during the 2019 consultation Selecting preferred station and alignment options 9 (Project Section D: Clapham Green regarding the A428 Scheme, EWR to The Eversdens) and Chapter Co has considered how potential 5.4.32. The outputs of this consultation will be considered before a preferred 10 (Project Section E: Harlton to alignments in this area might alignment is recommended to the Secretary of State for Transport. The Hauxton). perform compared to alignments preferred alignment will then be subject to further design and will be the wholly within the Preferred Route subject of the Statutory Consultation. 5.4.25. Alignment options were generated Option area. from the Route Option E Indicative Developing designs in Project Section F: the Shelfords to Alignment. The subsequent options 5.4.29. Moreover, if an alignment that runs Cambridge station are an improvement from it, better to the north of the A428 Scheme meeting operational requirements is selected, this would remove the 5.4.33. In this Project Section Network Rail is the infrastructure owner and is and taking account of hotspots and need for at least one of the potential developing infrastructure solutions in the area for a number of schemes, opportunities. crossings of the A428 required in notably the development of the Cambridge South Station scheme. Therefore, order to serve a station located north EWR Co has worked with Network Rail and identified further enhancements 5.4.26. In addition, as part of the Route of Cambourne. As a result – and that would be required to also accommodate EWR services into Cambridge Alignment option development also following stakeholder feedback station. These enhancements are being driven by operational need. A key process, EWR Co has examined – EWR Co has considered potential element of these operational assessments is understanding what services use the potential performance of station locations to the north and the existing infrastructure today, what is proposed in the future and what alignments following the route of the to the south of the town, both of impact the introduction of EWR services have on these services. This drives A428 Improvement Scheme being which would remain proximate to the the identification of the infrastructure changes that are required, including promoted by Highways England Preferred Route Corridor E area. changes to Cambridge Station. between Black Cat and Caxton Gibbet. The preferred alignment 5.4.30. Should a station be provided at for this Scheme had not been Cambourne North rather than announced when the Preferred Route Cambourne South potential Corridor was selected or the Route alternative options for accessing Options were being developed. Cambridge (assumed from the south) may exist. 5.4.27. The preferred alignment was confirmed by Highways England in 5.4.31. For completeness, EWR Co has February 2019 – part way through assembled up-to-date information EWR Co’s 2019 consultation on the about a northern approach into Route Options – and differed from Cambridge in case this would 34 Further detail the options that Highways England change conclusions that a southern regarding the review – had previously published. The approach to Cambridge should be including analysis of the preferred alignment selected for the favoured, especially in light of a constraints, challenges and opportunities for both northern and southern approaches – is set out in Appendix F of this report.
66 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 67
06. Project Section A: Oxford to Bicester
6.1. Chapter summary
6.1.1. This Chapter describes the proposals for the section of the Project between Oxford and Bicester.
Improvements at Bicester Village station Legend 6.1.2. Changes may be required to the existing railway in the Oxford area, to facilitate EWR services. This ast est Rail or to icester Chapter sets out the options and key issues that are
Improvements at Bicester Village station Legend being considered by EWR Co for this area. ther area o lternati e a s to cross the ast est Rail on on Roa le el crossin ast est Rail or to icester 6.1.3. The Chapter goes on to address the potential need tation use for modifications at Oxford Parkway and Bicester ast est Rail ser ices ther area o lternati e a s to cross the ast est Rail Village stations and the key constraints that need to on on Roa le el crossin be considered in planning for EWR services. tation use ast est Rail ser ices 6.1.4. EWR Co is looking at the implications of increased train services on the operation of the level crossing Improvements at Oxford Parkway station at London Road in Bicester. The Chapter describes the issues that are being considered and sets out Improvements at Oxford Parkway station six high-level conceptual options for this location. pro e ents to trac et een or It also explains the site-specific factors that will be station an or orth unction pro e ents to trac et een or taken into account as those concepts are developed station an or orth unction further.
Improvements at Oxford station Improvements at Oxford station
Figure 6.1: Oxford station area
68 | East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 Consultation Technical Report Consultation Technical Report East West Rail Consultation: March – June 2021 | 69 6.2 Oxford area Current station
Introduction 6.2.2. Oxford is one of the two key stations on the EWR route that would serve as the starting and terminus station for customers using EWR services to and 6.2.1. This section of the Chapter discusses Oxford station and the surrounding area, from Cambridge and Milton Keynes. It is therefore a key part of the EWR shown in Figure 6.2. It provides a general description of the current station customer experience, even more so because of its iconic presence and its environment, the existing railway network and its associated facilities. It then purpose as a gateway to the city. In 2018/19 over eight million passengers outlines: started or finished their train journey at Oxford station, and a further 500,000 people changed trains. • The pattern of train services to/from Oxford station; • The potential issues that may arise as a result of the introduction of EWR services; 6.2.3. Oxford station is owned by Network Rail and operated by Great Western • Potential enhancements at Oxford station; Railway as part of its franchise agreement. Figure 6.3 shows a schematic • Potential enhancements between Oxford North Junction and Oxford station; and layout of the station and its northern approaches. The route from Oxford to • The options to upgrade the railway infrastructure that EWR Co is considering. Cambridge leaves the station in a northbound direction.
6.2.4. Oxford station has four platforms, two through platforms (Platform 3 and 4) and two bay platforms (Platforms 1 and 2), facing north. Great Western Railway and CrossCountry services almost exclusively use the through Figure 6.2: Oxford station area platforms, and Chiltern almost exclusively operates from the bay platforms, except during peak hours when some trains exceed the available length of the bays. Carriage sidings are used for stabling trains. This is an important We are considering: Figure 6.3: Schematic function at Oxford, which acts as an end-point for a number of services, as of Oxford station and ro i in a itional described below. plat or s approaches from the north of the station e turn ac acilities at the south o the station to ericho line ree up plat or space Current Layout pro e ents to the station to acco o ate the e tra ast est Rail passen ers Oxford Oxford station Down Carriage Sidings OWW line - or orth 4 unction Charlbury
DCL line - Heyford
Legend ^3 2v We are considering: DCL line - Didcot itional trac s et een or orth unction an East West Rail or station – Oxford to Bicester 1 OXD line - Bicester