Economic and Technical Report

May 2023

Best endeavours / efforts were made to ensure the accuracy of the report, however users should be aware that the environment operated in can change quickly and if there are any queries on particular points of the report please contact: [email protected].

Contents

Executive Summary

Introduction

• East West Rail
• Context of this Report
• Purpose and contents of the report

Methodology

• Introduction
• Strategic Objectives
• Options Long list
• Credibility Test
• Affordability Test
• Strategic Drivers
• Strategic Test
• Creation of Option Families and the Theory of Change
• Assessing the short-list
• Identifying the final recommendation

Early Sift of Long list – Oxford to Bedford Results

• Introduction
• Results of Credibility Test – Oxford to Bedford
• Results of Affordability Test (Oxford to Bedford)
• Results of Strategic Sift (Oxford to Bedford)
• Remaining Options (Oxford to Bedford)
• Service Options west of Bedford
• Aylesbury

Early Sift of Long list – Bedford to Cambridge Results

• Introduction
• Results of Credibility Test (Bedford to Cambridge)
• Results of Affordability Test (Bedford to Cambridge)
• Results of Strategic Sift and Attractiveness to Users (Bedford to Cambridge)
• Remaining Options (Bedford to Cambridge)

Option Families

• The Option Families

The Case for a New Transport Link

• Introduction
• Understanding the transformative benefits of EWR
• The approach
• The opportunity
• The problem
• The solution
• Conclusion

Application of the Theory of Change to Bedford – Cambridge Option Families

• Introduction
• Assessment of route options by the application of the Theory of Change
• Validation of choice of route option with demand modelling
• Application of the Theory of Change to model
• Validation of mode differentiation by demand modelling
• AVRT
• Cost considerations
• Conclusion of application of the Theory of Change to the Bedford to Cambridge Options Families
• Potential for a Phased Approach to Implementation
• Conclusion on remaining Option Families

Identifying a Single Preferred Route between Bedford and Cambridge

• Introduction
• Options for the approach to Bedford
• Options for the Approach to Cambridge
• Alignment Variation in the Tempsford/St. Neots Area
• Cambourne area
• Conclusion on the Selection of a preferred Bedford – Cambridge Route Alignment

East West Rail Service Pattern

• Introduction
• Service Specification
• Oxford to Bletchley
• Bletchley to Bedford

Infrastructure Decisions Between Oxford and Bedford

• Introduction
• Oxford
• Bicester London Road Level Crossing
• Marston Vale Line

Conclusion

• The Case for East West Rail Restated
• A Preferred Single Route Option

Appendices

Abbreviations & Glossary

Executive Summary 

In December 2021, the Department for Transport (DfT) and the East West Railway Company (EWR Co) agreed that the Affordable Connections Project (ACP) should be undertaken in response to (1) increasing affordability pressures on Government funding, particularly in the aftermath of Covid; and (2) a change in the policy landscape regarding the Oxford to Cambridge (Ox-Cam) area, with transition towards local rather than central government leadership. The ACP therefore considered whether there were solutions which could deliver most of the benefits of East West Rail (EWR) at a lower capital cost than that presented at the 2021 non-statutory consultation, as well as testing whether there remained a strategic case for investing in EWR given the changed policy context. 

This exercise also sought to address concerns raised during the 2021 consultation, which included calls for EWR Co to re-evaluate the strategic case for the Project, associated cost estimates and the results of previous optioneering processes. 

The ACP undertook a root and branch review of the potential options for connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. When EWR Co consulted in 2021, proposals were based on parameters set out in the DfT’s Sponsor’s Requirements and EWR's response to them, known as the Programme Wide Output Specification. Together, these formed the Project Objectives. As part of the ACP, Project Objectives were relaxed, to allow consideration of a wide range of alternatives. 

Identification of a long list 

A long list of potential transport solutions for EWR was developed through a collaborative workshop of EWR staff and its consultants. The approach was to be as exhaustive as possible. Different options were identified in respect of the following variables: mode choice, alignment choice, service level and service pattern. The exercise identified 170 options to deliver affordable transport connectivity between Oxford and Cambridge. Among this long list were light rail, heavy rail, and guided bus options as well as emerging technologies, for example Advanced Very Rapid Transit (AVRT) system. The AVRT engineering solution has been specifically advocated by Professor John Miles with the Cambridge region in mind.   

The long list was then sifted to identify viable options, firstly, through a Credibility Test (was the option feasible?) and then considered by the application of an Affordability Test (would it be likely to offer a cost saving over previous estimates?). The remaining options were then subjected to a Strategic Sift against a range of criteria that were derived from the strategic drivers for transport connectivity in the Ox-Cam region, such as connectivity and attractiveness to passengers.  

At this early stage it was identified that cost savings were likely in comparison with previous designs for a new railway between Bedford and Cambridge as there was a broad range of alternatives (modes, routes and service levels) that could be considered. However, on the existing network between Oxford and Bedford, the opportunity for alternatives was thought to be lower as the alignment would most likely make use of the existing railway.  

Testing the case for a New Transport Link 

In parallel with the identification of viable options, work was undertaken to test the strategic case for EWR as a whole. A Theory of Change analysis was undertaken alongside traditional business case modelling to better capture the transformational benefits of a new transport link. Analysis highlighted that Cambridge in particular has been growing very fast and, given global trends in the sectors where it has particular strengths – for example life sciences – this momentum has the potential to continue. However, it also identified that this growth was likely to be constrained as there was insufficient space for businesses to expand to create new jobs and there was insufficient access to the labour market to fill these roles. The Theory of Change identified that improved connectivity to the rest of the region would help address this. It would also help spread prosperity along the line of the route, including opportunities for regeneration, and ensure the region continued to attract international profile and investment.  

Identification of Option Families 

Following the initial sifting of options, the remaining options were considered further and clustered into Option Families, grouped by the route served and the proposed transport mode.  Some of the remaining options were excluded at this stage after reflecting upon their performance in relation to the sifting process and other considerations. 

The Option Families were tested against the Theory of Change to see whether they could support the economic opportunities of the Project and, if so, how.  

This resulted in the elimination of all Option Families reliant on modes other than heavy rail. It was found that only heavy rail Option Families could deliver the capacity and capability at the scale required to meet the transport need as articulated in the Theory of Change. In addition, heavy rail Option Families whose routes utilise the route of the former Varsity Line into Cambridge via an alignment through Sandy were eliminated. This was because the alignment does not serve areas designated under current or emerging planning policy as suitable for supporting growth, which is key to the strategic case for EWR, and, based on an assessment of local plans and each Local Authority’s position, a change in planning policy in these areas is not considered credible. Further, these Option Families would not perform as well on environmental grounds. 

The potential for AVRT was explored separately, and similarly appraised in relation to other strongly performing modes and options studied within the ACP. AVRT has been assessed to be less beneficial than heavy rail in achieving the outcomes of EWR’s Theory of Change, so was not recommended for further consideration. 

This enabled the list to be down-selected to a shortlist of four heavy rail (HR) Option Families: HR1, HR2, HR3 and HR5, which are depicted in Figure 14 on page 121 of this report. All would serve the St Neots/Tempsford area and Cambourne North with the central stretch of each being roughly the same. However, they presented choices of alignment at Bedford and on approach to Cambridge: to use the Midland Main Line (MML) (HR1 and HR5) or re-use variants of the historic Varsity alignment in the vicinity of Bedford town (HR2 and HR3); a northern approach via Cambridge North station (HR1 and HR2) or a southern approach via the new Cambridge South station (HR3 and HR5). 

Application of the Assessment Factors 

The four remaining Option Families were then subject to further development and assessment against EWR Co’s Assessment Factors, which were used in the 2021 consultation. This enabled a more informed understanding and a review of the emerging propositions within the context of consultation feedback, as well as allowing a comparison to be made between them. The differentiating Assessment Factors, against which more detailed analysis was carried out, were approached in two stages; Stage 1, looking at Cost (Assessment Factors 3, 4 and 5) and Environment (Assessment Factor 14); and Stage 2, looking at Rail Delivery and Operations (Assessment Factors 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12); and Delivering the Theory of Change and Unlocking Economic Growth (Assessment Factors 1, 2, 15). 

Cost estimates were developed for four shortlisted scheme options, for the purpose of comparing the relative costs of these solutions. To do this, EWR Co assessed their relative affordability at base cost level (i.e. the direct cost of construction works plus the associated indirect costs of delivery such as design and project management) with estimates of risk and uncertainty added. Due to the uncertainty around inflation, it has been excluded in the costs produced by the ACP. 

Opportunities for phased construction and the phased introduction of services were considered. It was concluded that there was little scope for geographical phasing of services as terminating trains at an interim point between Oxford and Cambridge (Bedford) would not connect the key markets that underpin the Theory of Change. While capital cost could be reduced through phased construction, this would result in higher costs overall. The Theory of Change also indicated that, within a reasonably foreseeable period, EWR would need to deliver at least four trains per hour between Bedford and Cambridge to satisfy forecast demand for the majority of growth scenarios. Delivering that future level of capacity was accordingly an assumption for the purposes of comparing each shortlisted option by reference to the Assessment Factors. 

The results of this first stage of assessment indicated that: HR2 (Varsity Hybrid – Cambridge North) performed best on capital cost followed by HR3 (Varsity Hybrid – Cambridge South), but both had significant potential environmental issues associated with the reuse of the Varsity Line. HR1 (Bedford MML – Cambridge North) performed best in respect of the environment with a northern approach to Cambridge being considered to perform better than a southern approach as proposed by HR5 (Bedford MML – Cambridge South). 

To provide further differentiation between Option Families, the second stage of assessment was undertaken. This reviewed their performance against the following criteria: Rail Delivery and Operations, Delivering the Theory of Change and Unlocking Economic Growth.   

The results of this second stage indicated that in Bedford, routes using the MML (HR1 and HR5) performed better than routes re-using the former Varsity alignment (HR2 and HR3) in terms of both Rail Delivery and Operations and the Theory of Change and Unlocking Economic Growth. At Cambridge, routes approaching from the north (HR1 and HR2) would not unlock the constraints that need to be addressed to realise the growth opportunity established in the Theory of Change as effectively as routes approaching Cambridge from the south (HR3 and HR5). Operationally, the southern approach was expected to have a more robust and resilient timetable, closer to regular 15-minute service intervals than the northern approach, which is more attractive to users as well as imposing lesser constraints on the future development of the railway network. 

Identification of a preferred Option Family 

It was concluded that Option Family HR5 (heavy rail between Bedford and Cambridge via the Midland Main Line (MML), St Neots/Tempsford, Cambourne and Cambridge South) performed best overall against EWR Co’s Assessment Factors, notwithstanding the likely higher upfront capital cost compared to other Option Families and its potential environmental impact. In environmental terms, HR5 performed better than options utilising the Varsity Line alignment east of Bedford. 

The above process validated the optioneering undertaken to date, which had led to nine potential route alignments between Bedford and Cambridge being identified in the 2021 consultation. Following consideration of the feedback from the consultation, and through the ACP, it was confirmed that Alignment 1, equating with Option Family HR5 (Bedford MML-Cambridge South) performed best overall and should be selected as the preferred alignment. 

Identification of a preferred route alignment between Bedford and Cambridge 

The performance of Option Family HR5 enabled an alignment between Bedford and Cambridge, via the MML St Neots/Tempsford, Cambourne and Cambridge (Alignment 1) to be identified as the preferred route alignment for the new section of railway. Further work was also undertaken to determine whether it was possible to run EWR services on the four existing Midland Mainline (MML) tracks at Bedford. However, this was not found to be viable from an operational perspective. Therefore, the six-tracking option at Bedford also remained the preferred solution. 

Concerns were raised in response to the 2021 consultation about the likely impact of Alignment 9 on the village of Roxton. In addition, there was a desire to investigate whether EWR Co’s preferred alignment would be able to serve a new station at Tempsford, noting particular support for it in comparison with a St Neots South station in respect of placemaking and economic growth. A variant to Alignment 1 was therefore developed alongside the ACP to address these points. The new alignment, known as Alignment 1 (Tempsford variant), passes to the south of the A428 Black Cat roundabout to serve a new station at Tempsford and has been identified as the preferred alignment. 

Confirming the train service pattern 

The requirement to deliver the jobs and growth envisaged in the Theory of Change established the need to provide an updated service specification for EWR, compared to that presented at the 2021 consultation. Whereas previously a ‘4-4-4’ trains per hour (tph) service was proposed (2tph Oxford to Milton Keynes, 2tph Oxford to Cambridge, 2tph Bletchley to Cambridge), the strategic work undertaken by EWR Co indicated that a ‘4-3-4’ tph service (see Figure 17 on page 153) would meet the anticipated demand. This would comprise four trains per hour from Oxford, two of which would progress to Milton Keynes and two of which would continue to Cambridge. A further two trains per hour would travel between Bedford and Cambridge, plus a service between Bletchley and Bedford, which could be replaced by extending one of the Bedford-Cambridge trains to Bletchley to further improve connectivity for the Marston Vale. 

Identifying a single preferred solution between Oxford and Cambridge 

On the basis of the train service pattern established through the Theory of Change, and having regard to relaxed Project Objectives, the level of infrastructure intervention for the on-line section of EWR between Oxford and Bedford was also re-assessed in parallel with the detailed review on Bedford to Cambridge. This was a ‘desk-top’ exercise reflecting the process undertaken in relation to the Bedford-Cambridge section of EWR.  This allowed assumptions to be made on infrastructure provision and for these to be included with an overall cost estimate for the Project. 

Through the combination of work done to consider the alignment between Bedford and Cambridge, and consideration of infrastructure interventions between Oxford and Bedford, the ACP was able to confirm a single preferred solution for the Project. In addition to the new route between Bedford and Cambridge, via the MML, Tempsford, Cambourne and a southern approach to Cambridge, improvements between Oxford and Bedford were also identified. These included upgrades at Oxford which can be integrated with the longer term industry plans for the area; the potential closure and diversion of London Road Level Crossing at Bicester, whilst maintaining pedestrian connectivity; interventions on the Marston Vale Line of a more limited scale than those proposed at the 2021 consultation, including the retention of some level crossings; and upgrades to Bedford St Johns and Bedford stations. 

The estimated cost of the Project presented at the 2021 consultation was £5.93bn to £6.33bn. Through the ACP work, the estimated cost of the Project has been revised to £4.46bn to £5.34bn. These figures exclude inflation, electrification, the cost of obtaining statutory authority to construct and operate the Project and EWR Co’s operating expenditure but include an estimate of risk.

Introduction  

East West Rail  

East West Rail (EWR) is a proposed new rail link which would connect communities between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. By increasing connectivity across the Oxford to Cambridge region and boosting the local economy, the new railway line is part of the Government’s ambition to create a range of opportunities for people across the area and spread prosperity across the UK. 

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. The East West Rail Company Limited (EWR Co) is a government-owned company set up by the Secretary of State for Transport in 2018 to:  

• Oversee and further develop work already underway between Oxford and Bletchley (delivered by the East West Rail Alliance). 
• Develop all aspects of the Project between Bletchley and Cambridge. 

In undertaking this role, EWR Co has been given a remit by the Government to challenge industry norms, such as conventional delivery and operational models. 

Although they are sometimes referred to as being part of EWR, proposals by the East West Main Line Partnership to improve the railway between Cambridge, Ipswich and Norwich, and in doing so enable EWR services to continue eastwards, and to improve capacity for freight, are not part of this Project and are not in the remit of EWR Co. 

Context of this Report 

EWR Co has worked to develop a rail-based transport solution connecting Oxford, Milton Keynes, and Cambridge.  

Construction is already underway between Oxford and Bletchley to enable a train service to run between Oxford and Milton Keynes. This is known as Connection Stage (CS) 1. 

Following a public consultation in 2019, a route option was identified for the new section of the line between Bedford and Cambridge. Route alignments within this option were subsequently developed and presented at a non-statutory consultation in 2021, together with proposals for the railway between Oxford and Bedford. 

These route alignments were developed in accordance with a Programme Wide Output Specification (PWOS), which set out the standard of the railway infrastructure and level of service to be provided. The PWOS was developed by EWR Co to respond to Sponsor’s Requirements specified by the Department for Transport (DfT). 

The project between Bletchley and Cambridge (and including additional interventions required at Oxford and Bicester London Road Level Crossing) was estimated to cost in the region of £6bn1 . This figure was in addition to the £1bn capital investment already committed to CS1.  

In December 2021, EWR Co and the DfT agreed to undertake an assessment of the phases of the EWR programme not yet in construction.  The purpose of this was to assess the viability and potential benefits to the economy, to businesses, and to the community in the Oxford to Cambridge (Ox-Cam) region of a project which could be delivered at a reduced capital cost compared to the solution presented at the 2021 consultation. This exercise was referred to as the Affordable Connections Project (ACP). 

This work followed the 2021 consultation and further initial development work undertaken since the consultation, which helped inform some elements of ACP. Since the consultation, there have been two strategic changes that have impacted the EWR project, which form the background to the ACP reported in this Economic and Technical Report. 

The objectives of the ACP were: 

Table 1 - ACP Objectives and how they have been addressed 

These objectives required EWR Co to set aside previous assumptions which were identified as Project Objectives in the 2021 consultation, including the infrastructure and service level constraints set out in the Sponsor’s Requirements and the corresponding PWOS.  Setting these assumptions aside enabled the scope of the project to be considered afresh. In response, the ACP considered alternative transport solutions to those previously developed, including a reassessment of transport mode, service level options and route alignments based on an understanding of demand requirements and affordability. 

Purpose and contents of the report  

The purpose of this report is to review the strategic case for government investment in EWR and to present lower cost, more affordable route alignment solutions than those considered previously, which remain capable of delivering some, or all of the benefits of EWR. Based on the work undertaken for the ACP, a single preferred solution between Oxford and Cambridge is presented as far as is possible at this stage in the Project’s development.  

The report is structured as follows: 

Table 2 - Report Contents 

1 At 2021 prices

2 Although solutions addressing connectivity with Aylesbury, which does not lie on the core EWR alignment continue to be considered, they are not addressed in this report and do not form part of EWR Co’s preferred route alignment.

3 The original terms of reference specified a given delivery date of March 2022. In practice, this period was extended when an additional objective was added to the Terms of Reference in July 2022. This report also summarises the further work undertaken in accordance with this, to enable a preferred single option between Oxford and Cambridge to be identified.

Methodology 

Introduction  

To respond to Objectives 2, 3, 5, 6 and 7 (see Table 1), a staged methodology was adopted; first identifying a long list of potential options, and then refining this over several subsequent stages and through detailed analysis to identify an end-to-end solution for EWR. 

A long list of potential solutions was developed through a series of collaborative workshops involving EWR staff and its consultants. The objective was to be as exhaustive as possible. Different options were identified in respect of the following variables: mode choice, alignment choice, service level and service pattern. The exercise identified 170 options to deliver affordable transport connectivity between Oxford and Cambridge. 

At this early stage, it was identified that the new section of railway between Bedford and Cambridge presented the greatest potential for material cost savings as there was a broad range of alternative options that could be considered to provide the required connectivity. The opportunity for alternatives was lower on the section between Oxford and Bedford as the alignment would most likely make use of the existing railway. 

Next, the process was to determine the most viable options from the long list of 170 potential solutions, to deliver affordable transport connectivity between Oxford and Cambridge. Sections 2.2 to 2.5 below describe the approach to sifting the options, first through a Credibility Test and considered against an Affordability Test. The remaining options were then subjected to a Strategic Sift against a range of criteria that were derived from the strategic drivers for transport connectivity across the region. This process generated a short list of options, which was sense-checked to inform which options should progress for further assessment. The results of this process are addressed in Chapters 3 and 4 of this Report. It was concluded early on that heavy rail remained the most appropriate means to provide connectivity between Oxford and Bedford, whereas greater mode options remained for the Bedford to Cambridge section.  

In parallel with the identification of viable options, work was undertaken to review the strategic case for EWR as a whole. The remaining options were considered further and sense-checked against the criteria and supporting strategic work, and subsequently clustered into Option Families (a range of service options each with consistent infrastructure and mode solutions). 

This strategic work focused on the development of connectivity beyond Bletchley, once CS1 was in place. This highlighted the Cambridge economy as a focus area which requires particular interventions if it is to deliver the benefits identified in the strategic case, and which would have a positive ripple effect on the rest of the region.  This is known as the Theory of Change and is described in Chapter 6.  The process of applying the Theory of Change to inform the selection of a single route option is described in Chapter 7.  

As part of this work, an updated service specification for EWR of 4-3-4 trains per hour (tph) was confirmed as being needed to meet the anticipated demand. This differed from the service specification presented in the 2021 consultation. The revised specification of 4-3-4tph would comprise four trains per hour from Oxford, two of which would progress to Milton Keynes and two of which would continue to Cambridge; a further two trains per hour would travel between Bedford and Cambridge; plus a service between Bletchley and Bedford, which could be provided by extending one of the Bedford-Cambridge trains to Bletchley to further improve connectivity for the Marston Vale. 

The Theory of Change findings determined the outputs, such as the transport mode and an updated service specification, needed to achieve the identified benefits. These were applied to the Option Families, reducing the number of Option Families that remained.  

The remaining Option Families were then subject to further development and assessment against EWR Co’s Assessment Factors. This enabled a more informed understanding of the options and a more detailed comparison to be made between them. At this stage, opportunities for phased construction and a phased introduction of services were considered. 

Cost estimates were developed for four shortlisted Option Families for the purpose of comparing the relative costs of these solutions. To do this, EWR Co assessed their relative affordability at base cost level (i.e. the direct cost of works plus the associated indirect costs of delivery, such as design and project management). Estimates also included risk and uncertainty and inflation in order to determine the expected range of total cost for each shortlisted option. Appendix 8 provides more detail on how these costs were derived and a summary of the estimates.  

This methodology resulted in a single preferred solution to be identified between Oxford and Cambridge. 

Strategic Objectives  

When EWR Co consulted in 2021, the proposals were based on parameters set out in the DfT’s Sponsor’s Requirements and EWR's response to them, known as the Programme Wide Output Specification (PWOS). Together, these formed the Project Objectives. For the ACP, the review of the strategic case set aside these parameters.  

The Project Objectives were set out in the 2021 consultation Technical Report. They included: 

• Improve east-west public transport connectivity between key urban areas. 
• Stimulate economic growth, housing and employment.  
• Provide a sustainable and value for money transport solution to support economic growth in the area. 

The work on the strategic case undertaken as part of the ACP sought to test these objectives. A review of the most up-to-date (at that time) local, regional, and national policies and plans, including on planning, growth, transport and environment were examined, which confirmed that the objectives have not fundamentally changed, and that a transport project between Oxford and Cambridge remains key to enabling economic growth. 

Options Long list  

A Scheme Option is defined as a transport solution for a specific route section incorporating mode, route geography and service level descriptors such as stopping pattern and frequency per section. By developing solutions unconstrained by the Sponsor’s Requirements and PWOS, EWR Co was able to investigate a wide range of options through a long listing exercise undertaken by experts from EWR Co and its technical consultant, Arup. Collaborative optioneering workshops were held, at which attendees considered potential transport solutions to connect the key locations across the region as per the Terms of Reference for the ACP. The approach was to be as exhaustive as possible. Different options were identified in respect of the following variables:  

• Mode choice. 
• Alignment choice. 
• Service specification – note that options which delivered a service level (number of passenger services) in excess of four trains per hour for a heavy rail solution were not considered, as such options were assumed to not reduce costs.  This cap was not applied to other modes, to enable comparable levels of capability to be assessed.   

The Project team divided the route into two route sections when identifying options: Oxford to Bedford and Bedford to Cambridge. The rationale for this was that there were distinctive comparable characteristics of each section that would be easier to assess against criteria if the sifting was undertaken separately. 

Different modes were considered using professional engineering judgement, noting that railway infrastructure already exists between Oxford and Bedford. Therefore, an opportunity to replace this for use by another mode at a reduced cost was less likely. It was also recognised that Connection Stage 1 (CS1) between Bicester and Milton Keynes is currently under construction. Consequently, the Oxford to Bedford route section focussed on operationally-led solutions with minimum levels of enhancement work.  

Because a direct railway connection between Bedford and Cambridge no longer exists, a greater range of operational, infrastructure and mode options was available for this section.  This allowed a wider range of alternatives to be considered. 

After further analysis, the solutions proposed for the two route sections have been combined to provide an end-to-end transport solution between Oxford and Cambridge via Bletchley and Bedford.  

This approach, alongside the nature of the long-listing exercise and the ability to consider options in an unconstrained manner meant that over 170 options were identified. Each of the long list of Scheme Options was given a code to enable it to be identified during the appraisal of options and the sifting process. The codes were produced in the format set out in Table 3. 

Table 3- Alignment ID Codes 

For example, the third listed heavy rail solution under consideration in the route section between Oxford and Bedford would be identified as: CS2-HR-S3.  

For each Scheme Option, there is a corresponding description, which enables its components to be understood. For CS2-HR-S3, this is “Existing - Oxford to Milton Keynes 2 trains per hour (tph)/Oxford to Bedford1tph + existing freight”, which means that the Scheme Option uses the existing alignment of the railway between Oxford and Bedford and would accommodate three trains per hour of which two would be between Oxford and Milton Keynes Central Station with one train per hour between Oxford and Bedford and existing freight services. 

The full long list is set out in Appendix 1 to this Report. To provide some context, Figure 1 below depicts a simplified indicative diagram of the EWR routes that were considered in the assessment with possible calling points. 

While a connection to Aylesbury is not currently within the core scope of EWR, the identification of long list options for the connection between Oxford and Cambridge, as well as potential stopping points between the cities, included consideration of how a connection to Aylesbury might be achieved so as not to preclude such options. The strategic work also reviewed the opportunities for connectivity to Aylesbury and concluded that Aylesbury should continue to be viewed separately from the core scope of EWR. As a consequence, it is not considered further in this report.  

Figure 1 - Simplified diagram of possible calling points - route alignments for illustrative purposes only. Options developed covered two sections: Oxford to Bedford, and Bedford to Cambridge.

The long list was then subjected to Credibility, Affordability and Strategic criteria, to produce a list of viable options to be developed in greater detail.   

In addition to the more conventional solutions identified, EWR Co considered an emerging mode known as Affordable Very Rapid Transit (AVRT) in relation to the Bedford-Cambridge route section. This is included in the long list but was the subject of a parallel review, which appraised the AVRT scheme(s) in relation to other strongly performing modes and options studied within this report. The study concluded that AVRT would not unlock the economic opportunity identified in EWR’s Theory of Change, so was not recommended for further consideration. The report on AVRT is included in Appendix 10. 

Credibility Test 

The first review of the long list was against a Credibility Test, which was designed to remove all options that were not technically suitable or were out of scope for ACP or EWR. The results of this test are summarised in Chapters 3 and 4. This included solutions in the following categories:  

• Technically novel, unproven or inappropriate transport modes for a connection between Oxford and Cambridge (e.g. hyperloop, maglev, cable car). 
• Modes that reduce capacity on the existing rail network due to poor interoperability with heavy rail (e.g. light rail / tram / bus on the West Coast Mainline); notwithstanding the options where existing network services may be substituted to deliver EWR services. 
• Rail options triggering additional significant enhancements to the national railway network beyond those identified in the 2021 consultation as a result of capacity constraints on the network, which were not considered plausible. 
• Modes that are inconsistent with current policy (such as recommencing promotion of the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway, which was cancelled) or road improvement proposals which are properly to be considered by National Highways. 

Affordability Test  

Affordability has not been defined in absolute terms in this report. In the circumstances of this review and based upon the cost of the scheme presented as an emerging preference in the 2021 consultation, it was initially assumed that a £6 billion capital investment at 2021  (including risk and inflation allowances, and which equates to circa £3bn in base cost) provides a notional cost ceiling. Therefore, as a working assumption, it was concluded that the initial capital cost will need to be significantly less than this. Having regard to longer-term affordability, the longer-term value for money that this investment would deliver has been considered and the customer benefits accrued in relation to their cost.  

The Affordability Test considered the principal cost-driving infrastructure interventions for the Scheme Options in each route section that remained following the application of the Credibility Test. This test also considered service elements (such as service level and stopping patterns) which were driving those infrastructure requirements and, therefore, were leading to higher capital costs. The results of this test are summarised in Chapters 3 and 4. 

Scheme options requiring significant segregated track and platforms or other extensive interventions on the existing rail network4 to create the extra capacity (both light and heavy rail) were discounted on the basis of cost at this stage.  These are summarised below5: 

• Rail scheme options with more than three trains per hour over Bicester London Road level crossing. 
• Rail scheme options with more than two trains per hour to Milton Keynes, Bedford Station or Cambridge (whether approaching Cambridge from the north or south). 

As part of this sifting stage, a sensitivity was applied by taking account of two factors, which resulted in the retention of options with two trains per hour into Cambridge from the south and options utilising most of the original Varsity Line alignment between Bedford and Cambridge via Sandy: 

• For scheme options with a southern approach to Cambridge, options which would have been discounted on affordability owing to the need to four-track the West Anglia Mainline (WAML), were retained on the assumption that two existing WAML services per hour could be replaced to deliver the EWR services, thereby avoiding four-tracking the WAML.  
• Varsity Line options, which had initially been excluded as too expensive due to the requirement for a tunnel to address the topography of the area and to traverse the built-up Sandy area, were retained by substituting a viaduct for a tunnel, making these Varsity Line options affordable in principle.  

Strategic Drivers  

The process described above excluded Scheme Options that were considered unlikely to be credible as a way of providing enhanced transport connectivity on the two route sections between Oxford and Bedford and between Bedford and Cambridge, and those which it was anticipated would exceed the cost envelope of an EWR project with a notional minimum affordability. Next, it was necessary to consider how to identify those remaining Scheme Options which were most likely to achieve the strategic objectives and provide a cost-effective transport solution, linking settlements within the Oxford to Cambridge area. This analysis was considered to require a more detailed understanding of the aims of the Project and the performance of Scheme Options in relation to those aims.  

To enable the performance of Scheme Options to be assessed consistently in both the Oxford-Bedford and Bedford-Cambridge route sections, a series of “Strategic Drivers” were identified. The performance of the Scheme Options was considered against the Strategic Drivers and the sifting criteria that sit beneath these: 

1. Does the Scheme Option meet the strategic need, in terms of access to population, employment and potential housing growth, demand, and does the option have the capacity and ability to meet the demand?  
2. Is the Scheme Option attractive to users, from the perspective of journey time, need to interchange, and service frequency? 

Once the options had been sifted, consideration was also given to their overall alignment with relevant policies such as on decarbonisation or the ability to support modal shift in freight. Whilst these considerations were noted at this stage, performance against such factors was taken into account in later comparisons of transport solutions. 

Strategic Test 

The Strategic Drivers were used to sift affordable and credible Scheme Options and identify those which were most likely to meet the strategic objectives. The aim of this sifting exercise was to identify those credible and affordable Scheme Options that could be subject to further appraisal in terms of their ability to address geographical and economic issues within the Oxford to Cambridge region.   

Each Scheme Option (regardless of mode) was considered against the Sifting Criteria using a scoring system of 1 (low) to 3 (high). Any Scheme options where any Sifting Criterion scored 1 were initially discounted. The results of the sifting process are summarised in Chapter 4. 

Strategic Need  

The Strategic Need was considered against three sifting criteria: 

• Does it connect the right places? Three supporting criteria were examined for each option: 
• Existing Population; allowing an understanding of the best opportunity to achieve modal shift and connect existing populations to employment. 
• Existing Jobs; connecting existing jobs provides the best opportunity to achieve modal shift and connect existing populations to employment.  
• Future Growth; as a key strategic aim of EWR is to maximise the potential for economic growth in the Oxford to Cambridge region. 
• Does it attract enough demand? 
• Does it have enough capacity to meet that demand? 

Attractiveness to Users 

The Attractiveness to Users sifting criterion included three supporting criteria: 

• Journey Time; as the shortest journey times would best encourage modal shift and use of the scheme option, with lower journey times generally leading to higher demand for transport. 
• Interchanges required in each section; as changing transport modes influences demand through the effect it has on time spent waiting, time spent transferring between vehicles and the inconvenience and risks to the journey involved. 
• Service frequency; as a higher frequency is assumed to encourage more travel and demand as individuals would more likely be able to depart at their chosen time and would be less impacted should they miss a service. It would also increase capacity.  

Journey time 

Lower journey times generally lead to higher demand for transport. This is because, irrespective of mode, the lower the journey time, the more likely someone is to undertake the journey. This is particularly the case with commuting, where a worker’s choice of residence and/or workplace is influenced by the transport options available, and the journey time between destinations.  

A 45-minute journey time is frequently used in transport planning to mark the boundaries of a medium sized city’s commuting catchment and most workers’ willingness to travel. The analysis carried out by EWR Co. suggests the point at which fewer than 1% of residents will commute to the city aligns approximately with 45-minutes by rail for Oxford and Cambridge and 45-minutes by car for Milton Keynes. This figure is important to understand the issues concerned in the decision-making for the approach into Cambridge, explained in section 8.4. 

The journey time thresholds which were applied during the sifting process differed depending on relevant sections of the route. All of them are in the region of 45 minutes.  

Interchange 

Changing transport modes influences demand through the effect it has on time spent waiting, time spent transferring between vehicles and the inconvenience and risks involved. Hence, interchanging not only takes time but also imposes a psychological barrier on travellers greater than the actual time required to interchange. Transport research shows that in Great Britain, rail demand, in particular, significantly rises when interchanges are removed. This is particularly the case for short-distance journeys. 

Frequency 

It has been assumed that a higher frequency of service encourages more travel / demand as individuals would more likely be able to depart at their chosen time and would be less impacted should they miss a service.  

The long listing process aspired to a minimum frequency of two trains (heavy or light rail) per hour with the potential to upgrade to four trains per hour. This position would be revisited later in the process, once the Theory of Change had been established – see paragraph 2.8 below and Chapters 6 and 7. For other modes, a minimum of four services per hour was considered to provide a comparable alternative to a two trains per hour heavy rail service level. 

Table 4 below summarises how each of the performance criteria in the strategic sift were scored. 

Table 4 – Levels of performance against each parameter used to arrive at the relevant scores for each criterion 

* The growth opportunity ranking was calculated on the basis of a high-level assessment of land availability using GIS Data / Desktop research, based on:  

LOW: <30% Available Land 

MEDIUM: 30-60% Available Land 

HIGH: >60% Available Land 

Creation of Option Families and the Theory of Change 

The sifting process created a short list of options to be considered further.  

For the Oxford to Bedford section, this stage of the process involved converging on a single, heavy rail Scheme Option based on a high-level analysis of benefits and costs. In contrast, there remained significant differentiators between Bedford and Cambridge and therefore by fixing on a single mode option between Oxford and Bedford, these differentiators could then be compared on a like-for-like basis.  

To make the assessment manageable, it was necessary to limit the number of options between Bedford and Cambridge that were taken forward to detailed modelling and economic appraisal. The shortlisted options were consolidated into Option Families, grouped by the alignment served and proposed transport mode.  

In parallel, EWR Co used a Theory of Change approach to assess the Option Families for transport connectivity between Oxford and Cambridge. A Theory of Change is a tried and tested methodology for planning and evaluation that is used in commercial, not-for-profit and government sectors to promote social change. It defines long-term goals and then maps backwards to identify the necessary preconditions for outcomes to be achieved. The Theory of Change developed for the Project is explained in Chapter 6 along with its methodology and its outputs.  

The outputs of the Theory of Change were used to reassess the strategic case for a transport project between Oxford and Cambridge and to identify particular regional constraints that a successful option would need to tackle. It also determined the capacity that a successful transport option would ultimately need to provide, and hence the level of service necessary for each mode to deliver that capacity. The evidence gathered through the use of a Theory of Change analysis (supplemented by traditional transport modelling and appraisal techniques) was applied to the Option Families (explained in Chapter 7). This allowed further shortlisting of the option families, retaining those that were most likely to deliver growth. Four rail option families remained the focus of further analysis with different approaches to Bedford and Cambridge, but with a common alignment in-between. These four rail option families were then analysed to identify risks and opportunities. This assessment is explained in Chapter 9. 

Cost estimates were developed for the four heavy rail option families, for the purpose of comparing the relative costs of these solutions. This was done by assessing their relative affordability at base cost level (i.e. the direct cost of works plus the associated indirect costs of delivery such as design and project management) and by also considering the expected range of total costs in terms of risk and uncertainty for these options.  

Assessing the short-list 

EWR Co assessed the performance of the shortlisted Option Families by using the Assessment Factors used in previous decision-making for EWR. The Assessment Factors are set out in the 2021 consultation Technical Report. In a first stage, the following topics were identified as potential differentiating considerations: 

• Cost (Assessment Factors 3, 4 and 5). 
• Environment (Assessment Factor 14). 

A second stage of EWR Co’s assessment then looked again at the previous optioneering decisions on key elements of infrastructure, particularly in relation to the approaches to Bedford and Cambridge. To facilitate these comparisons, additional topics from the existing Assessment Factors were identified as potential differentiating considerations: 

• Service delivery and operations (Assessment Factors 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12). 
• Delivering the Theory of Change and unlocking economic growth (Assessment Factors 1, 2, 15). 

The opportunities for phased construction and a phased introduction of services for the shortlisted options families, and the implications of this for the service pattern, were also considered.  

Identifying the final recommendation 

The conclusions of the assessment process validated the optioneering undertaken to date, and allowed a single, most appropriate Scheme Option to be identified for the section of the railway between Bedford and Cambridge. This then enabled other aspects of the route to be defined, particularly: 

• Confirming the proposed EWR service pattern between Oxford, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge. 
• Outcomes needed at Oxford. 
• Narrowing of options at the Bicester London Road level crossing. 
• Outcomes required for the Marston Vale Line. 
• Preferred options at Bedford and Cambridge.  

4 including the West Coast Mainline, Midland Mainline and West Anglia Mainline

5 Prices below in base construction costs (reference Project Taskforce 2021)

Early Sift of Long list – Oxford to Bedford Results 

Introduction 

This chapter considers the long list of Scheme Options between Oxford and Bedford and explains how options were discounted to identify a shortlist of potential solutions. The methodology for this is set out in Chapter 2. 

To establish the long list of options, a group of experts from EWR Co and its supply chain of engineering consultancies considered transport solutions that could provide enhanced links between Oxford and Cambridge. Unconstrained by the Project Objectives contained in the Sponsor’s Requirements and the PWOS, it was possible to identify a large number of means of providing transport for passengers between the two cities and locations in between. The process identified 170 Scheme Options, of which 57 related to the route section between Oxford and Bedford and 113 related to the route section between Bedford and Cambridge. The Bedford to Cambridge options long list sift is summarised in Chapter 4.  

As described in Chapter 2, the long list of Scheme Options was considered for each route section. This was undertaken first in terms of technical suitability (or credibility) to provide a transport connection between the relevant end points and then in terms of affordability in the context of the Terms of Reference for the ACP. It should be noted that cost estimates provided in relation to infrastructure interventions at this stage were based on professional judgement and were used to make a high-level comparison between options to enable an early sift. 

After the initial Credibility and Affordability tests (or sifts), the remaining Scheme Options were subject to a Strategic Sift. This considered Strategic Drivers, which are summarised as: the ability of the Scheme Options to meet the strategic need for the project, and the attractiveness of the Scheme Options to users. 

These tests/sifts and their outcomes for the Oxford-Bedford section are described below. 

Results of Credibility Test – Oxford to Bedford 

Of the 57 Scheme Options for this section, the test of whether an option was technically suitable or out of scope for further consideration resulted in 7 options being discounted from the long list. 

This was for the following reasons: 

• The use of a Light Rail solution on a four light rail vehicles (LRVs)-per-hour basis between Oxford and Milton Keynes Central or between Oxford and Bletchley stations was discounted. This was for several reasons, including that to achieve shared running on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) of LRVs and existing/planned services was considered likely to be highly technically complex. The tram vehicles used in a light rail solution are fundamentally different to high speed (>100 mph) mainline rail vehicles for passenger trains and heavy freight trains. To mitigate the risk posed by different vehicle standards, there would need to be enforced separation between light rail and heavy rail services because of the different crashworthiness characteristics of the rolling stock. This mitigation would require changes to WCML signalling, which would reduce capacity on the main line by 25%, meaning that additional infrastructure would be required in the form of new track on the WCML. While the introduction of a European (electronic) Train Control System (ETCS) might provide an alternative mitigation, longer overrun protection would still be needed due to the different crashworthiness standards, and capacity would still be constrained on the WCML. These solutions would be very expensive to introduce (in excess of £300M). Consequently, these two Scheme Options (Light rail between Oxford and Milton Keynes, and between Oxford and Bletchley) were excluded. 
• The replacement of the existing railway by a Guided Bus between Oxford and Bletchley and then extending to Milton Keynes Central station on a six bus-per-hour basis was discounted. Similarly, the replacement of the existing railway by a new road between Oxford and Bedford was discounted. This is because the loss of the existing railway would be expensive and result in the loss of existing rail services. Because the existing railway, particularly its overbridges, is built to traditional railway standards, it is narrower than the cross-section needed for modern bus rapid transit vehicles or road vehicles, meaning that capacity would be constrained to a single lane in each direction. There would be particular constraints at bridges where vehicles could not pass one another. The solution would result in constraints on capacity, impacts on the environment and have material cost implications. 
• A Hyperloop solution was discounted as unsuitable because of its technical complexity, the risk of deploying new technology, and high capital and operating costs. The distance involved was also not considered appropriate for a Hyperloop solution (Hyperloop, to maximise the top speed benefit, needs approximately at least 50km+ between portals to get to top speeds, using aircraft take-off acceleration speeds).  
• A Maglev constructed on the existing railway alignment was discounted as being unsuitable because of its technical complexity, high capital and operating costs, and capacity limitations. The distance involved was also not considered appropriate for a Maglev solution. 
• A replacement of the railway with a cable car was discounted as it would result in long journey times and restrict capacity. The replacement of the railway would reduce passenger capacity and result in the loss of freight capacity. 

Results of Affordability Test (Oxford to Bedford) 

The test of whether a Scheme Option was affordable in the context of the Terms of Reference for the ACP resulted in a further seven options being discounted from the long list. The majority of these are heavy rail options, which can be grouped as a series of single infrastructure solutions with multiple service levels.  

The first set of Scheme Options discounted were as follows: 

• Two trains per hour between Oxford and Milton Keynes Central and two trains per hour between Oxford and Bedford with existing freight services. EWR trains would stop twice on the Marston Vale Line between Bletchley and Bedford. 
• Two trains per hour between Oxford and Milton Keynes Central and two trains per hour between Oxford and Bedford with existing freight services. EWR trains would stop five times on the Marston Vale Line between Bletchley and Bedford. 
• Two trains per hour between Oxford and Milton Keynes Central and two trains per hour between Oxford and Bedford with existing freight services. EWR trains would stop twice on the Marston Vale Line between Bletchley and Bedford and existing services would stop ten times. 

These Scheme Options would require the new facilities at Oxford station and the closure and replacement of Bicester London Road level crossing, each of which would result in material project risk and significant capital cost. Based on the need to consider affordability, such provision and its associated costs were discounted at this stage. 

A second set of Scheme Options that used part of the WCML was then considered and discounted. These were as follows: 

• A two train per hour service between Oxford and Milton Keynes Central, with a one train per hour stopping service. EWR trains would stop twice on the Marston Vale Line between Bletchley and Bedford. 
• A two train per hour service between Oxford and Milton Keynes Central, with a one train per hour stopping service. EWR trains would stop five times on the Marston Vale Line between Bletchley and Bedford. 
• A two train per hour service between Oxford and Milton Keynes Central, with a one train per hour stopping service. EWR trains would stop twice on the Marston Vale Line between Bletchley and Bedford and existing services would stop ten times. 

These Scheme Options were discounted because of the complexity and cost of integrating more services on the WCML and resulting capacity constraints. These Scheme Options result in 3tph between Bletchley and Milton Keynes on the WCML. The existing WCML is at capacity and there are platform constraints at Milton Keynes that affect the ability to turn services. These Scheme Options are likely to require the construction of additional platform capacity to enable trains to turn. Furthermore, the existing WCML signalling is conventional, and no further capacity can be provided unless additional infrastructure (track) or migration to ETCS with traffic management is provided. The cost is considered to be in excess of £500m, having regard to infrastructure alterations/land acquisition or the provision of ETCS traffic management for the Rugby Regional Operations Centre desk (including the cost of rolling stock fitment with ETCS apparatus).  

The final discounted Scheme Option was the provision of a tram/train service from Oxford to Bletchley along the existing railway. The railway would continue to operate as heavy rail on the Marston Vale Line east of Bletchley. This was discounted because of the cost of altering track to light rail standards. Also, achieving shared running on the WCML of tram/train vehicles and existing/planned services on the WCML was considered likely to be highly technically complex. The vehicles used in a tram/train solution are different in character to high speed (>100 mph) mainline rail vehicles for passenger trains and heavy freight trains. As for light rail, to mitigate the risk, there would need to be enforced separation between light rail and heavy rail services due to the different crashworthiness characteristics of the rolling stock. This mitigation would result in changes to WCML signalling, which would reduce capacity on the main line by 25% meaning that additional infrastructure would be required – new track on the WCML. While the introduction of an electronic European Train Control System (ETCS) might provide an alternative mitigation, longer overrun protection would still be needed due to the different crashworthiness standards and capacity would still be constrained on the WCML. These solutions would be very expensive to introduce (in excess of £300M).  

Results of Strategic Sift (Oxford to Bedford) 

Following the application of ten criteria derived from the Strategic Drivers, options were eliminated on a range of grounds relating to an insufficiency of population served, jobs likely to be created, or growth opportunities. 

Table 5 shows that discounting Scheme Options on the basis of the Strategic Drivers resulted in the exclusion of 23 Scheme Options due to the strategic need not being met, and further two Scheme Options on the basis of attractiveness to travellers. 

Table 5 - Oxford to Bedford Scheme Options discarded at strategic sift 

There were a number of reasons why options were excluded during the long list sift between Oxford and Bedford. These are summarised below. As all the options shared the same alignment and served the same town and city centre catchments the variance in scores between options was low.  

Strategic Need 

Connecting the right places (Population, Jobs and Growth Potential)  

Service patterns which had only two stops on the Marston Vale Line resulted in smaller population and jobs catchment than those with five stops or a combined express and all-stopper service.  

Demand 

Options with only one service per hour on the Marston Vale Line, assumed to be in addition to the existing stopping service, performed comparatively poorly in attracting enough demand compared to the original project.  

Capacity 

Options with only one service on the Marston Vale Line (without a stopper) were also frequently but not exclusively found not to deliver enough capacity for the estimated demand.  

Attractiveness to Users 

Journey Time, Interchanges, Frequency  

The options excluded for this reason was to maintain the proposed service frequency on completion of CS1 as this offered a low frequency (1tph) and long journey time between Oxford and Bedford (70 minutes). 

Following the Strategic Sift, 19 Scheme Options remained for EWR between Oxford and Bedford. These were grouped based on service patterns as shown in Table 6 and are considered further in Chapter 0 

Remaining Options (Oxford to Bedford) 

Following the sifting process, 19 options remained between Oxford and Bedford. These are summarised in Table 6. 

 Table 6 - Options retained between Oxford and Bedford following strategic sift 

Service Options west of Bedford 

As part of the development of initial options, 57 Scheme Options were identified in the long list for the Oxford to Bedford route section. It was assumed that, as an existing railway between Oxford and Bedford will be in place, there was more of a case for utilising the existing railway and looking for service solutions rather than seeking to replace the railway with an alternative mode or a new alignment. This assumption was borne out in analysis. This approach managed costs associated with this section of the route. With the existing railway assumed to be in place, EWR Co therefore sought to optimise the service and infrastructure between Oxford and Bedford by considering the station calling pattern, the service pattern and the minimum infrastructure that could support these options. 

Between Oxford (OXD) and Milton Keynes (MKC) it is planned that 2tph will be introduced by mid 2025 under CS1.  

In adding services under CS2 between Oxford and Bedford (and later extending to Cambridge) of 1 or 2 tph, several factors come into play that have an associated cost. Key constraints are capacity at Oxford and the number of services that operate over the level crossing at Bicester. These tend to discourage an enhanced level of service unless there is an overarching justification for providing one. 

Aylesbury 

Services to Aylesbury formed part of the original EWR scope where it was proposed to run services between Aylesbury and Milton Keynes. However, it was challenging to provide a positive conventional business case to support the cost of the additional infrastructure required and the Aylesbury branch was not taken forward as part of the core project. 

The ACP Terms of Reference contained a requirement to reassess the strategic case for EWR’s proposals, and this reassessment included the potential to extend EWR services to Aylesbury, to establish where there were more affordable ways to deliver the scheme. Reconsidering Aylesbury connections did not open up more affordable solutions for EWR, and conventional transport modelling analysis continues to suggest that the benefits of extending EWR services to Aylesbury do not justify the costs. As such, Scheme Options serving Aylesbury were not progressed further under the ACP.  

Notwithstanding this conclusion, there are local aspirations for an Aylesbury service connecting to EWR and the possibility remains that a strategic case could be made, should a case for growth be identified. EWR Co continues to review the potential for such a service as a separate proposal.  

Early Sift of Long list – Bedford to Cambridge Results 

Introduction 

This chapter summarises the results of the long list sift for options between Bedford and Cambridge. The process followed was the same as that undertaken for the Oxford to Bedford sift and the approach and nomenclature used can be found in Chapter 2 above, with the routes depicted in Figure 2 below. 

Figure 2- Simplified diagram of possible calling points - route alignments for illustrative purposes only. This section covers the Bedford to Cambridge options.

In total, 113 options were identified between Bedford and Cambridge, varying in alignment, approach to Bedford and Cambridge, and connectivity into main stations or points of termination. They also covered a range of service frequency.  

Separately, an option variation was also considered of replacing two existing West Anglia Main Line (WAML) services per hour with EWR services approaching Cambridge from the south. This option would minimise works required on the WAML as part of a southern approach to Cambridge and would therefore make southern approach to Cambridge options more affordable. This was not counted as a separate option but applied at the affordability sifting stage, which meant that these options were retained.  

Results of Credibility Test (Bedford to Cambridge) 

An initial sift was carried out to test the suitability of different modes. This considered technical maturity, and development / planning consent risk.  Scheme Options meeting the criteria listed below were discounted: 

• Those which were considered by EWR Co’s consultant experts to be technically novel, immature and unproven or an inappropriate transport mode for the Oxford to Cambridge area – and which would not be ready in time for the demand profile for this business case, when considering the strategic objectives for the Project (e.g. hyperloop).  
• Mode Options that were considered at this stage to reduce capacity on the existing mainline rail network due to poor interoperability with heavy rail on intercity routes (e.g. light rail/tram/bus on the West Coast Main Line).   
• Rail options which required use of large existing network sections already at capacity, such as the East Coast Main Line (ECML), triggering significant enhancements such as extensive four-tracking, were not considered plausible. 

• In addition, road improvement solutions were discounted as strategic investment on linking roads was not deemed to solve the capacity and local congestion issues in town centres which would prevail due to lack of space.   

The test of whether an option was technically suitable (credible) or out of scope for further consideration resulted in 13 options being discounted. Although AVRT was considered to be a novel technology, owing to the separate review on its suitability as an option, it was retained as an option in the sifting process.  

Table 7 - Options not progressed on grounds of Credibility 

Results of Affordability Test (Bedford to Cambridge) 

At the next sifting stage, options that were deemed to exceed the investment envelope set in the ACP Terms of Reference were discounted. Costs were considered in relation to a necessary upgrade of the WAML, including a new grade-separated junction at Hauxton, four-tracking, new signalling, and significant infrastructure works at Cambridge and the proposed Cambridge South station.  

When applying the affordability sift without alternatives, a further 30 options were not progressed. Most of the discounted options are heavy rail Scheme Options, which can be grouped as a series of single infrastructure options with multiple service levels. The route alignments in this section relate to those alignments presented at the 2021 consultation. Nine alignments were presented for the railway between Bedford and Cambridge, with Route Alignments (RA) 1 and 9 identified as the emerging preferred options. Further detail can be found within the Consultation Technical Report6. 

Table 8, below, lists those options which were discounted.  

Table 8 - Options not progressed on grounds of Affordability 

As discussed in Section 2.5, a sensitivity was applied on account of two factors, which resulted in the retention of options with two trains per hour into Cambridge from the south and options utilising most of the original varsity alignment between Bedford and Cambridge. Table 9, below, lists those options retained as a result. 

Table 9 - Options originally thought to be unaffordable, but found to have affordable variations available so progressed 

Results of Strategic Sift and Attractiveness to Users (Bedford to Cambridge) 

Following the application of the criteria derived from the Strategic Drivers, 47 Scheme Options were not progressed on a range of grounds, and these are listed in Table 10.  

Connecting the right places 

There were two main reasons why 21 options scored comparatively poorly for connecting the right places:  

• Options which served only a South Bedford Parkway resulting in a smaller population and jobs catchment due to the lack of a town centre station connectivity, and where growth potential was low. 
• Options which did not serve central Cambridge, through the foreshortened termination of the route at either St Neots/Tempsford or Cambourne, or which utilised the C2C corridor, were excluded as they would fail to connect to Cambridge city centre. 

Capacity 

A further 21 options were discounted on grounds of not providing sufficient capacity as scheme options. Options which relied on bus services operating at lower than six buses per hour, or some options terminating early and outside of main towns, did not provide sufficient capacity. 

Demand 

There were five options which were excluded for low demand performance compared to the original project, which can be grouped into:  

• Heavy rail options with a service level of two trains per hour, which did not serve a central Cambridge or Bedford station. 
• Light rail options which terminated at Cambridge North station or Bedford South Parkway, which did not serve either city/town centre and had a comparatively long journey time.  
• Guided bus options which did not deliver comparative journey times to Cambridge city centre due to a lack of segregation and had lower frequency scored comparatively poorly. Options which combined a number of modes and long journey times scored comparatively poorly. 

Attractiveness to Users 

Having sifted on capacity, demand and connecting the right places, all remaining options were found to be attractive to users in terms of journey time, the number of interchanges between Bedford and Cambridge, and the service frequency offered.  

Table 10 - Options not progressed on grounds of not connecting the right places, scheme option capacity, demand, or attractiveness to users. 

Remaining Options (Bedford to Cambridge) 

Following the sifting process, 23 options between Bedford and Cambridge remained. These are summarised in Table 11 below.  

Table 11 - Shortlisted options 

The list of Scheme Options includes three Scheme Options that were identified for consideration following identification of the shortlist. During the sifting process these were identified as potential options that should have been included in the original long list. These new options were tested against the sifting process described above for completeness, so were included in the respective sifting list (discounted or retained). These three options were: 

• CS3-HR-NEW1 Bedford St Johns – Varsity Hybrid – Cambourne North – Cambridge via South, 2tph. 
• CS3-HR-NEW2 Bedford St Johns – Varsity Hybrid – Cambourne North – Cambridge via South, 4tph. 
• CSE-HR-NEWA15 Bedford St Johns - Varsity Line (shortcut) – Cambridge via Cambridge South, 2tph. 

6 East West Rail | Library

Option Families 

The Option Families  

Following the sifting process, EWR Co reflected upon the extent to which the down-selection process resulted in options likely to achieve desirable outputs for the new transport link on opening and in relation to its longer-term operation. Given the number of potential options and service permutations, as well as the single-option analysis performed under the sifting process, the Scheme Options were rationalised into Option Families. This enabled a focus on the shortlisted infrastructure solutions as well as an understanding of the potential for solutions to evolve. Option families are derived from Scheme Options and represent groupings using the alignment served and proposed transport mode.  

The sifting process was designed so that the broadest possible range of options to improve transport connectivity between Oxford and Cambridge could be considered. To be proportionate, this was necessarily coarse and so a critical review of the sifting process and the shortlisted options demonstrated that certain key proposals did not survive down-selection but merited more detailed consideration. Similarly, a number of the surviving proposals closely resembled each other. 

The shortlisted Heavy Rail options all operated at 2tph due to the application of the affordability criterion, which had deemed higher service frequencies to be prohibitively expensive due to a requirement for more significant – and costly – infrastructure interventions. However, EWR Co’s work on the Theory of Change (described in Chapter 6 of this report) was being undertaken in parallel, and this had established that there would need to be upwards flexibility in service frequency to enable sufficient capacity for increased commuting to Cambridge, even in conservative growth scenarios.  

Alongside this, as the ACP progressed, it became clear that the Option Families needed to consider higher service frequencies of 3-4tph for Heavy Rail options or similarly performing frequencies for other transport modes. 

Considering the above, and to facilitate further appraisal and comparison between them, the remaining Scheme Options were consolidated into Option Families. In creating the Option Families, the principal characteristics of each of the Scheme Options were retained. The following consolidation of options was implemented: 

1. Heavy rail alignments serving either Tempsford or St Neots were consolidated into St Neots Option Families, for ACP purposes, as this represented the most affordable option serving that location as identified in the 2021 consultation.   
2. Heavy rail alignments through Cambourne North and Cambourne South were consolidated to serve Cambourne North, which presents a greater opportunity for growth, would have less environmental impact and was preferred in feedback received from the 2021 consultation as well as reflecting EWR Co’s emerging preferred options at the consultation. 
3. A light rail option discounted at the Demand stage was reintroduced to provide an alternative northern approach to Cambridge, leaving Bedford via a Varsity hybrid alignment.  
4. The Guided Bus options were consolidated into one option utilising existing roads (online) and one segregated option (offline). This was seen as the key differentiator and would enable a better comparison with the heavy and light rail options. 

The Scheme Options considered further in this report and the Option Families that they were grouped into are set out in the tables and diagrams below. For each Option Family, a schematic of the route shows the proposed stopping pattern, with the number of trains per hour stated alongside. The phased increase in capacity is shown through the increase in trains per hour – together these form the range of options within any one family. Further columns summarise the alignment for the different sections of the route, moving from west to east.