Sites for Labour's New Towns that already have rail connections

[Nottingham59]

One of the criteria for new housing is the provision of adequate public transport links. Indeed, the rationale for East-West Rail is to enable large developments at places like Cambourne.

Labour is promoting the idea of New Towns to solve the housing crisis. Rather than building new lines, where could these be located where there is already capacity on the rail network?

For what it's worth, these are my suggestions:

• Cheddington There is already a four-platform station on the WCML at Cheddington, which is surrounded by open countryside. Use New Towns legislation to buy up all agricultural land within 2-3 miles of the station; mark out a network of covered cycleways and autonomous tramlines (like DLR) centred on the station; and build homes for 250,000 people to create a compact New Town the same population as Milton Keynes, but physically less spread out.
  The WCML will have plenty of capacity when HS2 opens, and there are few neighbours to complain. And those that do are likely to vote Tory anyway, so they will have little electoral impact.
• Greater Shelford Rather than building EWR to bring commuters into Cambridge from Cambourne and Tempsford, then build the houses near the existing stations like Foxton, Shepreth, Shelford, which already have Thameslink connections to Cambridge, and Whittleford Parkway. Also build new stations on existing lines, like at Fulbourn. These sites may be in the Cambridge green belt, but green belts are planning devices whose purpose is to constrain the growth of cities. If it is now government policy for cities like Cambridge to grow, then the Green Belt has lost its purpose and should be abolished.
• Rubgy One objection to any new housing in South East England is the lack of water supplies. Rugby is north of the Kilsby tunnel where the WCML crosses the great Watershed that runs across England from the Cotswolds to Lincoln. It is therefore the nearest place to London in the Severn-Trent water area, where supplies are much less scarce. It also has fast and slow line services to London on an WCML that will have much more commuter capacity after HS2.
• Lichfield. Lichfield will also enjoy unconstrained WCML capacity after HS2, from where it would be feasible to run 2tph on the fast lines non-stop to London, and 2tph semi-fast calling at stations in the Trent Valley before switching to the fasts at Rugby. It also has direct services to Birmingham and potentially Derby. When the new Lichfield gets big enough (say 300,000), then it would also make a good place for an HS2 station, being half-way between Interchange and Crewe. This would vastly increase its appeal as a commuter town. You wouldn't want to build stations on HS2 south of Birmingham, but track utilisation north of Birmingham will be lower, and therefore the timetables could accommodate another station without reducing capacity. I would locate the new station where HS2 crosses the Lichfield City line, to provide an interchange. If HS2 phase 2 ever gets built, I'd also include a new chord to the WCML so that trains from Milton Keynes and Rugby could join HS2 towards Manchester and Scotland.

Those are my ideas. Where would you advise Labour to build its New Town programme?

 

[The Planner]

Lichfield will have capacity going south as it stands not north. Rugby is expanding to the east with Rugby Parkway expected to open within a couple of years.

 

[Nottingham59]

Lichfield will have capacity going south as it stands not north. Rugby is expanding to the east with Rugby Parkway expected to open within a couple of years.

Agreed. But the market from Lichfield will be to the south. I'd start my suggested 4tph from there.
Annual figures from Lichfield City and TV combined are:

1. Birmingham 200,000
2. Euston 104,000
3. Sutton Coldfield 30,000
4. Stafford 10000
5. Crewe 3000
6. Manchester 2000

So northbound market just a few percent of the southbound.

EDIT: Until HS2 phase 2a gets built, I can't see more than 2tph (1 fast, 1 slow) going north from Lichfield TV through Handsacre.

 

[urbophile]

One of the criteria for new housing is the provision of adequate public transport links. Indeed, the rationale for East-West Rail is to enable large developments at places like Cambourne.

Labour is promoting the idea of New Towns to solve the housing crisis. Rather than building new lines, where could these be located where there is already capacity on the rail network?

For what it's worth, these are my suggestions:

• Cheddington There is already a four-platform station on the WCML at Cheddington, which is surrounded by open countryside. Use New Towns legislation to buy up all agricultural land within 2-3 miles of the station; mark out a network of covered cycleways and autonomous tramlines (like DLR) centred on the station; and build homes for 250,000 people to create a compact New Town the same population as Milton Keynes, but physically less spread out.
  The WCML will have plenty of capacity when HS2 opens, and there are few neighbours to complain. And those that do are likely to vote Tory anyway, so they will have little electoral impact.
• Greater Shelford Rather than building EWR to bring commuters into Cambridge from Cambourne and Tempsford, then build the houses near the existing stations like Foxton, Shepreth, Shelford, which already have Thameslink connections to Cambridge, and Whittleford Parkway. Also build new stations on existing lines, like at Fulbourn. These sites may be in the Cambridge green belt, but green belts are planning devices whose purpose is to constrain the growth of cities. If it is now government policy for cities like Cambridge to grow, then the Green Belt has lost its purpose and should be abolished.
• Rubgy One objection to any new housing in South East England is the lack of water supplies. Rugby is north of the Kilsby tunnel where the WCML crosses the great Watershed that runs across England from the Cotswolds to Lincoln. It is therefore the nearest place to London in the Severn-Trent water area, where supplies are much less scarce. It also has fast and slow line services to London on an WCML that will have much more commuter capacity after HS2.
• Lichfield. Lichfield will also enjoy unconstrained WCML capacity after HS2, from where it would be feasible to run 2tph on the fast lines non-stop to London, and 2tph semi-fast calling at stations in the Trent Valley before switching to the fasts at Rugby. It also has direct services to Birmingham and potentially Derby. When the new Lichfield gets big enough (say 300,000), then it would also make a good place for an HS2 station, being half-way between Interchange and Crewe. This would vastly increase its appeal as a commuter town. You wouldn't want to build stations on HS2 south of Birmingham, but track utilisation north of Birmingham will be lower, and therefore the timetables could accommodate another station without reducing capacity. I would locate the new station where HS2 crosses the Lichfield City line, to provide an interchange. If HS2 phase 2 ever gets built, I'd also include a new chord to the WCML so that trains from Milton Keynes and Rugby could join HS2 towards Manchester and Scotland.

Those are my ideas. Where would you advise Labour to build its New Town programme?

Why is there no town on your list further north than Lichfield? I expect that Labour's programme for new towns doesn't include Scotland or Wales, but there is a good half of England where there are sites, railways, and the need.

 

[Nottingham59]

Why is there no town on your list further north than Lichfield? I expect that Labour's programme for new towns doesn't include Scotland or Wales, but there is a good half of England where there are sites, railways, and the need.

In general, I understand the biggest need is in the South East. Places like Manchester are booming, but there is still affordable accommodation in places that are not that far away. So the greater need is better transport links, rather than more housing.

But I might be wrong. Where would you recommend?

EDIT: Lichfield is 1h15m away from Euston by Pendolino, and 45m by HS2. So feasible to commute. Not sure there are many other places like that on a 4-track underutilised mainline.

EDIT2. Maybe Newark or Grantham. But the ECML is full.

 

[AlastairFraser]

One of the criteria for new housing is the provision of adequate public transport links. Indeed, the rationale for East-West Rail is to enable large developments at places like Cambourne.

Labour is promoting the idea of New Towns to solve the housing crisis. Rather than building new lines, where could these be located where there is already capacity on the rail network?

For what it's worth, these are my suggestions:

• Cheddington There is already a four-platform station on the WCML at Cheddington, which is surrounded by open countryside. Use New Towns legislation to buy up all agricultural land within 2-3 miles of the station; mark out a network of covered cycleways and autonomous tramlines (like DLR) centred on the station; and build homes for 250,000 people to create a compact New Town the same population as Milton Keynes, but physically less spread out.
  The WCML will have plenty of capacity when HS2 opens, and there are few neighbours to complain. And those that do are likely to vote Tory anyway, so they will have little electoral impact.
• Greater Shelford Rather than building EWR to bring commuters into Cambridge from Cambourne and Tempsford, then build the houses near the existing stations like Foxton, Shepreth, Shelford, which already have Thameslink connections to Cambridge, and Whittleford Parkway. Also build new stations on existing lines, like at Fulbourn. These sites may be in the Cambridge green belt, but green belts are planning devices whose purpose is to constrain the growth of cities. If it is now government policy for cities like Cambridge to grow, then the Green Belt has lost its purpose and should be abolished.
• Rubgy One objection to any new housing in South East England is the lack of water supplies. Rugby is north of the Kilsby tunnel where the WCML crosses the great Watershed that runs across England from the Cotswolds to Lincoln. It is therefore the nearest place to London in the Severn-Trent water area, where supplies are much less scarce. It also has fast and slow line services to London on an WCML that will have much more commuter capacity after HS2.
• Lichfield. Lichfield will also enjoy unconstrained WCML capacity after HS2, from where it would be feasible to run 2tph on the fast lines non-stop to London, and 2tph semi-fast calling at stations in the Trent Valley before switching to the fasts at Rugby. It also has direct services to Birmingham and potentially Derby. When the new Lichfield gets big enough (say 300,000), then it would also make a good place for an HS2 station, being half-way between Interchange and Crewe. This would vastly increase its appeal as a commuter town. You wouldn't want to build stations on HS2 south of Birmingham, but track utilisation north of Birmingham will be lower, and therefore the timetables could accommodate another station without reducing capacity. I would locate the new station where HS2 crosses the Lichfield City line, to provide an interchange. If HS2 phase 2 ever gets built, I'd also include a new chord to the WCML so that trains from Milton Keynes and Rugby could join HS2 towards Manchester and Scotland.

Those are my ideas. Where would you advise Labour to build its New Town programme?

Rather then building new towns for commuters to the South East, I'd suggest a new town program in the North West and South West, with an industrial subsidy scheme (similar to the original new town programs) to relocate companies away from the South East.

North West:

Firstly, I'd propose a new town joining Rishton (which already has a station), Clayton-le-Moors and Great Harwood.
Land is cheap in the area, there is good motorway access, and you could link a tram system using the old Great Harwood loop alignment of the East Lancs line for the most part to serve the new developments with links into Blackburn and Burnley.
If the new town released additional transport-related funding, I'd electrify the east Lancs from the WCML to Colne and run the Preston - Colne stopper up to every 30 mins, if possible. This would link the new town into long distance services at Preston and services to Manchester/Leeds/Clitheroe/Blackpool at Blackburn/Burnley/Accrington.

Secondly, I'd select Acton Bridge in Cheshire as another potential site - the WCML station has good links to Liverpool and Birmingham, with stations at Cuddington and Greenbank close by towards Manchester and Chester.
Land is flat and not massively expensive in that area of Cheshire, and if you build towards Cuddington from Acton Bridge station, you're building away from the river Weaver and so avoid flooding issues in the area.
You also have the larger amenities a town of around 40 to 50k would need in Northwich or Runcorn, which are both reasonably nearby.



For the SW towns, I'd suggest St Germans as an initial development.
Good links into Plymouth/St Austell/Exeter by train, space to the west of the existing village to build on and establishing large industrial estates in the area would provide more much-needed jobs in a quite deprived county.

There's also potential to build a second station in the Liskeard direction, near Trerulefoot, to serve additional extensions if needed.

It is also a very desirable area to build in, with the picturesque Lynher valley to the east. Recreational infrastructure including hiking trails and parks could be developed along this area, as an eastern buffer to the large development.

The next place I'd consider would be Yeoford in Mid Devon. Regular services into Exeter on the Tarka line, and potential of more if small upgrades were made for the Okehampton service to be able to stop here.
Plenty of land is available in the area, it is relatively close to the A30, and being in the Yeo valley, land is reasonably flat.
The traditional agricultural economy in this part of Devon is currently struggling (partly due to the rising costs of farming), especially since some of the area supplements income via small-scale tourist enterprises.
As we've just seen for the last few years, the tourism and hospitality industry is not bulletproof, and the new town development could provide more secure employment for locals, as well as a nearby source of labour for the agricultural industry.
Again, there's potential for another station towards Okehampton/Barnstaple, if the new town was to build future extensions in the direction of Colebrooke/Penstone.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would have said Kempston Hardwick but it looks like that's going to be a theme park. But maybe Lidlington or Ridgmont could be the location of an ecovillage?

I agree with Cheddington for a larger, public transport designed "eco MK".

 

[Magdalia]

One objection to any new housing in South East England is the lack of water supplies.

In and around Cambridge this is already happening, with the Environment Agency objecting to all large planning applications.

Greater Shelford Rather than building EWR to bring commuters into Cambridge from Cambourne and Tempsford, then build the houses near the existing stations like Foxton, Shepreth, Shelford, which already have Thameslink connections to Cambridge, and Whittleford Parkway.

Superficially this might sound contradictory to the concern about lack of water supplies, but the Cambridge area does have to manage both risk of drought and risk of flood. 18 months ago drought was the big risk, now it is flood. In 6 months time it might be back to drought.

Greater Shelford won't happen because of flood management issues. Between Great Chesterford and Shelford the railway is on the flood plain, with 6 river crossings, and very little land suitable for building.

The flood management issues also apply on the route towards Royston, though they are not so severe. Foxton and Shepreth are close to the edge of the flood plain, with scope for significant amounts of building effectively on one side of the line only. The flood management issue only goes away after the line turns south and climbs away from the river at Shepreth. A few years ago there was a tentative proposal for Meldreth extending to Bassingbourn, but it wouldn't get through planning now because of the lack of drinking water. If the drinking water issue could be resolved then Meldreth is probably the least worst option for a new town close to Cambridge on an existing rail route.

Also build new stations on existing lines, like at Fulbourn.

Fulbourn doesn't help much because of the limited capacity on the Newmarket line with little scope to increase it.

building EWR to bring commuters into Cambridge from Cambourne and Tempsford

Cambourne and Tempsford work better for water supply because they are closer to the River Ouse, which also has its headwaters in the watershed of England near Kilsby. They are places that are easier to supply without abstraction of the chalk aquifers. The River Ouse has its own flood management issues, especially in Bedford and St Neots, but any flood risks at Cambourne and Tempsford are not so difficult to manage.

 

[Wolfie]

Rather then building new towns for commuters to the South East, I'd suggest a new town program in the North West and South West, with an industrial subsidy scheme (similar to the original new town programs) to relocate companies away from the South East.

North West:

Firstly, I'd propose a new town joining Rishton (which already has a station), Clayton-le-Moors and Great Harwood.
Land is cheap in the area, there is good motorway access, and you could link a tram system using the old Great Harwood loop alignment of the East Lancs line for the most part to serve the new developments with links into Blackburn and Burnley.
If the new town released additional transport-related funding, I'd electrify the east Lancs from the WCML to Colne and run the Preston - Colne stopper up to every 30 mins, if possible. This would link the new town into long distance services at Preston and services to Manchester/Leeds/Clitheroe/Blackpool at Blackburn/Burnley/Accrington.

Secondly, I'd select Acton Bridge in Cheshire as another potential site - the WCML station has good links to Liverpool and Birmingham, with stations at Cuddington and Greenbank close by towards Manchester and Chester.
Land is flat and not massively expensive in that area of Cheshire, and if you build towards Cuddington from Acton Bridge station, you're building away from the river Weaver and so avoid flooding issues in the area.
You also have the larger amenities a town of around 40 to 50k would need in Northwich or Runcorn, which are both reasonably nearby.



For the SW towns, I'd suggest St Germans as an initial development.
Good links into Plymouth/St Austell/Exeter by train, space to the west of the existing village to build on and establishing large industrial estates in the area would provide more much-needed jobs in a quite deprived county.

There's also potential to build a second station in the Liskeard direction, near Trerulefoot, to serve additional extensions if needed.

It is also a very desirable area to build in, with the picturesque Lynher valley to the east. Recreational infrastructure including hiking trails and parks could be developed along this area, as an eastern buffer to the large development.

The next place I'd consider would be Yeoford in Mid Devon. Regular services into Exeter on the Tarka line, and potential of more if small upgrades were made for the Okehampton service to be able to stop here.
Plenty of land is available in the area, it is relatively close to the A30, and being in the Yeo valley, land is reasonably flat.
The traditional agricultural economy in this part of Devon is currently struggling (partly due to the rising costs of farming), especially since some of the area supplements income via small-scale tourist enterprises.
As we've just seen for the last few years, the tourism and hospitality industry is not bulletproof, and the new town development could provide more secure employment for locals, as well as a nearby source of labour for the agricultural industry.
Again, there's potential for another station towards Okehampton/Barnstaple, if the new town was to build future extensions in the direction of Colebrooke/Penstone.

The problem with the sort of industrial policy that you propose is that it considers the UK in isolation in what is an increasingly globalised world. Many of those firms forced to relocate by UK Government fiat rather than economic sense failed (and all too often took the parent company down too) when exposed to serious competition.

 

[Arkeeos]

The problem with the sort of industrial policy that you propose is that it considers the UK in isolation in what is an increasingly globalised world. Many of those firms forced to relocate by UK Government fiat rather than economic sense failed (and all too often took the parent company down too) when exposed to serious competition.

Too often people see other regions of the country as competition for investment, but the actual competition is France, Germany or the Netherlands.

Basically every station surrounding London is under-utilised, there could also be some new station construction, such as a new station and town between reading and Maidenhead.

Some small infill lines like South chessington to leatherhead could support new growth.

 

[AlastairFraser]

The problem with the sort of industrial policy that you propose is that it considers the UK in isolation in what is an increasingly globalised world. Many of those firms forced to relocate by UK Government fiat rather than economic sense failed (and all too often took the parent company down too) when exposed to serious competition.

It depends on the sector though - a lot of service based firms can operate from anywhere with a good internet connection.
And you don't have to relocate the entire company for large employers to start seeing benefits.

 

[urbophile]

In general, I understand the biggest need is in the South East. Places like Manchester are booming, but there is still affordable accommodation in places that are not that far away. So the greater need is better transport links, rather than more housing.

So these aren't new towns in the post-war sense, just dormitory suburbs. New towns were supposed to be largely self-sufficient in employment opportunities, which is one reason why they didn't give much thought to rail connections. Not that they aren't a good or even essential thing to have, but the towns shouldn't depend on commuting.

I agree that better transport links are the priority for the north, but there are very many people living in substandard accommodation or even homeless who desperately need the sort of housing that new towns would provide.

 

[Magdalia]

Some small infill lines like South chessington to leatherhead could support new growth.

This line was not built because the route went through Ashtead Common. The part of the route south of Ashtead Common is now severed by the M25.

 

[Wolfie]

It depends on the sector though - a lot of service based firms can operate from anywhere with a good internet connection.
And you don't have to relocate the entire company for large employers to start seeing benefits.

A reasonable point. Having worked with remote staff there are some significant downsides too.

 

[JamesT]

It depends on the sector though - a lot of service based firms can operate from anywhere with a good internet connection.
And you don't have to relocate the entire company for large employers to start seeing benefits.

Though if you can work from anywhere, why wouldn’t said firms already be expanding in the North etc? If it’s cheaper to operate in those areas, they they’d be winning without needing government to force them. Unless perhaps there are other things that have a greater effect?

The general trend, at least before the pandemic, was for people to be moving out of the cities. Which does make providing public transport harder. https://www.gov.uk/government/stati... net inward migration,each five-year age band.

Internal migration is defined as changes of usual residence within countries, e.g., a person moving from one Local Authority area to another within England.

Since 2008/09 there has been an increase in the rate of net migration to Predominantly Rural areas. In 2019/20 within the overall net internal migration to Predominantly Rural areas of 97,500, there was net internal migration outwards of 17 to 20 years olds of 34,100.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Though if you can work from anywhere, why wouldn’t said firms already be expanding in the North etc? If it’s cheaper to operate in those areas, they they’d be winning without needing government to force them. Unless perhaps there are other things that have a greater effect?

The general trend, at least before the pandemic, was for people to be moving out of the cities. Which does make providing public transport harder. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/population-statistics-for-rural-england/d-internal-migration#:~:text=The largest net inward migration,each five-year age band.

It's mostly because the infrastructure isn't there in a lot of areas - suitable offices or modern light industrial units, good Internet connections. That and the fact some businesses will still want the prestige of a London HQ.

A reasonable point. Having worked with remote staff there are some significant downsides too.

Definitely for teams that closely collaborate and need to meet regularly - sometimes, in-person meetings are best.
But there's no reason why e.g. IT department of a large corporation has to be in a big city. Most IT specialists will WFH in any eventuality.

 

[Nottingham59]

In and around Cambridge this is already happening, with the Environment Agency objecting to all large planning applications.

Superficially this might sound contradictory to the concern about lack of water supplies, but the Cambridge area does have to manage both risk of drought and risk of flood. 18 months ago drought was the big risk, now it is flood. In 6 months time it might be back to drought.

Greater Shelford won't happen because of flood management issues. Between Great Chesterford and Shelford the railway is on the flood plain, with 6 river crossings, and very little land suitable for building.

The flood management issues also apply on the route towards Royston, though they are not so severe. Foxton and Shepreth are close to the edge of the flood plain, with scope for significant amounts of building effectively on one side of the line only. The flood management issue only goes away after the line turns south and climbs away from the river at Shepreth. A few years ago there was a tentative proposal for Meldreth extending to Bassingbourn, but it wouldn't get through planning now because of the lack of drinking water. If the drinking water issue could be resolved then Meldreth is probably the least worst option for a new town close to Cambridge on an existing rail route.



Fulbourn doesn't help much because of the limited capacity on the Newmarket line with little scope to increase it.



Cambourne and Tempsford work better for water supply because they are closer to the River Ouse, which also has its headwaters in the watershed of England near Kilsby. They are places that are easier to supply without abstraction of the chalk aquifers. The River Ouse has its own flood management issues, especially in Bedford and St Neots, but any flood risks at Cambourne and Tempsford are not so difficult to manage.

Thank you. That's very informative.

Though:
This is the EA flood risk map around Foxton and Shepreth stations

The light blue is the 1 in a 1000 year flood risk, so maybe there is still scope for some new building in the area?
https://consultations.greatercambri...09/Appendix D1 SFRA Maps - EA Flood Zones.pdf

Also, what's so limiting about the Newmarket line through Fulbourn? It used to be single track, so plenty of scope for passing loops to accommodate increased frequencies. (And space within the existing railway land through Cambridge to four-track the northen approach to Cambridge station if necessary). Lots of level crossings, so use Tram-trains to provide commuter services.

 

[Magdalia]

Also, what's so limiting about the Newmarket line through Fulbourn? It used to be single track, so plenty of scope for passing loops to accommodate increased frequencies. (And space within the existing railway land through Cambridge to four-track the northen approach to Cambridge station if necessary). Lots of level crossings, so use Tram-trains to provide commuter services.

At the Newmarket end is the Warren Hill Tunnel which will only ever be single track.

At the Cambridge end there are capacity issues getting in and out of the station, especially at peak times when there are movements to and from the carriage sidings in addition to what can be seen in the public timetable.

The level crossings are very limiting, especially the Tesco and High Street crossings in Cherry Hinton and Laundry Lane near Coldham Lane Junction.

Fulbourn and Cherry Hinton already have an intensive bus service to/from Cambridge, including some that go via Addenbrookes Hospital, though with the usual reliability issues because of traffic congestion. New capacity on the railway, with a station at Fulbourn, would be quickly taken by people transferring from the bus to the train, before it could stimulate significant new economic or housing development.

There are other solutions, but they go beyond your premise of building near existing lines.

 

[Helvellyn]

Th

One of the criteria for new housing is the provision of adequate public transport links. Indeed, the rationale for East-West Rail is to enable large developments at places like Cambourne.

Labour is promoting the idea of New Towns to solve the housing crisis. Rather than building new lines, where could these be located where there is already capacity on the rail network?

For what it's worth, these are my suggestions:

• Cheddington There is already a four-platform station on the WCML at Cheddington, which is surrounded by open countryside. Use New Towns legislation to buy up all agricultural land within 2-3 miles of the station; mark out a network of covered cycleways and autonomous tramlines (like DLR) centred on the station; and build homes for 250,000 people to create a compact New Town the same population as Milton Keynes, but physically less spread out.
  The WCML will have plenty of capacity when HS2 opens, and there are few neighbours to complain. And those that do are likely to vote Tory anyway, so they will have little electoral impact.
• Greater Shelford Rather than building EWR to bring commuters into Cambridge from Cambourne and Tempsford, then build the houses near the existing stations like Foxton, Shepreth, Shelford, which already have Thameslink connections to Cambridge, and Whittleford Parkway. Also build new stations on existing lines, like at Fulbourn. These sites may be in the Cambridge green belt, but green belts are planning devices whose purpose is to constrain the growth of cities. If it is now government policy for cities like Cambridge to grow, then the Green Belt has lost its purpose and should be abolished.
• Rubgy One objection to any new housing in South East England is the lack of water supplies. Rugby is north of the Kilsby tunnel where the WCML crosses the great Watershed that runs across England from the Cotswolds to Lincoln. It is therefore the nearest place to London in the Severn-Trent water area, where supplies are much less scarce. It also has fast and slow line services to London on an WCML that will have much more commuter capacity after HS2.
• Lichfield. Lichfield will also enjoy unconstrained WCML capacity after HS2, from where it would be feasible to run 2tph on the fast lines non-stop to London, and 2tph semi-fast calling at stations in the Trent Valley before switching to the fasts at Rugby. It also has direct services to Birmingham and potentially Derby. When the new Lichfield gets big enough (say 300,000), then it would also make a good place for an HS2 station, being half-way between Interchange and Crewe. This would vastly increase its appeal as a commuter town. You wouldn't want to build stations on HS2 south of Birmingham, but track utilisation north of Birmingham will be lower, and therefore the timetables could accommodate another station without reducing capacity. I would locate the new station where HS2 crosses the Lichfield City line, to provide an interchange. If HS2 phase 2 ever gets built, I'd also include a new chord to the WCML so that trains from Milton Keynes and Rugby could join HS2 towards Manchester and Scotland.

Those are my ideas. Where would you advise Labour to build its New Town programme?

The cynic in me says which of those are in currently safe Tory seats? If they are then possible. If they are marginal, and are likely to go Labour at the election, forget it.

Housebuilding nimbyism is one of the things the Lib Dems have using to eat into safe South East seats/councils. With all the other u-turns Labour have done I'll be gobsmacked if building New Towns happens in marginal seats.

 

[Nottingham59]

At the Newmarket end is the Warren Hill Tunnel which will only ever be single track.

At the Cambridge end there are capacity issues getting in and out of the station, especially at peak times when there are movements to and from the carriage sidings in addition to what can be seen in the public timetable.

The level crossings are very limiting, especially the Tesco and High Street crossings in Cherry Hinton and Laundry Lane near Coldham Lane Junction.

Fulbourn and Cherry Hinton already have an intensive bus service to/from Cambridge, including some that go via Addenbrookes Hospital, though with the usual reliability issues because of traffic congestion. New capacity on the railway, with a station at Fulbourn, would be quickly taken by people transferring from the bus to the train, before it could stimulate significant new economic or housing development.

There are other solutions, but they go beyond your premise of building near existing lines.

So, if you build a station at Fulbourn then people would use it? But surely that argument is a good reason to go ahead?

This might be one way to deliver a service with minimal new infrastructure:

Convert the 1tph Cambridge - Ipswich service to high-floor 25kV battery Tram-train, with street running capability so that the level crossings can be controlled with simple traffic lights.

Build stations at Cherry Hinton, Fulborn and Six Mile Bottom Park and Ride, with twin platforms and spring loaded points to provide passing loops. Quad the line through Cambridge Station between Coldham Lane Junction and Shepreth Branch Junction, on the existing railway land and as already planned for East-West Rail. Use existing sidings between Cambridge and Coldhams Lane Junction, relocating carriage sidings and other railway functions elsewhere as necessary.

Run 6tph 4-car tram-train services from Six Mile Bottom through Cambridge to a new terminus at or near Shepreth Branch Junction. Build a Shepreth Greater Shelford New Town on the rising land between Shepreth Shelford and the Cambridge Biosciences Campus. Build new towns at Fulbourn and Six Mile Bottom.

Safeguard land to allow future expansion of the tram-train network on towards Whittlesford Parkway and Great Chesterford and towards Abington. Plan to redouble the line to Fulbourn as traffic grows.

I don't know how much this would all cost, but it would still be considerably cheaper than building East-West Rail to Bedford.

 

[Magdalia]

So, if you build a station at Fulbourn then people would use it? But surely that argument is a good reason to go ahead?

But I thought that you wanted to build a new town for tens of thousands of people, not get a few people out of buses and into trains. It isn't a good reason to go ahead because it is a marginal gain and there are better ways of spending limited funds.

This might be one way to deliver a service with minimal new infrastructure:

I don't know how much this would all cost

I would not describe it as minimal!

Quad the line through Cambridge Station between Coldham Lane Junction and Shepreth Branch Junction, on the existing railway land and as already planned for East-West Rail. Use existing sidings between Cambridge and Coldhams Lane Junction, relocating carriage sidings and other railway functions elsewhere as necessary.

Cambridge to Coldham Lane was 4 tracks until the early 1980s, the space taken by the old goods roads is now carriage sidings. Cambridge stables a very large number of trains overnight, particularly for Great Northern (GN), Thameslink and Greater Anglia (GA). There was significant investment in new sidings prior to the arrival of Thameslink, their 12 car trains take a lot of siding space, as do GAs class 720s. Nevertheless, Cambridge already has overspill with some GN trains having to be berthed at Letchworth and Kings Lynn. Moving carriage sidings is not a simple operation it has implications for train paths, train crew and more.

The Newmarket line comes into Cambridge from the east side, while the north end bay platforms at Cambridge are on the west side. Your tram trains either have to cross the traffic running to/from Cambridge North, or they need new platforms on the east side, which takes away even more carriage siding space and still creates conflicting movements with the remaining sidings.

Going south from Cambridge, the original proposal for Cambridge South station had 4 tracks between Cambridge and Shepreth Branch Junction, but it was descoped to reduce costs. That will only come with East West Rail and a southern approach to Cambridge.

Build a Shepreth Greater Shelford New Town on the rising land between Shepreth Shelford and the Cambridge Biosciences Campus.

This is already happening, but with expansion outwards from Cambridge, not as a new town. The Biomedical Campus already have their eye on the land on its southern boundary, though last time I passed by quite a lot of that was flooded. Parts are regarded as sacrosanct and safe from development, such as the Gog Magog Hills and the Ninewells springs.

Build new towns at Fulbourn and Six Mile Bottom.

Something like this may happen, if the drinking water issue can be resolved. I still think that it would only work with a new rail route between Six Mile Bottom and Cambridge, not on the existing line. Unfortunately the Victorians had two attempts to build a line between Cambridge and Newmarket (three if you count the line from Great Chesterford) and got all of them wrong.

 

[ScotGG]

So much potential for much needed new housing around existing stations.

With half decent planning it doesn't just create dormitory towns but offers sustainable options for work and leisure and a secure long term future for lines and the rail network.

In the near term on lines where there's ample stock? So SWR where there's now thought to be too many Class 701s? On Greater Anglia where excess stock recently introduced? Southeastern lines that can take new 12 car trains but are currently 8-10?

Of course infrastructure work often needed buy new housing is essential.

 

[urbophile]

The general trend, at least before the pandemic, was for people to be moving out of the cities. Which does make providing public transport harder. https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/population-statistics-for-rural-england/d-internal-migration#:~:text=The largest net inward migration,each five-year age band.

That makes me shudder. 'Moving out of the cities' to idyllic small towns or remote villages sounds lovely, but (as with mass tourism to eg the Lake District) the reality in most cases will be quite different. It will mean moving to some soulless suburban desert, and probably one that means increased dependence on cars with all the consequences for the environment. Cities should be the future, not the past.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That makes me shudder. 'Moving out of the cities' to idyllic small towns or remote villages sounds lovely, but (as with mass tourism to eg the Lake District) the reality in most cases will be quite different. It will mean moving to some soulless suburban desert, and probably one that means increased dependence on cars with all the consequences for the environment. Cities should be the future, not the past.

Cities aren't the only solution. Beads on a string, where smaller ecovillages/ecotowns are built around stations on a railway line, work just as well, indeed in some ways are less car dependent than cities.

This isn't a new thing. You can see it to the north of Liverpool and on the Wirral, where settlements have grown up around Merseyrail stations which are very well used. It's also the basis of Betjeman's "Metroländ" (umlaut for pronunciation ).

If it was extended to MKC (which I think I'd say would have more benefit than East West to Bedford given that it actually getting to Cambridge seems unlikely) the Marston Vale, with an upgraded service, has massive potential to look like that, with the existing settlements expanded around the stations (with facilities like schools and supermarkets there too) and potentially even some stations added with new settlements. With an added track between Bletchley and Wolverton (for which there's space) one could even imagine reinstating the Newport Pagnell branch (the trackbed is almost all available as a Redway) and continuing it on into the fields for another small series of eco villages, creating a U shaped MK S-Bahn.

You can of course make cities by folding beads on a string and turning them into figures of 8 which is the basis of Runcorn, but you can only really get to 100Kish population before things get much more complex because it all radiates out too much. So 50-100K is likely to be your sweet spot for bigger ecotowns. Something as big as MK is always going to have major compromises even if structured a bit better.

 

[HSTEd]

That makes me shudder. 'Moving out of the cities' to idyllic small towns or remote villages sounds lovely, but (as with mass tourism to eg the Lake District) the reality in most cases will be quite different. It will mean moving to some soulless suburban desert, and probably one that means increased dependence on cars with all the consequences for the environment. Cities should be the future, not the past.

Suburbia, whatever its faults, is popular for a reason and has been popular since before mass motoring was a significant factor in the UK.
Densities in cities, especially ones built using traditional UK housing technologies such as terraces have major downsides.

We are going to need major construction and the only way to get major construction is likely an MKC style new city built from scratch.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

You can of course make cities by folding beads on a string and turning them into figures of 8 which is the basis of Runcorn, but you can only really get to 100Kish population before things get much more complex because it all radiates out too much. So 50-100K is likely to be your sweet spot for bigger ecotowns.

As someone who had family in Runcorn I shudder to think it might ever be considered a model for anything…

3k-20k, with a railway station, is an absolute sweet spot. A lot of the country’s most delightful towns fall into that description. Scaling that to a level where it makes a meaningful contribution to housing shortages is an interesting challenge… but it’s not a bad thing to aim for.

 

[OneOfThe48]

West Horndon on the C2C line could take a lot of house building by it.

If you make it at least half the size of Laindon or Basildon that’s a whole lot of new houses.

It’s stark the difference between West Horndon and the two stations either side of it.

 

[HSTEd]

3k-20k, with a railway station, is an absolute sweet spot. A lot of the country’s most delightful towns fall into that description. Scaling that to a level where it makes a meaningful contribution to housing shortages is an interesting challenge… but it’s not a bad thing to aim for.

The shortage is many millions of housing units, I'm not sure there are enough reasonable places for railway stations in the UK to make a major contribution to housing on that basis!

 

[Bletchleyite]

As someone who had family in Runcorn I shudder to think it might ever be considered a model for anything…

It is a bit manky, yes, but that's a symptom of creating overspill estates from rough parts of large cities. Much as a lot of MK is green and pleasant, it has estates like Runcorn too for the same reason - the Lakes Estate for instance has or had the highest teenage pregnancy rate in the country, while Fishermead is not somewhere you want to walk alone at night, particularly not as a woman.

Structurally, though, Runcorn is bang on - a figure 8 public transport system (you could roughly double it in size by making a 4 leaf clover) with the main centres of employment and shopping in the middle where it crosses. If I was planning it now it'd be an electric tram, and there'd be more cycle provision, but in principle it's absolutely optimal for a medium sized eco town.

3k-20k, with a railway station, is an absolute sweet spot. A lot of the country’s most delightful towns fall into that description. Scaling that to a level where it makes a meaningful contribution to housing shortages is an interesting challenge… but it’s not a bad thing to aim for.

That's something more like the Merseyrail branches. The Southport line in particular illustrates it wonderfully. That works too and would be ideal for the Marston Vale. It's very interesting that because of the long lived good train service Merseyside has grown up in that way rather than in the kind of solid sprawl you get in cities where rail is weaker.

If you look at posh places on Merseyrail like Aughton and Formby you see something quite impressive for the UK - a Jag and a Rangie on the drive, and a family walking past them to the station to pop into Liverpool. The structure works when you have a high quality, frequent and affordable train service, and because your "beads" are quite small you don't need much in the way of bus services (or station car parks) either. Though if it's fairly flat, excellent cycle provision (fully off road and properly secure storage at the station) can also work to enlarge your beads a bit.

 

[Starmill]

Lichfield will have capacity going south as it stands not north. Rugby is expanding to the east with Rugby Parkway expected to open within a couple of years.

Missed opportunity if it isn't called Houghton & Hillmorton.

Structurally, though, Runcorn is bang on - a figure 8 public transport system (you could roughly double it in size by making a 4 leaf clover) with the main centres of employment and shopping in the middle where it crosses. If I was planning it now it'd be an electric tram, and there'd be more cycle provision, but in principle it's absolutely optimal for a medium sized eco town.

Both MK and Runcorn suffer though from the severance, noise and air pollution caused by the enormous amount of land taken up by highways. Runcorn arguably worse as it has more grade-separated ones around its core, and thus faster vehicles. The railway does cause very small amounts of noise and severance to both, but obviously this is much lesser and could be better mitigated.