Haverhill/Colchester: Campaign to reopen railway line between Colchester and Cambridge, via Haverhill, gathers steam

Malcolm Hill, chairman of the Cambridge to Colchester Rail Project, is spearheading the campaign to get the rail link reinstated. Malcolm is pictured on the old railway bridge over Ballingdon Road in Sudbury. Malcolm Hill, chairman of the Cambridge to Colchester Rail Project, is spearheading the campaign to get the rail link reinstated. Malcolm is pictured on the old railway bridge over Ballingdon Road in Sudbury.

Thursday, June 19, 2014
11:16 AM

The campaign to reinstate a railway line continues to gather pace with claims the authorities are “very much in favour” of part of the project - despite questions over funding.

To send a link to this page to a friend, you must be logged in.

That was the verdict of Rev Malcolm Hill, chairman of the Cambridge to Colchester Rail Project, as calls to re-open the line between Cambridge and Haverhill gain support.

Cambridgeshire and Suffolk county councils are this month holding studies along the A1307 corridor between Cambridge and Haverhill to better understand traffic along the route, while Mr Hill will soon meet with new Haverhill Town Council clerk Colin Poole to get him up to speed with a crucial issue for the town.

“It is so important the local authorities look into this properly together,” said Mr Hill.

“They do seem to be looking very much in favour of the railway. Our job has been to get people interested.”

Improving links between Cambridge and Haverhill along the A1307 has been identified as key for economic growth by the area’s two county councils and local enterprise partnerships - New Anglia and Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough.

However, officers from Cambridgeshire County Council recently said reinstating the line could cost up to £30million per kilometre.

Mr Hill said Haverhill Town Council had been “very supportive” of the project in the past, and town clerk Mr Poole said he was looking forward to finding out more.

“These things are of regional strategic importance, and where I imagine the town council can have a role is in identifying the economic benefits,” said Mr Poole.

“Me getting to Cambridge in 20 minutes is not justifiable for £150m of public money. That’s where the town council can come in - feeding information into the argument.”

While the campaign to reinstate the old Stour Valley Railway Line is well supported as its western edge, Mr Hill added that drumming up support further east towards Sudbury had proved more difficult.

However, he said a recent EADT article by local councillor Frank Lawrenson about the town’s lack of infrastructure reinforced the need for better rail services to be explored.

The East Anglia branch of campaign group Railfuture has agreed to fund a leaflet drop about reinstating the railway, with leaflets due to go out later this year.

2 comments

  • A lower cost option would be to use the old line between Marks Tey & Cambridge as a Trolleybus route. This would be much lower cost. Where the old line still exists it could run over that where it does not it could run on existing roads. They can run at up to about 50mph which compares well with branch railway line speeds. Trolleybuses also are more flexible so the routes can be changed to serve new developments or to get near to residential. They are also very quiet Modern trolleybuses are single decker and mainly articulated two car units. They can run for several miles on batteries avoiding overhead wires when running on the road The cost per Km for a Trolleybus in the region of £10M to £20M per KM

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    BobE

    Thursday, June 19, 2014

  • I can understand a link between Haverhill and Cambridge as many people from the Haverhill area work or shop there. Much of the former line from Marks Tey to Cambridge is long gone, a lot of the land between Sudbury and Haverhill has been sold and built on or turned over to "country walks".

    Add your comment | Report this comment

    The original Victor Meldrew

    Thursday, June 19, 2014

The views expressed in the above comments do not necessarily reflect the views of this site

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

loading...

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT