East West Main Line - Network Rail's view

[Doctor Fegg]

Very interesting paper by Network Rail:

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/North,%20West%20and%20Central/East%20West%20Main%20Line%20Strategic%20Statement%202022.pdf

It effectively says that, without through running beyond Oxford and Bedford/Cambridge, EWR will only be useful for local connectivity, because longer-distance journeys will still be faster via London. It then looks at some of the infrastructure enhancements required for through services to operate, potentially as far afield as Cardiff, Southampton and Norwich.

Source: https://twitter.com/OxfordClarion/status/1511629827727675393

 

[HowardGWR]

Very interesting paper by Network Rail:

https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/North,%20West%20and%20Central/East%20West%20Main%20Line%20Strategic%20Statement%202022.pdf

It effectively says that, without through running beyond Oxford and Bedford/Cambridge, EWR will only be useful for local connectivity, because longer-distance journeys will still be faster via London. It then looks at some of the infrastructure enhancements required for through services to operate, potentially as far afield as Cardiff, Southampton and Norwich.

Source: https://twitter.com/OxfordClarion/status/1511629827727675393

Interesting that the map on page 16 seems to be under the impression that the line from Oxford to Risborough via Thame is still open!

 

[Martin23230]

I'm surprised this hasn't picked up more interest on this forum (unless I'm missing another thread), it seems to be NR admitting they'd like several enhancements that I see pushed for all the time here.

The report is worth a read, but I thought I'd summarise some of the upgrades listed to turn the "East-West Railway" into the "East-West Mainline":
- Improvements to the Oxford area, extension of EWR services via the GWML to Southampton, Bristol and Cardiff.
- Improving connections to Aylesbury, potential of extending MK-Aylesbury services to OOC via High Wycombe.
- Admission that MK should be prioritised as a key hub on the route and that expected EWR services are lacking, addition of an east-north curve at Bletchley, extension of services to Northampton.
- Upgrades to Bedford station area including a connection to the MML lines north of the station for possible services north (dependent on MML capacity).
- Construction of a proper interchange station with ECML, additional interventions to counter loss of time by stopping fast services there, potential additional connection onto the ECML slow line (doesn't specify north or south).
- Major upgrades to the Cambridge area to allow services to continue to Norwich/Ipswich.
- Accommodate more freight, east-north chord at Bletchley being listed as an "essential" addition.
- Electrification of entire EWR route, plus Oxford-Didcot and Felixstowe-WCML.
- Installation of ETCS.

Now be honest, anyone who started a thread in the Speculative section proposing all of that would probably get a hard time. While this might be just a wishlist from NR it's still quite an admission that the current plans for EWR are lacking in major areas.

 

[Mollman]

I'm surprised this hasn't picked up more interest on this forum (unless I'm missing another thread), it seems to be NR admitting they'd like several enhancements that I see pushed for all the time here.

The report is worth a read, but I thought I'd summarise some of the upgrades listed to turn the "East-West Railway" into the "East-West Mainline":
- Improvements to the Oxford area, extension of EWR services via the GWML to Southampton, Bristol and Cardiff.
- Improving connections to Aylesbury, potential of extending MK-Aylesbury services to OOC via High Wycombe.
- Admission that MK should be prioritised as a key hub on the route and that expected EWR services are lacking, addition of an east-north curve at Bletchley, extension of services to Northampton.
- Upgrades to Bedford station area including a connection to the MML lines north of the station for possible services north (dependent on MML capacity).
- Construction of a proper interchange station with ECML, additional interventions to counter loss of time by stopping fast services there, potential additional connection onto the ECML slow line (doesn't specify north or south).
- Major upgrades to the Cambridge area to allow services to continue to Norwich/Ipswich.
- Accommodate more freight, east-north chord at Bletchley being listed as an "essential" addition.
- Electrification of entire EWR route, plus Oxford-Didcot and Felixstowe-WCML.
- Installation of ETCS.

Now be honest, anyone who started a thread in the Speculative section proposing all of that would probably get a hard time. While this might be just a wishlist from NR it's still quite an admission that the current plans for EWR are lacking in major areas.

Thanks for the summary, guessing the ECML connection will be west to north as one of the maps shows a possible extension to Peterborough.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It effectively says that, without through running beyond Oxford and Bedford/Cambridge, EWR will only be useful for local connectivity

That's what it's intended for. It was predicated on the development of housing, retail and business in the "Oxford-Cambridge Arc". That plan however seems to have been scaled back/dropped, and so I suppose you could then be looking at other uses for it.

I do however support most of that.

 

[A0wen]

I'm surprised this hasn't picked up more interest on this forum (unless I'm missing another thread), it seems to be NR admitting they'd like several enhancements that I see pushed for all the time here.

The report is worth a read, but I thought I'd summarise some of the upgrades listed to turn the "East-West Railway" into the "East-West Mainline":
- Improvements to the Oxford area, extension of EWR services via the GWML to Southampton, Bristol and Cardiff.
- Improving connections to Aylesbury, potential of extending MK-Aylesbury services to OOC via High Wycombe.
- Admission that MK should be prioritised as a key hub on the route and that expected EWR services are lacking, addition of an east-north curve at Bletchley, extension of services to Northampton.
- Upgrades to Bedford station area including a connection to the MML lines north of the station for possible services north (dependent on MML capacity).
- Construction of a proper interchange station with ECML, additional interventions to counter loss of time by stopping fast services there, potential additional connection onto the ECML slow line (doesn't specify north or south).
- Major upgrades to the Cambridge area to allow services to continue to Norwich/Ipswich.
- Accommodate more freight, east-north chord at Bletchley being listed as an "essential" addition.
- Electrification of entire EWR route, plus Oxford-Didcot and Felixstowe-WCML.
- Installation of ETCS.

Now be honest, anyone who started a thread in the Speculative section proposing all of that would probably get a hard time. While this might be just a wishlist from NR it's still quite an admission that the current plans for EWR are lacking in major areas.

Bit in bold - hogwash. It's simply pointing out the things which *could* be done in the future. The simple reality is they don't carry a viable Business Case as it stands and if they'd been put forward now, would have almost certainly killed EWR stone dead. There's no guarantee they will provide a positive BCR in the future either - the reality is one or two *may* be worth looking at, a good number won't.

 

[BeijingDave]

Where exactly will the ECML Interchange be? Is it close to any populated area or not?

 

[A0wen]

Where exactly will the ECML Interchange be? Is it close to any populated area or not?

Depends what you're asking. The current route of Bedford - Cambridge isn't confirmed, but the most likely intersection will be somewhere north of Sandy - Tempsford probably. There was a station at Tempsford many, many years ago. With housing being built it may justify a new one on the ECML which will also serve EWR. But that's not the same as justifying stops on long-distance ECML services particularly given the relative proximity to Peterborough which is a genuine interchange linking to a number of other lines.

Linkage onto the ECML is only of local value in any case - if you're coming from Cambridge wanting to head north on the ECML you'd go via Peterborough, if you're doing the same from the MML you're better off going via Leicester and from the WCML there are a number of routes depending on your destination but via Tamworth or via Manchester would make more sense.

 

[richieb1971]

One of the Tempsford platforms still partially exists. Station road has residence on it, but its about 30-40 homes, no more than 100 I would imagine. Apart from that, there isn't a great deal else there. Its just fields. The crossing in the picture from where this video snap was taken leads to a couple of farms on dead end roads.

 

[A0wen]

One of the Tempsford platforms still partially exists. Station road has residence on it, but its about 30-40 homes, no more than 100 I would imagine. Apart from that, there isn't a great deal else there. Its just fields. The crossing in the picture from where this video snap was taken leads to a couple of farms on dead end roads.

View attachment 112670

But Central Beds Council have in their Local Plan a proposal for a "Market Town" of 7000 homes around Tempsford - that would be a population of circa 20,000 https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/info/45/planning_policy/469/draft_local_plan/3

 

[richieb1971]

I am just saying what's there now.

 

[Trog]

I am a bit doubtful about running to Milton Keynes, as running a train from Bletchley to Milton Keynes and back again seems a bit of a waste of a couple of WCML paths, and an east to north chord close in to Bletchley would be difficult to arrange. It would also have the potential to transfer delays from one line to the other if the trains got out of sync and were missing their planned paths.

I wonder if it would be more workable to call at Bletchley HL, then run down the flyover lines to Denbigh South from where a fifth line would run to Milton Keynes Central so segregating the WCML and EW traffic. After reversal the train could run back towards Bletchley on the fifth line until just before the WCML/A5D bridge then branch off to follow the A5D joining the existing EW route near to where the EW line crosses the A5D, and vice versa for the other direction. This would be very expensive but as the section of the EW route missed out would be the single line section through Fenny Stratford perhaps some saving could be made if that did not need redoubling.

 

[richieb1971]

Ideas like this have been said in the EWR thread. A 5th line is prohibited due to cost. There are several bridges, a cutting all the way that would need widening, places where widening is not cost effective, multiple land owners involved. The list goes on. The gist I got was that Oxford and Mkc are the populace areas and a chord already exists. Cambridge and the East Side do not have a chord already and have no reason to go MkC at all and If they did (like my family does), a reversal is the most cost effective thing to do at Bletchley.

 

[A0wen]

Ideas like this have been said in the EWR thread. A 5th line is prohibited due to cost. There are several bridges, a cutting all the way that would need widening, places where widening is not cost effective, multiple land owners involved. The list goes on. The gist I got was that Oxford and Mkc are the populace areas and a chord already exists. Cambridge and the East Side do not have a chord already and have no reason to go MkC at all and If they did (like my family does), a reversal is the most cost effective thing to do at Bletchley.

Actually the most cost effective thing is not to run them to MK at all and any passengers that want MKC from the east would have to change at Bletchley, as opposed to giving passengers heading to points further west a 20 minute detour up and back to MKC (and before anyone says 'oh but it's only 5 mins to MKC to Bletchley) there would need to be a reversal at Bletchley upon arrival, a stand at MKC and reverse before heading back. And it would have to fit around other traffic running through MKC - with the greatest will in the world, on that stretch, EWR is likely to be a lower priority than LNW, Avanti and even the freights along there as if you start to cause delays to those, that will have an impact which is felt much further afield.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Actually the most cost effective thing is not to run them to MK at all and any passengers that want MKC from the east would have to change at Bletchley

The effect of which will be that they reach for their car keys, and Stagecoach will have a quick giggle and continue running the X5.

I know you think it shouldn't be built as you oppose any and all subsidised rail provision, but if it's going to be built you might as well do it properly otherwise it will cost more due to reduced fare income.

 

[A0wen]

The effect of which will be that they reach for their car keys, and Stagecoach will have a quick giggle and continue running the X5.

I know you think it shouldn't be built as you oppose any and all subsidised rail provision, but if it's going to be built you might as well do it properly otherwise it will cost more due to reduced fare income.

Yes, because all those people who travel into London on a daily basis grab their car keys and don't bother with using the train because it necessitate a change. Same for all those people who use the Abbey Flyer or Marks Tey - Sudbury or hundreds of other lines up and down the country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yes, because all those people who travel into London on a daily basis grab their car keys and don't bother with using the train because it necessitate a change.

London is a bad example because driving is so utterly horrible. Driving from Oxford/Bedford to MK isn't utterly horrible, I've done it loads of times, plus on the X5.

Same for all those people who use the Abbey Flyer or Marks Tey - Sudbury or hundreds of other lines up and down the country.

One of the reasons the Marston Vale is underused is because it doesn't go to MKC. It may not be worth the money to make it do so on its own, but having a new-build line that doesn't is nonsensical. It needs to serve MKC (or for there to be a plan for it to do so, e.g. it may not be possible pre-HS2 but should definitely be once that releases paths) or it's not worth building it at all.

Even Network Rail now recognises that.

It might even be worth going a bit further and taking it to Northampton if possible.

 

[Trog]

I think the only practical options are if the traffic including freight makes it worth while an expensive fifth track and chord, or if as is likely that will not fly financially not to do it at all and just try and arrange for decent connections between the two lines trains at Bletchley. Trying to run to and from Milton Keynes on the existing infrastructure will probably just spoil the service offering on both lines for little benefit.

 

[DarloRich]

Bit in bold - hogwash. It's simply pointing out the things which *could* be done in the future. The simple reality is they don't carry a viable Business Case as it stands and if they'd been put forward now, would have almost certainly killed EWR stone dead. There's no guarantee they will provide a positive BCR in the future either - the reality is one or two *may* be worth looking at, a good number won't.

The correct answer - but you are simply screaming into the void.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the only practical options are if the traffic including freight makes it worth while an expensive fifth track and chord, or if as is likely that will not fly financially not to do it at all and just try and arrange for decent connections between the two lines trains at Bletchley. Trying to run to and from Milton Keynes on the existing infrastructure will probably just spoil the service offering on both lines for little benefit.

With the Southern gone (and unlikely to come back) that's one path each way...

 

[Trog]

It would be a waste to use two WCML paths just to run ~three miles, and the return path would need to be a time to change ends from the north bound path to even offer even a poor service. As adding half an hour minimum to an east-west journey to make it via Milton Keynes during which the train visits Bletchley twice and has two reversals will not look good. So I don't think running trains between the east and Milton Keynes is practical, without a very expensive new chord line.

Running a mixture of trains from the west to Milton Keynes and beyond perhaps to Northampton or even Rugby, and from the west to eastern destinations might work. Possibly with the trains timetabled so that the east to west / west to north, and north to west / west to east trains are timed to allow a connection to be made at Bletchley HL to allow the journey otherwise prevented by the non existent east to north chord.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would be a waste to use two WCML paths just to run ~three miles

It's more of a waste not using it for anything!

FWIW the indicative post-HS2 WCML timetable has the Tring stoppers terminating at Bletchley instead (as they did years ago) - that potentially leaves space for these.

As adding half an hour minimum to an east-west journey to make it via Milton Keynes during which the train visits Bletchley twice and has two reversals will not look good.

You're assuming a lot of through journeys which I contend there won't be many of. There simply isn't much demand from Oxford to Cambridge as one journey. Ride the X5 and have a look, you pretty much get a full turnover of passengers between the two central MK stops, and you also did at Bedford (so much so that it's been split there now).

There is a lovely image of gowned, hatted professors taking tea and scones as they head across to the other traditional University city for a conference. That just isn't a thing, and it wasn't when the line was open before, either. At most you'll get a few students who go to one and have friends at the other and pop back and forth to visit, and they will care more about the price than half an hour. You see the odd one on the X5 now - if time was important they'd go via London.

If there is the demand for that I don't overly object to some trains not going to MKC (the interim plan was 2 Oxford-MKC and 1 Oxford-Bedford), but I think having nothing from the east go there is madness - literally chucking money away by avoiding the route's main traffic objective and largest town/city. (No, Bletchley isn't an acceptable destination substitute - if it was, MKC would never have been built - it didn't feature in the original masterplan but was soon seen to be needed!)

Running a mixture of trains from the west to Milton Keynes and beyond perhaps to Northampton or even Rugby, and from the west to eastern destinations might work. Possibly with the trains timetabled so that the east to west / west to north, and north to west / west to east trains are timed to allow a connection to be made at Bletchley HL to allow the journey otherwise prevented by the non existent east to north chord.

It's such a pity the HL line wasn't feasible to build as an island platform (though I guess that wouldn't be viable if it's just cantilevered off the side of the viaduct). That connection would be much less painful then.

 

[A0wen]

One of the reasons the Marston Vale is underused is because it doesn't go to MKC. It may not be worth the money to make it do so on its own, but having a new-build line that doesn't is nonsensical. It needs to serve MKC (or for there to be a plan for it to do so, e.g. it may not be possible pre-HS2 but should definitely be once that releases paths) or it's not worth building it at all.

The reason the Marston Vale is "underused" is because it doesn't actually serve anywhere - and extending it to MKC would make precious little difference to that.

Let's look at each of the stations in turn:

Fenny Stratford - for many people Bletchley is just as close and serves more destinations (with apologies to Darlo Rich)
Bow Brickhill - if you're heading to the centre of MK a car or taxi will quicker and more convenient.
The same is true of Woburn Sands and Apsley Guise.

Ridgmont only really serves the Amazon and other warehouses.
Lidlington - serves the village but that's only 1300 people, unlikely to use it more even if the train did run to CMK.

Millbrook, Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick are all in the middle of nowhere.

Bedford St Johns - serves an area of Bedford, but I doubt running through to MKC would generate additional traffic.

Of the 4 stations which are more or less in MK - Fenny Stratford, Bow Brickhill, Woburn Sands and Apsley Guise - only one really serves an area of employment - Bow Brickhill with Caldecotte Lake Business Park next to it - there's not much in it between Bletchley and Fenny Stratford for most of the employment areas of Bletchley.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You missed one - arguably the most important - Bedford. The X5 does well enough. As most people will use a train over a bus, there's plenty of potential for the through journey on a semifast train, as EWR is proposed to offer.

However going forward there is to be a lot of development around most of the stations, which will create more demand for travel to/from both ends for employment.

 

[A0wen]

You missed one - arguably the most important - Bedford. The X5 does well enough. As most people will use a train over a bus, there's plenty of potential for the through journey on a semifast train, as EWR is proposed to offer.

However going forward there is to be a lot of development around most of the stations, which will create more demand for travel to/from both ends for employment.

The vast majority of users of Bedford station are heading towards Luton and London as 4 + trains an hour of at least 8 cars demonstrates. And it wasn't always that way - when the BedPan was electrified Bedford had an hourly service to St Pancras.

Notwithstanding, Bedford station is lousily sited for most areas of Bedford and parking is pretty limited as well. Most of the development currently taking place in Bedford is on the West side - around the link road from the A421 to the A428 and A6. If you think people are going to head east into Bedford to get the train to head west to Milton Keynes - that first leg taking 10-15 minutes on a journey they can drive in ~20 minutes then you really aren't thinking about this. And that assumes their end destination at MK is near MKC station - as opposed to places on the east side of MK like Blakelands, Tongwell or Kingston where there are many of the employment opportunities.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The vast majority of users of Bedford station are heading towards Luton and London as 4 + trains an hour of at least 8 cars demonstrates. And it wasn't always that way - when the BedPan was electrified Bedford had an hourly service to St Pancras.

Notwithstanding, Bedford station is lousily sited for most areas of Bedford and parking is pretty limited as well. Most of the development currently taking place in Bedford is on the West side - around the link road from the A421 to the A428 and A6. If you think people are going to head east into Bedford to get the train to head west to Milton Keynes - that first leg taking 10-15 minutes on a journey they can drive in ~20 minutes then you really aren't thinking about this. And that assumes their end destination at MK is near MKC station - as opposed to places on the east side of MK like Blakelands, Tongwell or Kingston where there are many of the employment opportunities.

So by extension, you oppose EWR entirely?

Most of what you're saying applies as much to Cambridge, the location of that station makes Paddington look like it's on Trafalgar Square.

My view remains "MK or bust", i.e. if the eastern leg does not, and will not, run to MKC, then it should not be built.

 

[A0wen]

So by extension, you oppose EWR entirely?

Most of what you're saying applies as much to Cambridge, the location of that station makes Paddington look like it's on Trafalgar Square.

My view remains "MK or bust", i.e. if the eastern leg does not, and will not, run to MKC, then it should not be built.

I can see some value in the western section - MK - Aylesbury / MK - Oxford - there are clear flows between those and synergies.

The Eastern section is far less clear cut - Cambridge is a much smaller place, with fewer historic or cultural links to the likes of MK or Oxford (beyond the University). There's not much between Bedford and Cambridge in terms of either employment or leisure facilities - Biggleswade, Sandy, St Neots, Huntingdon, Camborne and Royston are all small places.

 

[py_megapixel]

I do think it's ridiculous that a new railway which mostly connects into electrified infrastructure will have to open with DMUs, and presumably electrification would be one of the major "infrastructure enhancements". But that's been done to death already.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

I do think it's ridiculous that a new railway which mostly connects into electrified infrastructure will have to open with DMUs, and presumably electrification would be one of the major "infrastructure enhancements". But that's been done to death already.

Totally agree

 

[willgreen]

Millbrook, Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick are all in the middle of nowhere.

I agree with most of this post but usage at Stewartby had ticked up fairly impressively pre-COVID. Rationalisation on the Marston Vale might make sense but Stewartby isn't one to close, especially with the adjacent brickworks site.