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

[The Planner]

Long been saying that getting to MK is causing a bit of angst in terms of the timetable, hence the words used in the press release.

 

[mr_jrt]

EDIT - looking at the EastWest website I see connection phase 2 (Bletchley to Bedford) will require the complete rebuilding of Bedford Station to achieve. They appear to have also discovered that there is no room to terminate additonal trains at Bedford in the peak hours, when the station is crawling with Thameslink trains and two stoppers an hour run to Bletchley. Whoops.

Bedford was always going to be rebuilt, and it doesn't even have to be that dramatic (though I'd like to see proper fast line platforms).

The existing building is going to go and 1a extended. That will give EWR a full length platform, and likely, access directly to the EMU siding beyond. If Thameslink can be a bit more efficient with their platform usage, the EWR could potentially have exclusive use of both 1a & 1, if Thameslink can manage with just 2 & 3. Maybe a siding north of the station would help, or as mooted elsewhere, maybe moving the turnback to a new station north of Bedford where there's a bit more space might be a good idea.

 

[cle]

Also that the bay was built for Marston, but the extension was never finalized.

Is the issue platforms at MKC? Surely the pathing isn't that tricky - only 5tph or so between Bletchley and MKC, and it's a short enough run that the diesels won't be caught up. I suspect the Southern will need curtailing further south (even Bletchley) or a service or two will need to rnu on from MKC to Northampton. Maybe the one from Oxford?

The Bedford rebuild plan has always been quite murky. I don't think anybody wants to face the reality yet. There is a plan, if HS2/Toton goes ahead, to run a Leeds service beginning at Bedford. I have no idea how that would work/turn around, let alone the new EWR service. With Marston slows remaining at 1tph also.

 

[21C101]

Bedford was always going to be rebuilt, and it doesn't even have to be that dramatic (though I'd like to see proper fast line platforms).

The existing building is going to go and 1a extended. That will give EWR a full length platform, and likely, access directly to the EMU siding beyond. If Thameslink can be a bit more efficient with their platform usage, the EWR could potentially have exclusive use of both 1a & 1, if Thameslink can manage with just 2 & 3. Maybe a siding north of the station would help, or as mooted elsewhere, maybe moving the turnback to a new station north of Bedford where there's a bit more space might be a good idea.

The plan for the up fast line is to put crossovers direct from the up fast to Platform 3 either end of the platform, ending the current practice where trains calling at Bedford spend about 3 miles grinding aroud on the slow lines and their crossovers between Bedford N and S Junctions. Or at least it was.

You could also get a loop on the other side of the down fast platform without too much difficulty, not sure it would achieve much though, altbough perhaps might be handy for freight.

Failing a new station you could extend two Thameslinks an hour to Wellingborough on the newly electrified up slows to get them out of the way.

 

[RT4038]

They are also potentiay deferring the Bletchley-MK bit. Bedford to Bletchley was supposed to be extended to MK when Bletchley was resignalled but hasn't been as there are no paths.

Pound to a pinch of the proverbial that what you will actually get is an hourly Oxford to Bedford service that calls at all stations east of Bletchley followed by the smaller stations on the line being reduced to little more than a parliamentary service over the next few years and the Cambridge bit canned when post Covid economic reality hits.

Hopefully not operated with tarted up District Line trains but it wouldn't entirely surprise me.

Not that I'm cynical or anything.

EDIT - looking at the EastWest website I see connection phase 2 (Bletchley to Bedford) will require the complete rebuilding of Bedford Station to achieve. They appear to have also discovered that there is no room to terminate additonal trains at Bedford in the peak hours, when the station is crawling with Thameslink trains and two stoppers an hour run to Bletchley. Whoops.

Maybe there is a hint of realism that £750m is being spent on re-instating what is essentially a branch line, and all the previous dreamy talk of train frequencies is far in excess of likely demand.

Unfortunately the line does not serve Milton Keynes properly, and in the real world the choice will be either an hourly Oxford-Milton Keynes with a separate hourly Bletchley-Bedford, or an hourly Oxford-Bletchley-Bedford, with Milton Keynes passengers changing at Bletchley. As you and @The Planner speculate, the track capacity between Bletchley and Milton Keynes will possibly dictate the second scenario before HS2, which is a bit unfortunate as I suspect there will be far greater demand for Oxford-Milton Keynes than Oxford to Bedford.

Some of the small halts between Bletchley & Bedford should be closed (or at the very least reduced to parliamentary service only), as they are little used; this would speed up journey time for longer distance passengers. This section of EWR is pretty moribund anyway (even before Covid) and I can't see that even with through trains from Bedford to Winslow, Bicester & Oxford justifying more than an hourly service over his section, at least for some years after opening. Shouldn't need any more platforms at Bedford until (if) the Cambridge line opens.

Aylesbury-Milton Keynes feels a bit marginal, connecting two not very large places via a lot of green fields without much potential. However, something will need to justify the double track of EWR! Feels like something to be introduced after the HS2 opening.

 

[21C101]

Also that the bay was built for Marston, but the extension was never finalized.

Is the issue platforms at MKC? Surely the pathing isn't that tricky - only 5tph or so between Bletchley and MKC, and it's a short enough run that the diesels won't be caught up. I suspect the Southern will need curtailing further south (even Bletchley) or a service or two will need to rnu on from MKC to Northampton. Maybe the one from Oxford?

The Bedford rebuild plan has always been quite murky. I don't think anybody wants to face the reality yet. There is a plan, if HS2/Toton goes ahead, to run a Leeds service beginning at Bedford. I have no idea how that would work/turn around, let alone the new EWR service. With Marston slows remaining at 1tph also.

Why on earth would you run an extra service from Leeds to Bedford post HS2 rather than extending one of the existing two an hour St Pan to Sheffied to Leeds and adding calls at places like Bedford?

 

[Bald Rick]

You could also get a loop on the other side of the down fast platform without too much difficulty, not sure it would achieve much though, altbough perhaps might be handy for freight.

Very little freight on the fast lines.

 

[The Planner]

Is the issue platforms at MKC? Surely the pathing isn't that tricky - only 5tph or so between Bletchley and MKC, and it's a short enough run that the diesels won't be caught up. I suspect the Southern will need curtailing further south (even Bletchley) or a service or two will need to rnu on from MKC to Northampton. Maybe the one from Oxford?

Ask yourself why the Marston Vale doesn't run to MK.

 

[21C101]

Very little freight on the fast lines.

You would be surprised how often the freights get switched from Slow to Fast at Flitwick or Bedford South junction then back onto the slows at Bedford North or further up, often done ad hoc rather than planned working I suspect.

 

[cle]

Ask yourself why the Marston Vale doesn't run to MK.

The Southern in the platform? Or nobody cares enough to make the change.

Finding a path at Bletchley to run 5-6 mins can't be too difficult, given you can wait there easily.

Surely this is intrinsic to EWR being a success at all. Otherwise, everything terminates at Bletchley? Seems a little random for the future and for the whole hoopla this was a few years back, vs what it's currently shaping up to be (1 diesel tph Oxford to Bedford).

 

[Bletchleyite]

EDIT - looking at the EastWest website I see connection phase 2 (Bletchley to Bedford) will require the complete rebuilding of Bedford Station to achieve. They appear to have also discovered that there is no room to terminate additonal trains at Bedford in the peak hours, when the station is crawling with Thameslink trains and two stoppers an hour run to Bletchley. Whoops.

It wouldn't strike me as that difficult to add a platform 0A in the car park, knowing the layout there. A short one would be fine.

Marston Vale trains mostly lay over (for ages) at Bletchley, the time at Bedford is quite short, between 5 and 10 minutes I think.

The Southern in the platform?

Platform 2A (EWR bay) is de-facto disused, the Southern has used 2 since it went to 8-car running.

Surely this is intrinsic to EWR being a success at all. Otherwise, everything terminates at Bletchley? Seems a little random for the future and for the whole hoopla this was a few years back, vs what it's currently shaping up to be (1 diesel tph Oxford to Bedford).

Yep. If they can't get it to MKC they might as well give up. Milton Keynes is core to the whole thing. If you have to faff about changing at Bletchley Stagecoach will continue to rake it in on the X5.

 

[Bald Rick]

You would be surprised how often the freights get switched from Slow to Fast at Flitwick or Bedford South junction then back onto the slows at Bedford North or further up, often done ad hoc rather than planned working I suspect.

Oh I know, but the important thing is to keep it moving and out of the way. Looping it next to a fast platform at Bedford would be particularly unhelpful - it would actually be quicker to keep it going and back over at Bedford North.

 

[The Planner]

The Southern in the platform? Or nobody cares enough to make the change.

Finding a path at Bletchley to run 5-6 mins can't be too difficult, given you can wait there easily.

Surely this is intrinsic to EWR being a success at all. Otherwise, everything terminates at Bletchley? Seems a little random for the future and for the whole hoopla this was a few years back, vs what it's currently shaping up to be (1 diesel tph Oxford to Bedford).

There is no path for the Marston Vale train on the pre-COVID timetable where it sat, I will never find the post now but I went through it a while back explaining the issues.

 

[A0wen]

There is no path for the Marston Vale train on the pre-COVID timetable where it sat, I will never find the post now but I went through it a while back explaining the issues.

Was it this ?

"
Are you assuming the same unit picks up the return path at Bletchley, as in the xx.38 arrival for the xx.01 back?

You need a standard 4 minutes for the reversal at Bletchley so you are up to xx.42 departing, which you cannot do as the xx.43 to Northampton is there. So you have to depart at xx.47 as its a 4 minute headway regardless of the fact you will be using the relief line which only just gets you out as the xx.46 to Euston goes. That is slightly immaterial as the xx.50 to New St is behind you so you are non-compliant. Even if we ignore that aspect of it, the standard running time for a 350 from Bletchley to MK is 3½ minutes, you are going to have to add on 1½ minimum for a 230 to account for acceleration, slow speed turn out at Denbigh Hall and being generally slow. That gets you to MK at xx.52 (1½ minutes in front of the New St train we have ignored). 4 minute turnaround there so xx.56 to come back, you get to Bletchley at xx.01, 4 minute reversal means xx.05 so it doesn't work at all."

Post #2803 earlier on this thread.

 

[21C101]

There is no path for the Marston Vale train on the pre-COVID timetable where it sat, I will never find the post now but I went through it a while back explaining the issues.

If we see a permanent reduction in service post Covid on the London Midland "Silverlink" service from London, I think we can be sure that BBRUA will be all over it like a rash to get the Bedford service extended to MK.

Similarly, anyone with ideas of cutting services to the smaller stations will face the wrath of the BBRUA.

They are one of the longest standing and most committed rail user groups, without whom the line would have shut and certainly would not have been extended from St Johns to Bedford Midland, which was an immense achievement.

Long been saying that getting to MK is causing a bit of angst in terms of the timetable, hence the words used in the press release.

Yes I don't buy the excuse that they may have to terminate at Bletchley to prove reliability that far, before extending.

They will have all but exclusive use of a brand new double track line with modern signalling. If they can't run a reliable service on that within a month of opening they might as well give up now.

 

[DarloRich]

Ask yourself why the Marston Vale doesn't run to MK.

To troll me?

I know it is tight on capacity but I am convinced it could be accommodated with the required will/sponsorship/driver - however no such will exists at this point in time

 

[A0wen]

If we see a permanent reduction in service post Covid on the London Midland "Silverlink" service from London, I think we can be sure that BBRUA will be all over it like a rash to get the Bedford service extended to MK.

Similarly, anyone with ideas of cutting services to the smaller stations will face the wrath of the BBRUA.

They are one of the longest standing and most committed rail user groups, without whom the line would have shut and certainly would not have been extended from St Johns to Bedford Midland, which was an immense achievement.

Not sure I follow your logic - if the LNW services are reduced post Covid, I'm not sure that Marston Vale services being improved will be justified either though......

At the moment, the LNW services from Northampton have been dropped to 2tph with a 20/40 split. Long term that's not sustainable - it'll either revert to 3tph at a 20/20/20 split or there will need to be a more widespread timetable re-write with 2tph at 30/30. My hunch is the former.

 

[21C101]

To troll me?

I know it is tight on capacity but I am convinced it could be accommodated with the required will/sponsorship/driver - however no such will exists at this point in time

I'm sure you are right. The railway industry is a past master at coming up with all sorts of reasons why something supposedly CANNOT be done when in fact the real reason is they don't want to do it because it will make their working life a bit more difficult or they would rather focus on something else.

I doubt it will happen this side of HS2 plase 1 opening at which point there will be a major timetable recast with more of the Silverfish services on the fast lines out of the way.

Not sure I follow your logic - if the LNW services are reduced post Covid, I'm not sure that Marston Vale services being improved will be justified either though......

You underestimate the BBRUA at your peril.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not sure I follow your logic - if the LNW services are reduced post Covid, I'm not sure that Marston Vale services being improved will be justified either though......

It's a bit different. You've got a one man, dog and bicycle basket case which is mostly a basket case because one end of it doesn't serve the main place people want to go, and the connections are mostly pretty poor. The obvious thing to do is to at least try providing that service to see if that causes usage to increase. I'm confident it would, even with the walk up the hill to the shops.

It's slightly analogous to the Conwy Valley if it didn't go to Llandudno town.

(Not while the shops are shut, but they will reopen, and people will return to clothes and shoe shopping in person, because unlike other stuff doing it online is a faff made of repeated purchase-and-return cycles until you get what you want, not to mention being in for deliveries, which is easy at the moment but won't necessarily be once things are a bit more normal)

 

[Nottingham59]

Was the original business case for East-West rail based on the assumption that services would go to Milton Keynes? And what happens to that business case if it proves impossible to fit it in to the WCML timetable?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Was the original business case for East-West rail based on the assumption that services would go to Milton Keynes?

I strongly suspect it does - in 20 years it'll be a 400,000-500,000 population town, one of the major centres of the UK. If you take it away you'd barely fill a single-decker bus every hour.

And what happens to that business case if it proves impossible to fit it in to the WCML timetable?

In tatters.

 

[Roast Veg]

Presumably the problems with Bletchley to MKC go away when coming off the flyover from the West instead? So the "at risk" Aylesbury to MKC service or some service from Bicester would still be able to get there, adding another tph in the process.

 

[Nottingham59]

Also, has the option been looked at of adding a fifth track to the WCML between Milton Keynes and Bletchley? From Google satellite view, the existing railway land seems wide enough to accommodate 5 tracks south from Milton Keynes to the road H7. And also from just south of Watling St to Bletchley station. So the gap that would need widening is from H7 to Watling St, a distance of just 1.2 miles. Not far at all, but several major bridges would need widening, so I don't know how practical that would be?

 

[Aictos]

The article states Bicester to Bletchley not Bicester to Bedford, but is on the subject of re-opening closed lines and Bletchley to Bedford line is operational. But there appears to be a funding cut, which sort of indicates there is no money for Bletchley to Bedford. Just thinking whether the substantial refurb costs of Bletchley flyover are being borne by NR and not EWR. The construction cost of Bletchley HL station will be borne by EWR. So it looks as if initial running will be Oxford to MK with the single line chord re-instated between Bletchley HL and Fenny Stratford? Have to wait for more details from EWR.



Rebuilding Oxford station a separate and costly project.

That chord, is that between Flyover Junction Summit and the Marston Vale branchline?

Also how much work is needed for EWR trains to come off the flyover and join the slow lines at Denbigh Hall South Junction to/from Milton Keynes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also, has the option been looked at of adding a fifth track to the WCML between Milton Keynes and Bletchley? From Google satellite view, the existing railway land seems wide enough to accommodate 5 tracks south from Milton Keynes to the road H7. And also from just south of Watling St to Bletchley station. So the gap that would need widening is from H7 to the Watling St, a distance of 1.2 miles. Not far at all, but several major bridges would need widening, so I don't know how practical that would be?

There's certainly room for it (probably even 6-track if you wanted) but it would be extraordinarily expensive and disruptive due to the large number of bridges. Even room for another full-size island platform at MKC if you wanted (on the present surface car park).

 

[flitwickbeds]

The route should have never included Bedford Midland, and possibly not MKC.

There should have been a new station near the Interchange retail park connecting the MML and EWR lines, creating new travel opportunities for Wixams residents and Interchange shoppers, and new connections onto both mainlines. At "Bedford South Parkway" you would only be waiting 15 minutes at most for a Thameslink service either north to Bedford or south to Luton/St Albans.

I'm not familiar with the Bletchley end but I suspect there are at least 4tph connecting Bletchley to MKC, so again no more than a 15 minute wait for a connection.

EWR should have focused on high speed between Oxford, Cambridge and connections to the various mainlines it connects (Chiltern, West Coast, Midland Mainline/Thameslink and East Coast).

The very small stations between Bletchley and Bedford should be closed to speed up the line and journeys on it. No-one needs Kempston Hardwick station.

And then run fast services Oxford <> Bicester <> Bletchley <> Bedford South Parkway <> Cambridge, and stopping services taking in Winslow, St Neots and the remaining Marston Valley stations in actual towns.

Bedford South Parkway becomes a stop on Midland Mainline Electrics to/from Corby and all Thameslink services.

Build a massive car park at Bedford South Parkway to relieve the (pre-Covid) parking issues at Bedford and Flitwick, and replace the Park and Ride facility at Elstow.

 

[Bletchleyite]

...and then hardly anyone will use it.

The whole thing is predicated on ever-expanding MK. Anyone wanting to go from Oxford to Cambridge can go via London. I'd go as far as to say that there shouldn't even be a service bypassing MK at all.

Indeed, in its former life it mostly didn't provide Oxford-Cambridge through services, it was split at Bletchley and/or Bedford.

 

[Roast Veg]

The very small stations between Bletchley and Bedford should be closed to speed up the line and journeys on it. No-one needs Kempston Hardwick station.

I'd estimate that about 35 people need Kempston Hardwick.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd estimate that about 35 people need Kempston Hardwick.

Kempston Hardwick is a bit pointless, but I'd not go and close it now - give it 10 or 20 years and I'm sure there'll be a "garden village" thrown up there or something. You could potentially temporarily mothball it like IBM Halt if it was operationally inconvenient, though. The others are far less "basket case", and I don't doubt that many of them would be used much more if there was a service to MKC.

 

[Nottingham59]

There's certainly room for it (probably even 6-track if you wanted) but it would be extraordinarily expensive and disruptive due to the large number of bridges. Even room for another full-size island platform at MKC if you wanted

I'm not sure if it would be that disruptive, actually. The bridges over V4 Watling St and the A5 would be long girders, and there seems to be plenty of room to build the abutments without blocking the main lines. And Bridge H7 Chaffron Way has already been built wide enough! See here:

The only other major bridge would be H8 Standing Way (the A421). I can't tell how difficult and disruptive that would be from Streetview images.

Let's hope that Milton Keynes council include the widening of the WCML in their Structure Plan, so that the space is not built over before it is needed.