East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

[Tobbes]

As has been said, Route A is the fastest and the cheapest; that's a pretty powerful starting position in any public sector options appraisal (this may even explain why it is presented as Route A....!)

FWIW, I prefer Route B South a northerly approach over the (replaced) busway. But for this option to be chosen, it will be necessary to explain why spending more for a slower journey time is worth it (direct service to Science Park, lots of homes in Cambourne, extensions to Stansted, options to St Ives/Huntingdon/Chatteris I believe does it) but be under no illusions about how hard getting away from Route A will be.

 

[edwin_m]

might be the quickest, but is not maximum footfall.

you optimise footfall by linking up as far as humanly possible to centres that people want to/need to travel to,with the minimum of connection times and inconvenience.
having to wait the extra 10/15 minutes at bletchley/ bedford south to get into MK/Bedford centre IS NOT the minimum of inconvenience.

see my previous post.
If they want to maximise revenue then luton to stevenage via the airport would be far more efficient...actually luton to stansted airport via stevenage and bishops stortford would be better
..and funnily enough they are playing monorails from parkway to luton airport because there is no joined up thinking(again council and private sector vanity project of limited use)

So if you want maximum footfall you wouldn't go near Bedford at all?

In reality, as your posts suggest, it's actually a compromise between footfall and cost. I agree a route via Luton would bring in a lot of passengers and give people in a rather deprived area access to jobs in Cambridge etc. But that option was ruled out some time ago, due I think to construction cost in the quite hilly region south of Luton and possibly also because the objectives of the EWR project are better met by a route further north. Due to the elevation of Luton Airport a station there would have to be deep underground and it's unlikely that trains would stop twice in a short distance so it would be a choice between serving the airport and interchange with MML. The airport peoplemover is now in the early stages of construction I believe, certainly Doppelmayr's name was on the site hoardings in December.

 

[A0]

see my previous post.
If they want to maximise revenue then luton to stevenage via the airport would be far more efficient...actually luton to stansted airport via stevenage and bishops stortford would be better
..and funnily enough they are playing monorails from parkway to luton airport because there is no joined up thinking(again council and private sector vanity project of limited use)
if you have ever tried a journey by national express from luton to stansted airports it is, well, unreliable.

I don't believe for a moment there are anything like enough journeys between Luton & Stansted airport to justify a rail link between the two.

Luton is already directly linked by rail to Gatwick and East Mids - I'm willing to bet there are fewer than 10 people a day making a journey from one to the other. That'll be even more so with Luton & Stansted as their primary flights are short / medium distance using 'value' carriers - so somebody's going to fly into Luton on Easyjet to fly out of Stansted on Ryanair? No - thought not.

You *might* have a few people who fly into Luton and then fly out of Gatwick, but Gatwick has BA, Norwegian and Virgin all doing scheduled long-haul flights.

Quite apart from the geography - there's a big hill to get to Luton Airport - between Stevenage and Bishops Stortford there's nothing and the demand for bus travel is pretty sparse. People in Bishops Stortford aren't interested in travelling to Stevenage or Luton, instead they usually want to get to Cambridge, Harlow or London.

 

[eastdyke]

I'm over-egging Oxford-Cambridge demand?
By simply stating that there actually is some? As opposed to saying there is none at all, as Bletchleyite did.

I am sorry we seem to be at odds on account of interpretation of words.
@Bletchleyite , if I recall correctly, said 'next to no demand' which I interpreted as 'not a lot'.
Clearly there is some demand and the examples that you quote will hopefully be addressed well by a completed project.

Moving on, tomorrow is the start of the Public Inquiry for Western Section Phase 2.
The Persona Associates Ltd. Public Inquiry Server has a Draft Programme here:
http://bailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/east-west-rail/programme/19.02.04-programme.pdf
The Inquiry is expected to sit for 40 days over 12 weeks. The draft programme covers the first 15 days over 4 weeks.

Amongst all the documents and objections that can be viewed is the note following the pre-Inquiry Meeting which may be useful to 'set the scene':
http://bailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/east-west-rail/pim/pim-note.pdf
Part extract:

NOTE FOLLOWING THE PRE-INQUIRY MEETING
held on 29 November 2018 at the Milton Keynes Community Foundation, Milton Keynes
1 Introduction
1.1 The Inspector welcomed all present and introduced himself as Martin Whitehead. He has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government to hold Inquiries into a proposed Transport and Works Act Order and related matters.
1.2 The Inspector also introduced Joanna Vincent, who has been appointed as the Programme Officer for the Inquiry. Graham Groom, who was also introduced at the meeting, will cover for her in her absence, which is most likely to be for the first weeks of the Inquiry.
2 Scope of Inquiry
2.1 The Inquiry will be into:
- the proposed Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO);
- a request for Deemed Planning Permission (DPP) for the works that would be authorised by the Order; and
- 3 applications for Listed Building Consent
All pursuant to, or in connection with, the proposed Network Rail (East West Rail Bicester to Bedford Improvements).
The Department for Transport (DfT) has indicated that it has received 242 letters of objection
in respect of the TWAO, 11 representations (one reclassified as Obj/242) and 413 letters of support.
Of these, the DfT has received Statements of Cases from 32 parties, some of them
representing more than one objection, 2 of those giving representations and 2 from those offering support.
.......

Edited to add more detail of the Inquiry period.

 

[camflyer]

As has been said, Route A is the fastest and the cheapest; that's a pretty powerful starting position in any public sector options appraisal (this may even explain why it is presented as Route A....!)

FWIW, I prefer Route B South a northerly approach over the (replaced) busway. But for this option to be chosen, it will be necessary to explain why spending more for a slower journey time is worth it (direct service to Science Park, lots of homes in Cambourne, extensions to Stansted, options to St Ives/Huntingdon/Chatteris I believe does it) but be under no illusions about how hard getting away from Route A will be.

While I would love a railway station at the Science Park I really can't see it happening. There would be significant planning, financial and engineering problems replacing the busway concrete with heavy rails along Kings Hedges Rd and across the junction with Milton Road. Plus you would be reducing the frequency of services for those who currently use the guided bus. If a northerly approach is to be considered it would have to be to a junction between Milton and Waterbeach but that adds in different difficulties such as a longer journey time and how you would connect onto services into Norfolk and Suffolk.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am sorry we seem to be at odds on account of interpretation of words.
@Bletchleyite , if I recall correctly, said 'next to no demand' which I interpreted as 'not a lot'.

Yes, there will be demand but my view is that it will be very small compared to the demand centring on local journeys involving Bicester, MK or Bedford, which is why serving these three places (Bicester to Oxford is of course already served) must be core to any planned service and not simply a fast end to end service.

The keys to me are connectivity and simplicity - a clockface timetable, certainly, and good connectivity to those three towns.

 

[mr_jrt]

While I would love a railway station at the Science Park I really can't see it happening. There would be significant planning, financial and engineering problems replacing the busway concrete with heavy rails along Kings Hedges Rd and across the junction with Milton Road. Plus you would be reducing the frequency of services for those who currently use the guided bus. If a northerly approach is to be considered it would have to be to a junction between Milton and Waterbeach but that adds in different difficulties such as a longer journey time and how you would connect onto services into Norfolk and Suffolk.

Huh? Why would anything need replacing on Kings Hedges Rd? You'd be diverting the buses to run along it instead of the busway. The crossing with Milton Rd. remains the primary issue, but removing the busway's concrete should be trivial - they're just slabs sitting on a few thin layers of packed aggregates if I recall from watching their construction? You can either break the concrete up on-site, or lift the segments out and take them elsewhere for disposal or reuse.

 

[bspahh]

Huh? Why would anything need replacing on Kings Hedges Rd? You'd be diverting the buses to run along it instead of the busway. The crossing with Milton Rd. remains the primary issue, but removing the busway's concrete should be trivial - they're just slabs sitting on a few thin layers of packed aggregates if I recall from watching their construction? You can either break the concrete up on-site, or lift the segments out and take them elsewhere for disposal or reuse.

I don't think you will be able to put a new heavy rail line across the road junction near Cambridge Regional College, or across Milton Road with level crossing. There would either need to be a bridge over the railway, or for the railway to be in a tunnel.

The railway between Cambridge and Bedford has no funding committment from central government. I think getting £2bn for route A will be a stretch. Anyone looking for a more expensive route will need to be able to sort out funding.

A Northern route might be good for Cambourne. However, Cambourne has a population of ~10000. That is the same size as Soham, which already has a railway running past it but no station.

 

[LLivery]

Indeed, the only Bedford South route remotely comparable to its Bedford Midland equivalent is the one that basically goes up to Black Cat, does a 180 to serve Tempsford and Sandy, before heading east to Bassingbourn. Unless Tempsford is guaranteed to be a large development, Route A via Sandy does the job (other than ruling out cheap-and-easy Cambridge-Peterborough and Stevenage-Bedford track work, which would be rather useful for having the development arc be a broader brush stroke rather than a narrow line) for far less than either option.

And, if Bletchley is good enough for MK, Wixhams is good enough for Bedford...

Bletchley isn't good enough for MK. The difference is that they don't really have a choice - the line is already there.

There is a reason why "hubs" are a thing. Bedford Midland should really be the Peterborough of the Midland Main Line after EWR. Bedford South is a poor out of the way choice with less interchange possibilities. One of the major successes of the railway is down to connectivity, including with other transport. Clapham Junction, York, Doncaster, Peterborough, Reading, Crewe, etc., you can change for all different kinds of services under "one roof" and get a plethora of buses outside. Imagine if Crossrail served Bethnal Green instead of Liverpool Street. It'd be stupid. Furthermore, the development possibilities for Bedford shouldn't be understated. Leaders want Wixams built anyway and Wixams supposed to be supporting the development of homes regardless, so building Bedford South won't help that, it will just deprive the town centre of development and investment, while everything will be focused south.

 

[HowardGWR]

How most pax get to and from Bedford stations at the moment and how they would in future must surely be informative about where the Bedford EWR station should be? When folk get out at St Johns or Midland Road (as was), where do they go? Half of the residential suburbs of Bedford appear to be well to the east and north east of these two stations and half well to the south west. In fact St Johns is nearest to that big central roundabout on the A6 where all roads meet.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bletchley isn't good enough for MK. The difference is that they don't really have a choice - the line is already there.

There is a choice - to run all services via MKC, and to do the relevant WCML capacity work to allow that. That connectivity is way, way more important than end to end journey time between Oxford and Cambridge. That no services direct from MKC to the east are planned is utter nonsense - this cuts off one of the primary demands which demonstrably (by the existing Marston Vale service) will not change trains, it will drive or use the X5 instead, while the A421 and 422 get ever more clogged.

You'd only have to knock down a few industrial units to build a north to east curve at Denbigh Hall. Logic would then be to run services through from Oxford to Bedford and beyond calling at Bletchley flyover platforms, then MKC, then direct to the east. The Marston Vale stopper could also be moved to run to/from MKC instead of Bletchley, at which point people might actually use it. There is certainly a significant demand for MKC to/from Bedford, which at present Stagecoach are cashing in on - but that's only a minority of it - there are many, many people who won't use a bus (however posh a bus it is) but will use a train.

 

[si404]

Bletchley isn't good enough for MK.

That's kind of my point - both that MK is being served sub-optimally, and also that Bedford South would be perfectly acceptable in the minds of planners, given that sub-optimality...

The difference is that they don't really have a choice - the line is already there.

But surely they can reverse, as Bletchleyite says, or at least have most trains on E-W rail going to MK (and terminating or continuing north), with perhaps merely 1tph avoiding it.

Or they could, you know, spend hundreds of millions of additonal money to make sure E-W rail serves the centre of town on the through route - which is what you are suggesting for Bedford...

 

[A0]

There is a choice - to run all services via MKC, and to do the relevant WCML capacity work to allow that. That connectivity is way, way more important than end to end journey time between Oxford and Cambridge. That no services direct from MKC to the east are planned is utter nonsense - this cuts off one of the primary demands which demonstrably (by the existing Marston Vale service) will not change trains, it will drive or use the X5 instead, while the A421 and 422 get ever more clogged.

You'd only have to knock down a few industrial units to build a north to east curve at Denbigh Hall. Logic would then be to run services through from Oxford to Bedford and beyond calling at Bletchley flyover platforms, then MKC, then direct to the east. The Marston Vale stopper could also be moved to run to/from MKC instead of Bletchley, at which point people might actually use it. There is certainly a significant demand for MKC to/from Bedford, which at present Stagecoach are cashing in on - but that's only a minority of it - there are many, many people who won't use a bus (however posh a bus it is) but will use a train.

<Sigh> I'll repeat my post from earlier:

Except you're completely overlooking the fact that neither station (Bedford or MKC) at either end is useful for the main centres of employment.

MK's employment areas are scattered throughout the area, yet MKC station just about serves Central MK - completely useless if your office is in Kingston, Blakelands or Newport Pagnell. Bedford is similarly sited, if you're in Goldington, Cardington, or Kempston it's pretty pointless travelling into Bedford station to get to MK - there's no time saving to be had compared to using the A421 or A422.

You can continue to protest that MKC should have direct services to Bedford or, ultimately Cambridge, but you're ignoring completely the fact neither station serves either the bulk of the employment or residential areas.

The X5 picks up and drops off *far* more people in CMK than it does at MK station.

 

[Bletchleyite]

<Sigh> I'll repeat my post from earlier:

Except you're completely overlooking the fact that neither station (Bedford or MKC) at either end is useful for the main centres of employment.

MK's employment areas are scattered throughout the area, yet MKC station just about serves Central MK - completely useless if your office is in Kingston, Blakelands or Newport Pagnell. Bedford is similarly sited, if you're in Goldington, Cardington, or Kempston it's pretty pointless travelling into Bedford station to get to MK - there's no time saving to be had compared to using the A421 or A422.

You can continue to protest that MKC should have direct services to Bedford or, ultimately Cambridge, but you're ignoring completely the fact neither station serves either the bulk of the employment or residential areas.

The X5 picks up and drops off *far* more people in CMK than it does at MK station.

The vast majority of employment in MK is within 20 minutes' walk of MKC (with a bus every 30 seconds or so taking about 5 minutes if you can't be bothered walking up the hill, or plentiful taxis), and all but one bus route calls there (directly outside, German-style - indeed Station Square very much looks like a typical German Bahnhofsvorplatz, even as far as the flags and clock on a stick) as well as good road access. There is no better place to serve in MK. Bletchley is markedly inferior, and if it wasn't they would never have built MKC - the original plan for MK was to keep the existing stations only.

Simply looking at the number of commuters at each will show you the difference and why not serving MKC is absolute madness - it is more important in my eyes to serve MKC than it is to go to Cambridge at all.

 

[LLivery]

There is a choice - to run all services via MKC, and to do the relevant WCML capacity work to allow that. That connectivity is way, way more important than end to end journey time between Oxford and Cambridge. That no services direct from MKC to the east are planned is utter nonsense - this cuts off one of the primary demands which demonstrably (by the existing Marston Vale service) will not change trains, it will drive or use the X5 instead, while the A421 and 422 get ever more clogged.

You'd only have to knock down a few industrial units to build a north to east curve at Denbigh Hall. Logic would then be to run services through from Oxford to Bedford and beyond calling at Bletchley flyover platforms, then MKC, then direct to the east. The Marston Vale stopper could also be moved to run to/from MKC instead of Bletchley, at which point people might actually use it. There is certainly a significant demand for MKC to/from Bedford, which at present Stagecoach are cashing in on - but that's only a minority of it - there are many, many people who won't use a bus (however posh a bus it is) but will use a train.

I took it for granted reversing is something we wanted to avoid, as it adds quite a few minutes on. But then again, it doesn't stop people using the Norwich - Liverpool. I did expect a direct service to MKC, preferably, Northampton to the east. The prospect of no direct services from MKC to the east is nuts.

That's kind of my point - both that MK is being served sub-optimally, and also that Bedford South would be perfectly acceptable in the minds of planners, given that sub-optimality...But surely they can reverse, as Bletchleyite says, or at least have most trains on E-W rail going to MK (and terminating or continuing north), with perhaps merely 1tph avoiding it.

Or they could, you know, spend hundreds of millions of additonal money to make sure E-W rail serves the centre of town on the through route - which is what you are suggesting for Bedford...

But for Bedford we have the chance to spend a little more a get better access for the town as well as overall connectivity. For MK, the option would be spending 100s of millions duplicating the Marson Vale or, reversing trains. Reversing 1-2tph I could support. Duplicating a line when we can't even get the Uckfield line extended to Lewes isn't wise.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But for Bedford we have the chance to spend a little more a get better access for the town as well as overall connectivity. For MK, the option would be spending 100s of millions duplicating the Marson Vale or, reversing trains. Reversing 1-2tph I could support. Duplicating a line when we can't even get the Uckfield line extended to Lewes isn't wise.

I agree - there's nothing wrong with using the Marston Vale for the level of service required, and reversing needn't take that long - it's not like we are running locomotives around.

 

[eastdyke]

I agree - there's nothing wrong with using the Marston Vale for the level of service required, and reversing needn't take that long - it's not like we are running locomotives around.

It doesn't work at all for the service level envisaged by some for 2050.
But of course many, me included, will have shuffled off by then.

 

[si404]

But for Bedford we have the chance to spend a little more a get better access for the town as well as overall connectivity. For MK, the option would be spending 100s of millions

The figures for serving Bedford Midland, rather than Bedford South, are hundreds of millions too - it's not 'a little more'.

Duplicating a line when we can't even get the Uckfield line extended to Lewes isn't wise.

Uckfield - Lewes for duplication reasons (ie the reasons that hijacked the scheme and made it much less likely to happen) is like having E-W Rail through MK already and proposing to build the Marston Vale line. Routing E-W Rail over a new build line via MKC is akin to having London-Brighton going via Uckfield and proposing a new high-quality line from Three Bridges in order to serve Gatwick with the new high-quality line, rather than upgrading the Uckfield line to be more than a rural branch.

I don't think it's likely that a new MK-Bedford railway would be built, and I'm not really proposing or supporting it beyond as a thought experiment that's really about Bedford: whether serving the town centre on the through route is worth spending 100s of millions more.

 

[si404]

The X5 picks up and drops off *far* more people in CMK than it does at MK station.

If you are saying that people won't take the train to MKC if they want CMK, then is there any point in duplicating the X5 bus with a rail service via Bletchley? They'd all take the bus, rather than end up 4 miles away, if ending up a mile away was too far...

The conversation is MKC vs Bletchley, not what end of Midsummer Blvd people are travelling too.

 

[hooverboy]

How most pax get to and from Bedford stations at the moment and how they would in future must surely be informative about where the Bedford EWR station should be? When folk get out at St Johns or Midland Road (as was), where do they go? Half of the residential suburbs of Bedford appear to be well to the east and north east of these two stations and half well to the south west. In fact St Johns is nearest to that big central roundabout on the A6 where all roads meet.

the overwhelming majority of passengers to/from st johns is schoolkids from bedford school and dame alice harpur.
absent that you would be looking at numbers closer to woburn/fenny-at a push

if st johns closed, they would get off at midland and walk 15 minutes,as pupils for bedford modern /rushmoor school do to get to manton lane.
prebend st if anything is closer.

 

[hooverboy]

I don't think it's likely that a new MK-Bedford railway would be built, and I'm not really proposing or supporting it beyond as a thought experiment that's really about Bedford: whether serving the town centre on the through route is worth spending 100s of millions more.

I think EW will get built alright, I just have concerns about the people doing the planning.
they have a penchent for vanity projects,and spending money as wastefully as possible,taking an obscenely long time to do anything tangible.

For what it's worth, I think the planners should be taken to a war zone to train how to plan and get things done in a short space of time.
When your life is on the line a few months late on a project really isn't an option....there will be sweet f.a. point in waiting for box tickers.
the job needs to be complete by point x.End of story.

...much as I think many of many of our airport staff/traffic management need a few weeks a year in northern sweden/finland/canada to train how to keep airports open in -30C and 6 feet of snow.To see how they keep operational while we cripple under a centimetre or two....someone is obviously going to say they have really extreme temperatures....that's the entire point!
you can swing from -30C in winter to +30C in summer!..we generally don't get that extreme!

for the engineers I would say there is a tendency to "over engineer"..it needs to be low-ish tech, but robust and reliable.
they need to remember most drivers and guard do not hold a degree in computer science. most will happliy pick up a spanner but will baulk at perusing reams of source code!(class 180 typical example of over-engineering! nothing wrong with the mechanical side, just the control systems are way too complex.)

for the PR/marketing...be a little less optimistic...a good negotiator will hold you to your word in a contract with penalty clauses.A good boss knows to add a bit extra onto the numbers and timeframes you plucked out of the air to get a sale/commission before he /she signs it off.

 

[HowardGWR]

It seems to me that,as I wrote earlier, it is where folk have their origin /destination, both in the Bedford area and the MK /Bletchley area. One hopes that detailed surveys and prognoses have been made, otherwise one might just as well stick a wet finger in the air.

 

[camflyer]

I think EW will get built alright, I just have concerns about the people doing the planning.
they have a penchent for vanity projects,and spending money as wastefully as possible,taking an obscenely long time to do anything tangible.

The trouble is that everyone's a critic. If they do a cheap and cheerful version (e.g. missing out MKC, Bedford and Cambourne) they will get criticised for penny pinching and not doing it properly. If they propose an all bells and whistles route then people will moan about the cost, disruption and the time it will take.

 

[whittlesfordok]

Looking at this I bet it will be route A that is chosen. Bassingbourn mod site could be sold for a lot of money for housing. By the way Royston railway station is only 3 miles away so if does not get build on time the houses will still sell.

 

[The Ham]

Bletchley isn't good enough for MK. The difference is that they don't really have a choice - the line is already there.

There is a reason why "hubs" are a thing. Bedford Midland should really be the Peterborough of the Midland Main Line after EWR. Bedford South is a poor out of the way choice with less interchange possibilities. One of the major successes of the railway is down to connectivity, including with other transport. Clapham Junction, York, Doncaster, Peterborough, Reading, Crewe, etc., you can change for all different kinds of services under "one roof" and get a plethora of buses outside. Imagine if Crossrail served Bethnal Green instead of Liverpool Street. It'd be stupid. Furthermore, the development possibilities for Bedford shouldn't be understated. Leaders want Wixams built anyway and Wixams supposed to be supporting the development of homes regardless, so building Bedford South won't help that, it will just deprive the town centre of development and investment, while everything will be focused south.

Taking your example of Clapham Junction, there are services which call there and start and finish there which don't serve any of the major London stations. Yet no one says that the MK services should start at Waterloo.

Personally I think serve a new station at Bedford and look to improve the setup of you start to see demand for better services.

Have such things as the loop to allow Bedford to MK services as a stand alone project.

Likewise look at doubling back services or new loops to allow direct Cambridge to Bedford when it's clear that there's demand for it.

You may well find that even without being perfect that a) the services are busy and don't need the extra passengers from serving MK and Bedford directly b) that a significant number of people use E-W to get to/from Bedford and MK anyway and so future upgrades become easy to justify.

In the case off the latter (depending on what road traffic is like) it could well be that going by train (even with the time penalty of changing) that the journey is quicker (or at least only slight slower than normal) than driving in the peaks.

I know that when I was commuting that I was willing to use a train taking 1 hour over an off peak car journey time of 30 minutes because during the peak times (when I was needing to travel) the car took as long most of the time and semi regularly a lot longer during peak hours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Taking your example of Clapham Junction, there are services which call there and start and finish there which don't serve any of the major London stations. Yet no one says that the MK services should start at Waterloo.

But that's different, as there are already services from MK to London and from Clapham Jn to London, albeit different stations (both in the rather larger centre, though). The problem I have with the plans is that while there are Oxford-MK and Aylesbury-MK services planned, the massive existing flow (by car, and with serious traffic congestion problems, adding the X5 on top) between MK and Bedford is basically ignored. This is utterly ridiculous (because, if nothing else, it's throwing guaranteed fares income away), and to me a service from MK to Bedford (both fast and stopping) is to me far, far more important than any of the rest of it, and certainly more important than speculatively shoving a line out to Cambridge or the speed of any proposed through service.

I suspect there is a view "well, hardly anyone uses the Marston Vale, so there's no demand", but that, like the way the Marston Vale has never been extended to MKC despite a platform (2a, now near enough totally unused) being built specifically for it (it will be useful for Oxford/Aylesbury services, but those were by no means certain when it was built), it just ignores what is going on on the roads entirely.

 

[A0]

If you are saying that people won't take the train to MKC if they want CMK, then is there any point in duplicating the X5 bus with a rail service via Bletchley? They'd all take the bus, rather than end up 4 miles away, if ending up a mile away was too far...

The conversation is MKC vs Bletchley, not what end of Midsummer Blvd people are travelling too.

The benefit to MK is access to the west - even with a change at Bletchley, that will be far more competitive than it is now.

Eastwards is a different story, particularly when you look to Bedford.

The current X5 covers Central MK to centre Bedford in about 40 minutes at the moment.

The current Marston Vale service takes 45 minutes to cover Bletchley to Bedford.

Now, OK, allowing for a fast service you *might* get that down to 30 mins, but you've also got a 5 minute journey from MKC to Bletchley to add onto that AND a reversal at Bletchley - unless you do some *very* expensive trackworks - so you can add another 3 mins for that turnaround (which is using Battersby as an example of somewhere else a reversal occurs). So all of a sudden you're at about 40 mins, which is basically the same time the X5 has. And the X5 picks up and drops off in more convenient places at each end, will doubtless be cheaper and avoids the need to get to the station to begin with.

 

[LLivery]

Taking your example of Clapham Junction, there are services which call there and start and finish there which don't serve any of the major London stations. Yet no one says that the MK services should start at Waterloo.

Personally I think serve a new station at Bedford and look to improve the setup of you start to see demand for better services.

Have such things as the loop to allow Bedford to MK services as a stand alone project.

Likewise look at doubling back services or new loops to allow direct Cambridge to Bedford when it's clear that there's demand for it.

You may well find that even without being perfect that a) the services are busy and don't need the extra passengers from serving MK and Bedford directly b) that a significant number of people use E-W to get to/from Bedford and MK anyway and so future upgrades become easy to justify.

In the case off the latter (depending on what road traffic is like) it could well be that going by train (even with the time penalty of changing) that the journey is quicker (or at least only slight slower than normal) than driving in the peaks.

I know that when I was commuting that I was willing to use a train taking 1 hour over an off peak car journey time of 30 minutes because during the peak times (when I was needing to travel) the car took as long most of the time and semi regularly a lot longer during peak hours.

Trains should terminate Cambridge North instead of serving Cambridge then. See how that goes down.

The habits of people in a metropolitan city are rather different than on a regional route and Clapham Junction is arguably a major London station. 57tph from London Victoria and Waterloo combined serve Clapham Junction with them going all over the South. The 9tph you mention avoiding Central London are designed to take people away from Central London, but there's no need to do that for Bedford. Changing trains, you don't have to wait 2 mins for a train into Central London from Clapham Jun, but ask people around Clapham HS whether they'd like direct services into Victoria again they'd probably say it should've never gone in the first place.

The point is, Bedford Midland could become a hub, like Peterborough, where trains from all over call. There would be a good case for most Sheffield and Nottingham trains to call. Where's Bedford South has more of a chance being the next Tamworth.

Edit: I'm not calling for all trains to reverse at MKC, but I can't really disagree with 1 or 2tph doing so. Depends on the timetable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The benefit to MK is access to the west - even with a change at Bletchley, that will be far more competitive than it is now.

Eastwards is a different story, particularly when you look to Bedford.

The current X5 covers Central MK to centre Bedford in about 40 minutes at the moment.

The current Marston Vale service takes 45 minutes to cover Bletchley to Bedford.

Now, OK, allowing for a fast service you *might* get that down to 30 mins, but you've also got a 5 minute journey from MKC to Bletchley to add onto that AND a reversal at Bletchley - unless you do some *very* expensive trackworks - so you can add another 3 mins for that turnaround (which is using Battersby as an example of somewhere else a reversal occurs). So all of a sudden you're at about 40 mins, which is basically the same time the X5 has. And the X5 picks up and drops off in more convenient places at each end, will doubtless be cheaper and avoids the need to get to the station to begin with.

But you're forgetting that the X5 (a) is a bus (even though the vehicles are very posh indeed, much nicer than any Class 150, 153 or 230) - some people will simply not use buses - and (b) is very susceptible to traffic congestion - punctuality is absolutely appalling and that 40 minute running time is an unachievable dream in the peaks.

I don't think a north to east curve at Denbigh Hall would be particularly expensive when you look at the costs of the rest of EWR. You'd have to buy up a few industrial units (including the IKEA Full Serve warehouse!), but the lie of the land seems to be such that it would not be a particularly difficult piece of work to do at all. And I reckon if the Marston Vale ran from MKC, even in its current form, demand would be much greater.

 

[DarloRich]

If we are talking about a new Bedford South then we need to be honest about what happens to Bedford and by extension Wixhams, St Johns and Kempston Hardwick. There is no way that intercity trains are going to stop Luton Airport Parkway> Luton> Bedford South > Bedford. none.

Therefore I suggest a new interchange at "Bedford South" incorporating Wixhams. I would either downgrade Bedford to or close it completely. If we close it we will also need to close St Johns and possibly Kempston Hardwick and divert all trains to "Bedford South".

Personally I would prefer to not have to spend loads of money making services less convenient for existing passengers. I would like E-W to serve the existing Bedford station somehow. If that can be done or can be done in a way acceptable to all stakeholders and funders is debatable.