Bye Bye East-West Rail?

[Roland Perry]

Doesn't sound hopeful:

<https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/oxford-cambridge-a
rc-appears-no-23204129>

The Oxford-Cambridge Arc is an area identified between Oxford, Milton-
Keynes and Cambridge, which includes five counties and supports over two-
million jobs.

The aim has been for a 'spatial-framework' to be created, a long term
strategic plan to coordinate the infrastructure, environment and new
developments across the Arc.

Cllr Smith said she had recently been in a meeting with the MP for North East
Bedfordshire, Richard Fuller, about another matter when the question of the
Arc was raised.

In this meeting she said Mr Fuller had implied that the plans for the Arc had
been "flushed away".

She said: "As far as we are concerned the Arc is no more".

I'm not sure it ever was more than some coat-tailing by Befordshire.

--
Roland Perry

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 24 Feb 2022 15:11:17 +0000, Roland Perry <rol...@perry.co.uk>
wrote:

Wasn't it going to be part of the electric spine at one time?

[Recliner]

Yes, but that concept is long forgotten, and EWR won't be electrified.

Construction is proceeding on the Bicester-Bletchley section, but it gets
woolier further east.

[Tweed]

Is there any actual real demand for the EWR flows?

[Tim Ward]

On 25/02/2022 09:21, Tweed wrote:
>
> Is there any actual real demand for the EWR flows?

I get very *very* bored with the road from here to Bristol and Bath. I
might well have used a train, in the before times when public transport
was an option, *except* that all the proposed routes and services are
going to be slower than driving. So, no actual real demand from me, not
even if public transport ever does become safe enough to use again.

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

[Roland Perry]

In message <sva6gu$ocb$1...@dont-email.me>, at 09:11:58 on Fri, 25 Feb
2022, Recliner <recline...@gmail.com> remarked:

They still don't have a final proposal for Bedford to Cambridge (which
incidentally will have a major section in South Cambs District).
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <svaf71$i3i$1...@dont-email.me>, at 11:40:37 on Fri, 25 Feb
2022, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>On 25/02/2022 09:21, Tweed wrote:

>> Is there any actual real demand for the EWR flows?

The demand was invented by mainly Bedfordshire, who saw it as a way to
facilitate inbound employers leeched off the Oxford and Cambridge
technology hubs. Reverse agglomeration.

It then kind of morphed into "maybe we could have some dormitory
new-towns en-route for people who work in Cambridge but cant afford to
live there", which predisposes a definite route.

>I get very *very* bored with the road from here to Bristol and Bath. I
>might well have used a train, in the before times when public transport
>was an option, *except* that all the proposed routes and services are
>going to be slower than driving.

The Cambridge/Oxford flow is a classic example of a golden past which
never existed. And that would then require onward connections to
Bristol. I think there was a suggestion that some E/W rail trains might
continue to Bristol via Didcot, but probably dropped by now.

If you want to get from Cambridge to Bristol by train, go via London (or
if you have a particular reason not to, via Birmingham)
--
Roland Perry

[Tim Ward]

On 25/02/2022 12:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> The Cambridge/Oxford flow is a classic example of a golden past which
> never existed.

C'mon, are you seriously trying to tell us you never went for a ride on
the Percival's magic bus?

(The trick was to be at the back of the queue. Then the bus would be
full with you still on the pavement. So they'd bring up a second bus,
which would go non-stop and get there faster than the first one.)

> And that would then require onward connections to
> Bristol. I think there was a suggestion that some E/W rail trains might
> continue to Bristol via Didcot, but probably dropped by now.

Best I've seen is

- slower than road to Oxford
- change at Oxford for Didcot
- change at Didcot for Bath/Bristol.

Not a serious offer.

[Tim Ward]

On 25/02/2022 12:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> (which incidentally will have a major section in South Cambs
> District).

Which seems to be full of petrolheads campaigning against it judging
from the roadside posters.

They're free to use their SUVs instead, at least for the time being -
nobody is (yet) suggesting that they'll be forced to use the train, but
it's somewhat unreasonable of them to try to deny other people the
opportunity to choose the train instead.

[Roland Perry]

In message <svaqv7$9u2$1...@dont-email.me>, at 15:01:14 on Fri, 25 Feb

2022, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>On 25/02/2022 12:34, Roland Perry wrote:
>> The Cambridge/Oxford flow is a classic example of a golden past
>>which never existed.
>
>C'mon, are you seriously trying to tell us you never went for a ride on
>the Percival's magic bus?
>
>(The trick was to be at the back of the queue. Then the bus would be
>full with you still on the pavement. So they'd bring up a second bus,
>which would go non-stop and get there faster than the first one.)

I was thinking about the Varsity Line.

>> And that would then require onward connections to Bristol. I think
>>there was a suggestion that some E/W rail trains might continue to
>>Bristol via Didcot, but probably dropped by now.
>
>Best I've seen is
>
>- slower than road to Oxford

Despite the constant erosion to their target timings (75mins originally
perhaps, 95mins in 2021), it's not yet up to the 2.5hrs by road.

>- change at Oxford for Didcot
>- change at Didcot for Bath/Bristol.
>
>Not a serious offer.

I'm not disputing that.
--
Roland Perry

[Roland Perry]

In message <svar3s$9u2$2...@dont-email.me>, at 15:03:44 on Fri, 25 Feb
2022, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> remarked:

>On 25/02/2022 12:17, Roland Perry wrote:

>> (which incidentally will have a major section in South Cambs
>> District).
>
>Which seems to be full of petrolheads campaigning against it judging
>from the roadside posters.

I suspect they object to the flyovers to join the Royston line, being
too close to their houses.

Objections to earlier routes involved the number of buildings to be
demolished (a bit like HS2) despite that earlier route (via
Bassingbourn) being the choice at the time mainly because it least
affected the incumbents and neighbours. Both of whom are also costly to
appease.

>They're free to use their SUVs instead, at least for the time being -
>nobody is (yet) suggesting that they'll be forced to use the train, but
>it's somewhat unreasonable of them to try to deny other people the
>opportunity to choose the train instead.
>

--

Roland Perry

[Alan]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 15:03:44 -0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:

> On 25/02/2022 12:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>> (which incidentally will have a major section in South Cambs
>> District).
>
> Which seems to be full of petrolheads campaigning against it judging
> from the roadside posters.

I'd assumed the posters were for people not wanting railway lines through
their back gardens, rather than because they were car drivers.

Is there evidence otherwise?

>
> They're free to use their SUVs instead, at least for the time being -
> nobody is (yet) suggesting that they'll be forced to use the train, but
> it's somewhat unreasonable of them to try to deny other people the
> opportunity to choose the train instead.
>


--

Alan

Using Opera's mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/

[Tim Ward]

On 25/02/2022 15:28, Roland Perry wrote:
>> - slower than road to Oxford
>
> Despite the constant erosion to their target timings (75mins originally
> perhaps, 95mins in 2021), it's not yet up to the 2.5hrs by road.

I add in the time to/from the station at each end. Maybe 30mins by taxi,
a bit less by bike (if you can take the bike on the train), a lot more,
to be on the safe side, by bus.

[Tim Ward]

On 25/02/2022 17:54, Alan wrote:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 15:03:44 -0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 25/02/2022 12:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>  (which incidentally will have a major section in South Cambs
>>> District).
>>
>> Which seems to be full of petrolheads campaigning against it judging
>> from the roadside posters.
>
> I'd assumed the posters were for people not wanting railway lines
> through their back gardens, rather than because they were car drivers.
>
> Is there evidence otherwise?

I've cycled round a fair chunk of South Cambs (my only exercise during
the plague) and the signs are quite widespread. I can't image that any
railway would need that many back gardens. I've even seen the signs
alongside fields, no back garden in sight.

[Recliner]

Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/02/2022 17:54, Alan wrote:
>> On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 15:03:44 -0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> On 25/02/2022 12:17, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>  (which incidentally will have a major section in South Cambs
>>>> District).
>>>
>>> Which seems to be full of petrolheads campaigning against it judging
>>> from the roadside posters.
>>
>> I'd assumed the posters were for people not wanting railway lines
>> through their back gardens, rather than because they were car drivers.
>>
>> Is there evidence otherwise?
>
> I've cycled round a fair chunk of South Cambs (my only exercise during
> the plague) and the signs are quite widespread. I can't image that any
> railway would need that many back gardens. I've even seen the signs
> alongside fields, no back garden in sight.
>

The nimbys object to years of construction traffic, which can affect roads
and properties some distance from the line itself. Also, until the route
is finalised, many more people are worried about whether it may run close
to their properties than will ultimately be affected. It can therefore
blight property prices in a large area for years.

[Tim Ward]

On 25/02/2022 20:31, Recliner wrote:
>
> It can therefore blight property prices in a large area for years.

By "blight" do you mean

(a) increase, because of the additional value of having a train service,
thus making it harder for people to live there

or

(b) reduce, thus making it more likely that residents' children will
actually be able to afford somewhere to live

?

[Recliner]

Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
> On 25/02/2022 20:31, Recliner wrote:
>>
>> It can therefore blight property prices in a large area for years.
>
> By "blight" do you mean
>
> (a) increase, because of the additional value of having a train service,
> thus making it harder for people to live there
>
> or
>
> (b) reduce, thus making it more likely that residents' children will
> actually be able to afford somewhere to live
>
> ?
>

So, by your logic, local residents in nice areas would automatically
welcome new sewage works, smelly pig farms, incinerators, airports,
motorways and high voltage power lines?

[Tim Ward]

On 25/02/2022 21:16, Recliner wrote:
>
> So, by your logic, local residents in nice areas would automatically
> welcome new sewage works,

Do they ever use a toilet?

> smelly pig farms,

Do they ever eat bacon?

> incinerators,

Do they ever throw away rubbish?

> airports,

Do they ever fly anywhere?

> motorways

Do they ever drive anywhere?

> and high voltage power lines?

Do they have electricity in their "nice areas"?

If the answer to any of these is "yes", then why TF should they expect
other people to bear all their externalised costs?

[Alan]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 20:40:48 -0000, Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:

> On 25/02/2022 20:31, Recliner wrote:
>> It can therefore blight property prices in a large area for years.
>
> By "blight" do you mean
>
> (a) increase, because of the additional value of having a train service,
> thus making it harder for people to live there

Having a train line though your back garden with no accompanying station
hardly constitutes "having a train service".

>
> or
>
> (b) reduce, thus making it more likely that residents' children will
> actually be able to afford somewhere to live
>

So you should let your area become less desirous so your children can
afford to live there?

> ?

[Alan]

So Cambridge disposes of all it's waste within city boundaries, ien't in
the process of moving it's sewage works outside the boundaries, or moving
the airport elsewhere?

As you put it, why TF shouldn't they make space in the city?

[Recliner]

Because they can afford to pay the higher cost of properties well away from
such delightful attractions. And once they've paid for their expensive
properties, they want to keep it that way. I'm sure you're the same.

[Tim Ward]

On 25/02/2022 21:45, Alan wrote:
>
> So you should let your area become less desirous so your children can
> afford to live there?

Have you asked the kids? The question could be along the lines of:

"Would you rather be able to afford somewhere to live now, at age 25, or
have a larger inheritance at age 65, in forty years' time, when you
don't need the money?"

[NY]

"Recliner" <recline...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sva6gu$ocb$1...@dont-email.me...

> Construction is proceeding on the Bicester-Bletchley section, but it gets
> woolier further east.

That may be the section that is most needed: to give Aylesbury / Amersham
and High Wycombe a connection to the north via the WCML. Villages between
Bletchley will still have the existing connection, even if it is not very
fast. East of Bedford to Cambridge there is probably a need to connect
places to the MML and/or Cambridge.

I imagine the demand for full end-to-end Oxford-Cambridge journeys will be
minimal, as I believe it was before the Sandy-Cambridge section was lifted.
But that's not the point: it's there for connecting intermediate points to
those end-points or for connecting them to the WCML/MML/ECML.

[Mut...@dastardlyhq.com]

On Fri, 25 Feb 2022 20:40:48 +0000
Tim Ward <t...@brettward.co.uk> wrote:
>On 25/02/2022 20:31, Recliner wrote:
>>
>> It can therefore blight property prices in a large area for years.
>
>By "blight" do you mean
>
>(a) increase, because of the additional value of having a train service,
>thus making it harder for people to live there
>
>or
>
>(b) reduce, thus making it more likely that residents' children will
>actually be able to afford somewhere to live
>
>?

Presumably (if you own a house) when you come to sell it you'll do so at
a nice discount well below market price so a young family can afford it?

[crickets]

[Mut...@dastardlyhq.com]

You put your web address in your posts which links to your CV which has your
address (which I won't post here but is easy for others to find). You live
in a pleasent leafy suburb so don't expect others to put up with shit that
you clearly don't have to.

[martin...@round-midnight.org.uk]

On 25/02/2022 21:16, Recliner wrote:

Don't forget net railway lines.

[Rupert Moss-Eccardt]

That's not how the media and most residents of Cambridge describe
Arbury. Mind you, many people don't realise where Arbury is. Yes, there
are trees, but I wouldn't think anyone would describe it as 'leafy'.

There are multiple indices of deprivation.