Station Rd Index

Station Rd 1

Station Rd 2

Station Rd 6 Map

Station Rd 8

Station Rd 9

Station Rd 11

STATION ROAD
The Station: Part 5
Steam in Swavesey - again!
by Stephen J. Bull

In order to appreciate the current “Rail verses Guided Bus” debate one needs to be aware of the arguments and suggestions for the use(s) to which the “mothballed” Cambridge to St Ives branch line may be put.

“In Loving Memory .......”
Swavesey railway station and the 14 mile stretch of line between Cambridge and St Ives fell victim to the now infamous Beeching Report published in 1963.  People in St Ives mourned the closure of the line and paid their respects to the railway station after its 83 years’ history by bearing a headstone with the inscription:   “In Loving memory of St. Ives Railway Station - Born 21st June 1887, Died 3rd October 1970 - R.I.P.”   At Swavesey residents were contented with taking photographs of the “last train” for posterity.  

Future of the “mothballed” line
Since the closure of the Cambridge-St Ives branch railway and during the intervening 32 years few stretches of line have generated so much lively discussion and correspondence, and the attention of local government and so many focus groups as to its possible uses.

The initial response was to re-open the line. The Swavesey Meridian: April/May 2003 pages 42-43 for details.]   Independent consultants commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council, however, considered it too costly to reopen the line for passenger service at £1.35 million: 1990 costing (C.E.N: Tim Curtis c.1990).  

Chris Elliott, C.E.N. journalist wryly commented two years later: “If the line had been re-opened in the late 70s, as campaigners then demanded, the cost would have been £110,000 —- peanuts by modern-day standards.” 

Over the years a number of options have been considered, or put forward, to integrate the transport system and help alleviate the traffic on the A14 (formally the A604) including the following:

Conventional (Heavy) Rail
The ‘conventional rail’ option was being actively promoted in 1992 to “cater for Cambridge and work places in the south, and visa versa, thus reducing car flows to Addenbrooke’s Hospital, Long Road Sixth Form College, the Science Park and the Cambridge Regional College, King’s Hedges” (C.E.N: Simon Norton 16 November 1992) thus greatly reducing commuter traffic on the A14 (formerly A604), which had increased some 13 fold over the past 30 years (C.E.N: 25 November 1992).

Today the jury is still out on the possible re-introduction of rail although it is considered ‘unlikely’, and even ‘naive’, to think that the reopening of the Cambridge-St Ives (extended to Huntingdon) would have any significant impact on relieving the congestion on the A14.

Also it’s been pointed out that the line does not run through the middle of any of the villages and it’s doubtful whether people would walk or cycle to the station.   Swavesey suffered the indignity of having its fine station master’s house demolished and its goods yard used for other purposes, so where would people park if they drove to the station?   [Initially the redundant goods yard was shared by the coal merchant, Harlow & Mortimer, and the storage of scrap cars and massive blocks of stone.   Today, of course, MG Owners’ Club headquarters and workshops occupy the whole of the site.]

Other options have also been put forward.

Light Railway
In contrast to the ‘conventional (heavy) railway’ an “ambitious scheme” for a ‘light railway’ around Cambridge, and reopening the disused rail link to Huntingdon was reported to be under consideration by County transport chiefs (Cambridge Weekly News: 6 April 1989).   This scheme would link the Science Park, Cambridge Railway Station and Addenbrooke’s Hospital and would cost appreciably less than the ‘heavy’ railway.   A train journey from Swavesey to Addenbrooke’s Hospital would be approximately 23 minutes.

Bus Lane Some people, however, do not see the “mothballed” line dependant on rails but in tarmac!   Minds were concentrated when British Rail announced its intention to sell the line, and the Council’s plan to purchase the track and replace it with a ‘priority bus lane’ thus providing   a “high quality public transport system” (C.E.N: Geoffrey Howe 6 November 1992).

Correspondents were quick to point out the obvious that the Cambridge-St Ives line does not run through the middle, and in most cases is far from, the villages they once served.   If converted to rail traffic, or bus/guided bus people would not be willing to walk or cycle to the rail station —- and goods yards are now used for other purposes, so no car parking facilities would be available (except possibly at St Ives on a flood plain!).

The suggestion that the track be converted to a semi-private roadway restricted to cars and light vehicles only, with mini-roundabouts at each of the crossing and access to and from the Science Park would appear to have much to commend it (C.E.N: E.B. Rose 17 December 1992).

Tram-way
Trams are a really effective public transport system, with passenger comfort and good acceleration, and the system has been well tested over the years (The Town Crier: Jerry Alderson, July 2002).   The virtues of tram, compared with the guided bus, were extolled recently in the “News” (C.E.N: Jerry Alderson 12 August 2003).

Cycle Path/Nature Walk/Bridle Way
The ‘corridor’ would allow people for the northern villages a safe cycle route connecting St Ives and into the heart of Cambridge. The immediate environment along the track would be undisturbed and an important habitat along the route would be conserved.   The staff-free, minimal-maintenance, environmentally friendly option would turn it into a nature walk, a path for those who like running, and a cycle route for those who travel to work, from Cambridge or St Ives, and may prefer to cycle.

Rapid Transit Guided Bus
The much heralded CHUMMS Report - drawn up after an 18 month study and published in July 2001- recommended using the “mothballed” Cambridge-St Ives railway line as a ‘guided bus’ route in order to help alleviate congestion on the A14.   The A14 study envisaged that an articulated ‘rapid transit vehicle’ (RTV) would shuttle between St Ives and Cambridge on a newly-built guided bus track and run on the normal roads into Cambridge city centre and carry on to Addenbrooke’s and Trumpington Park & Ride (C.E.N: Chris Elliott: July 2001).

The anticipated cost of the superCAM scheme would be in the region of £60,000,000.   The consortium was working with the local authorities and South Cambridgeshire District Council, DTLR and GoEast on how the project would be funded.   It was expected that the scheme would be financed principally from private funds (superCAM Communiqué brochure).

The overwhelming majority of the district council voted to support the guided bus option, “some ..... with rather heavy heart.” (C.E.N: Neil Scarr: South Cambridgeshire district councillor: 8 September 2001) although it is understood the that the Council’s preferred option was still the ‘light railway’ as a passenger-carrier for easing traffic on the A14.

The guided bus has subsequently been given the green light by the Cambridgeshire County Council and they have approved a bid to be made to the Government “for the £73 million (subsequently increased to £85 million) needed to fund the Rapid transit route from Huntingdon to Trumpington” and be in place by 2006/7 (C.E.N: 24 July and 21 August 2002).

As may well be imagined superCAM had its critics:-
The ‘virtual image’ of a superCAM articulated guided bus gliding over Victoria Road bridge and negotiating narrow, medieval, congested streets inevitably caused a degree of consternation amongst some Cambridge residents (C.E.N: 3 August 2002);  
The recommendations of the CHUMMS consultations would not succeed in solving the problems caused by A14 traffic and the guided bus-way concept (C.E.N: Simon Norton: Co-ordinator Transport 2000; 19 July 2001);
Creating a guided bus lane on the old St Ives railway line would merely create more congestion in the centre of Cambridge (C.E.N: Stephen Morse 10 July 2001);
Fears were expressed that unless superCAM was integrated in the existing public transport system the buses would be left dangling on the edge of the city, having to negotiate narrow congested streets, The buses would judder to a halt, particularly at peak hours (C.E.N: Chris Elliott July 2001);
The guided bus way is a “red herring” —- CHUMMS was concerned only with the   Cambridge to Huntingdon ‘corridor’, “but we need to see the transport scene as a whole.” (C.E.N: Dr. Henry Tribe 10 July 2001);
Although termed as a ‘Rapid Transport System’ (RTS) the guided bus may offer a smooth journey but it anything but ‘rapid’ being more suited to short stretches of track in urban areas/towns;
It may also be noted that the guided busway system essential prior to A14 widening was left out of the Government’s road scheme announcement (C.E.N: Tim Phillips 23 April 2003);
The scheme would be ‘doomed’ because it would be a single-purpose facility, i.e. the transportation of passengers (only) and to the total exclusion of the all-important freight (C.E.N: John Germany 21 August 2002); and
Perhaps the biggest shame of all is that by removing the railway line, it destroys any chance of reinstating the line - which may actually solve the transport problems being faced at present (The Cambridge Town Crier, July 2002).

However, as late as the Autumn of 2002 the stark warning was being at public meetings by Brian Smith, director of the environment and transport for the county, that “the time for arguing rail links was over and called for people to accept the scheme - or get nothing” (C.E.N: 16 October 2002); the implication being that the council would only get money from the Government if it is for a guided bus! (C.E.N: Peter Soar 28 October 2002)

Let the “Steam Buffs” take over!  
The Rev. John Yule related how in the autumn of 1991 a “Sunday morning service at St. Andrew’s was interrupted by the happy sounds of steam-engine driver-training on the Fen Drayton branch.” (The Fisherman: Harvest 1992)  

Such ventures in various parts of the country have been very successful, such as the Nene Valley Railway: a 7½ mile standard gauge line running along the attractive Nene Valley between Wansford and Peterborough).   Being supported by enthusiasts and volunteers, they are efficient, the staff are polite and always helpful and interesting to talk to, the stations and line are meticulously maintained, and more, Cambridge would acquire an amenity that all families could enjoy.

But seriously ....... “we need the facts”
We have been bombarded with information on the guided bus and rail (the two most favoured) options for use of the mothballed line to help solve the transport problems in the area (C.E.N: Beverly Lewis 7 July 2003).

The Cambridgeshire County Council is currently seeking finance for the guided busway system, its preferred option, now increased from £60 million to £85 million from central Government (who knows what the final cost will be when, or if, built!).   Readers of articles and correspondence in the local press will be aware of the serious questions asked of the guided, some would say “mis-guided” bus system; not only the high cost but the limitations implicit in the system.

Readers of articles and correspondence in the local press will be aware that serious questions continue to asked of the ‘guided busway’ system; not only its high cost but also its limitations.   It is forecast that the journey will be eight minutes quicker than at present - but only four buses an hour will run at peak times - significantly fewer than the superCAM proposal - until the Oakington/Longstanton settlement is built (C.E.N: 18 June 2003).

The debate continues
The debate has hotted up significantly in 2003. The ‘guided bus’ scheme is considered an essential part of Cambridgeshire’s transportation jigsaw and is being strongly promoted by the county council.

The original private consortium, superCAM, has now ceded the leading role in the project to the county council and is therefore now in the public domain and an agreement has been made with superCAM that the council will take things forward.   The council has submitted proposals, as recommended by the CHUMMS consultation to the Department of Transport as part of its application for funding and awaits its decision and hopes to have it up and running, rather optimistically, by the end of 2007 (C.E.N: 2 April 2003).

The rapid transit ‘guided bus’ is among the proposals in a new plan to shape transport in the county over the next decade and the Council has invited the public to become involved in shaping the county’s future transport infrastructure (C.E.N: 1 May 2003).   A series of roadshows/exhibitions around the county offered the chance for people to ‘get on board’ and look at plans and talk to people who drew them up, indicating that the scheme was very much on track.   The consultation closed on 7th August 2003.

“News” readers were also given the opportunity to put questions to the County Council.   A brief résumé and the Council’s response to the main questions were published in the News and made both informative and interesting reading (C.E.N: 12 August 2003).  

The debate promises to continue for some time to come ....... so watch this space!!!

Acknowledgements:

1. “The Cambridge Evening News (C.E.N)”: Editorials, articles and correspondence from March 1989;
2. “The Fisherman: Harvest 1992” issue: Rev John Yule;
3. “superCAM Communiqué” brochure (July 2001);
4. “The Swavesey Meridian”: April/May 2003;
5. “The Cambridge Town Crier”: July 2002.

‘Thank you’:
            In a recent issue of “The Swavesey Meridian” I invited readers to submit photographs of trains in Swavesey railway station. In response Mrs. Eileen Ford (former resident of the Manor House) has supplied a copy of a beautiful painting by Paul Twine of a steam passenger train standing in the station. Thank you for the picture and your interest in the articles on the Manor House and the Railway Station.