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

[A0wen]

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.

Wrong way around - not MKC because that creates a 10-15 minute overhead on EWR end to end journey times along a congested bit of the WCML.

Bedford was less clear cut, because a new route is needed to the East of Bedford and logically a number of those made sense to include Bedford Midland as part of that. As it happens they've chosen the one which heads right through Bedford Midland - which is probably the right choice given the objectives of EWR.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wrong way around - not MKC because that creates a 10-15 minute overhead on EWR end to end journey times along a congested bit of the WCML.

But are you building a railway for people to use, or a 12" to the foot train set?

It HAS to serve MKC. The business case is blown out of the water if it doesn't.

If it can't serve MKC it's a waste of money and shouldn't be built, the money could be better spent elsewhere.

This idea of gowned and mortarboarded professors using it to travel between the two university cities is fanciful and belongs in the 1920s somewhere. If you ride the X5 in normal circumstances you can see where the traffic is going to/from.

 

[A0wen]

But are you building a railway for people to use, or a 12" to the foot train set?

It HAS to serve MKC. The business case is blown out of the water if it doesn't.

If it can't serve MKC it's a waste of money and shouldn't be built, the money could be better spent elsewhere.

Care to provide evidence that the BC was predicated on directly serving MK and not on the basis of serving the MK area with people changing at Bletchley ?

If you can't then it's conjecture and your opinion - based on your personal prejudice that everything *must* serve MK.

@The Planner provided timings a while back as to why Marston Vale trains couldn't easily be extended to MKC. Now you want to send other EWR trains up there - but at what cost to other services ? Whether you like it or not, with EWR there are couple of other factors which need to be addressed - firstly end to end journey times from Oxford - Cambridge - unnecessarily extending those by at least 15 minutes just to serve MKC (which would be viewed by most normal people as duplicating mileage) will deter people from using it. Secondly the WCML's prime purpose isn't to provide paths for trains to Oxford or Cambridge - it's to provide paths for trains to London, Northampton, Coventry, Birmingham, Stoke on Trent, Manchester, Liverpool and other places it directly serves.

 

[The Planner]

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.

Nor do I, but I expect the paths work between Bletchley and MK but are in the realms of if someone sneezes the wrong way it starts to fall over. That way of the world has changed now, and for the better too in my opinion.

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

Of course it could with a judicious amount of retiming of the slows, however it is the risk vs reward part of it. If it makes a Northampton Euston path worse or kyboshes an established freight path it is a decision that the Marston Vale would probably lose.

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?

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?

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:
View attachment 89300
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.

MK will make up a substantial part of the business case. 5 tracks has been looked at in the past, and that proposal above would be pretty disruptive.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Care to provide evidence that the BC was predicated on directly serving MK and not on the basis of serving the MK area with people changing at Bletchley ?

Evidence no, but look at why MKC was built in the first place. The original plan was that Wolverton ("MK North") and Bletchley ("MK South") would be sufficient, and they were not.

One good reason why they are not is that MK is going to be a considerable traffic sink as well as source. This isn't about people driving, cycling or taking the bus to MKC or Bletchley to take the train for a day out in Oxford, though of course some of them will do. It's about significant commuting and business travel into MK. CMK is full of offices, and even in the new world that won't change that much, though the pattern of their usage might. And MKC is also an excellent German-style rail/bus interchange, with the buses right outside the station, and has all but 2 of MK's local bus routes serving it, so if you work in one of the industrial estates you can likely get a bus there. Or up the hill to the shopping centre.

@The Planner provided timings a while back as to why Marston Vale trains couldn't easily be extended to MKC. Now you want to send other EWR trains up there

It's not just me that wants to. The nominal proposed EWR service is:
1tph Oxford-Bedford (not via MKC)
1tph Oxford-MKC
1tph Aylesbury-MKC
1tph Bedford-Bletchley all stops (existing service)

Does that not tell you anything? This isn't a Speculative Ideas post about what I want to happen, it's what EWR Ltd think should happen. (It so happens that my view is that the other two need to go there as well, but that's by the by).

end to end journey times from Oxford - Cambridge - unnecessarily extending those by at least 15 minutes just to serve MKC (which would be viewed by most normal people as duplicating mileage) will deter people from using it

Exactly how much usage from Oxford to Cambridge as a through journey do you expect? I reckon it'll be at most low double figures all day. The original service back in the 50s didn't operate through, either.

Secondly the WCML's prime purpose isn't to provide paths for trains to Oxford or Cambridge - it's to provide paths for trains to London, Northampton, Coventry, Birmingham, Stoke on Trent, Manchester, Liverpool and other places it directly serves.

So? It has connectivity as a secondary role, otherwise should we get rid of the Southern service, the Marston Vale, the St Albans branch, the Trent Valley local.....? And post-HS2 that role will gain significance, as the "fast trains to the North West and Glasgow" role moves onto HS2.

 

[21C101]

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

Along with the 20,000 or so people who will shortly live at new town of Wixams right next to it which, still shows no sign of aquiring a new station on the main line.

Evidence no, but look at why MKC was built in the first place. The original plan was that Wolverton ("MK North") and Bletchley ("MK South") would be sufficient, and they were not.

One good reason why they are not is that MK is going to be a considerable traffic sink as well as source. This isn't about people driving, cycling or taking the bus to MKC or Bletchley to take the train for a day out in Oxford, though of course some of them will do. It's about significant commuting and business travel into MK. CMK is full of offices, and even in the new world that won't change that much, though the pattern of their usage might. And MKC is also an excellent German-style rail/bus interchange, with the buses right outside the station, and has all but 2 of MK's local bus routes serving it, so if you work in one of the industrial estates you can likely get a bus there. Or up the hill to the shopping centre.



It's not just me that wants to. The nominal proposed EWR service is:
1tph Oxford-Bedford (not via MKC)
1tph Oxford-MKC
1tph Aylesbury-MKC
1tph Bedford-Bletchley all stops (existing service)

Does that not tell you anything? This isn't a Speculative Ideas post about what I want to happen, it's what EWR Ltd think should happen. (It so happens that my view is that the other two need to go there as well, but that's by the by).



Exactly how much usage from Oxford to Cambridge as a through journey do you expect? I reckon it'll be at most low double figures all day. The original service back in the 50s didn't operate through, either.



So? It has connectivity as a secondary role, otherwise should we get rid of the Southern service, the Marston Vale, the St Albans branch, the Trent Valley local.....? And post-HS2 that role will gain significance, as the "fast trains to the North West and Glasgow" role moves onto HS2.

The Southern service can run on the fast and continue to Birmingham New Street post HS2. Similarly some of the Northamptons can stay on the fast until Roade post HS2.

However long term another track is needed as the passenger demand will be for trains from Aylesbury, Oxford, Bedford (stopper) and Cambridge to Milton keynes, with any through Cambridge to Oxford trains reversing at Bletchley and Milton Keynes.

People would rightly call foul if Liverpool to Norwich services ran fast from Chesterfield to Stockport without calling at Sheffield, so why is anything else even being considered for Milton Keynes, given that it is approaching the size of Sheffield and will have a larger population soon?

 

[A0wen]

Evidence no, but look at why MKC was built in the first place. The original plan was that Wolverton ("MK North") and Bletchley ("MK South") would be sufficient, and they were not.

One good reason why they are not is that MK is going to be a considerable traffic sink as well as source. This isn't about people driving, cycling or taking the bus to MKC or Bletchley to take the train for a day out in Oxford, though of course some of them will do. It's about significant commuting and business travel into MK. CMK is full of offices, and even in the new world that won't change that much, though the pattern of their usage might. And MKC is also an excellent German-style rail/bus interchange, with the buses right outside the station, and has all but 2 of MK's local bus routes serving it, so if you work in one of the industrial estates you can likely get a bus there. Or up the hill to the shopping centre.



It's not just me that wants to. The nominal proposed EWR service is:
1tph Oxford-Bedford (not via MKC)
1tph Oxford-MKC
1tph Aylesbury-MKC
1tph Bedford-Bletchley all stops (existing service)

Does that not tell you anything? This isn't a Speculative Ideas post about what I want to happen, it's what EWR Ltd think should happen. (It so happens that my view is that the other two need to go there as well, but that's by the by).



Exactly how much usage from Oxford to Cambridge as a through journey do you expect? I reckon it'll be at most low double figures all day. The original service back in the 50s didn't operate through, either.



So? It has connectivity as a secondary role, otherwise should we get rid of the Southern service, the Marston Vale, the St Albans branch, the Trent Valley local.....? And post-HS2 that role will gain significance, as the "fast trains to the North West and Glasgow" role moves onto HS2.

Well actually there's a bit more to it with the history of MK - probably the key one was the opening of what is now the Centre MK, which didn't open until 1979. The same happened at Telford where originally it was envisaged that Oakengates and Wellington would be sufficient - again that was addressed some years after.

You keep banging on about the commuting into MK - but you keep ignoring the fact most employees in MK live there, of those that don't the vast majority drive *because* the employment areas area scattered across the city. Nobody's going to sit on a train for 30 mins to get to MKC station a bus for 20 mins to get to the industrial area when they could drive the same journey in 40 mins. And the employment area growth is away from the city centre because they can't develop more in the city centre (and that was pre-Covid).

There's a world of difference between finding 2 paths for services *which start and terminate at MK* and sending through services on a 15 minute detour. Particularly when there are frequent services to Bletchley which would allow a simple interchange.

If the through usage is that low, then why build the line ? And the 50s service pattern probably isn't relevant given most of the places en route were much smaller 60 years ago.

The Southern service is secondary, the Abbey Flyer doesn't affect the WCML or its capacity - it runs entirely discreetly as indeed does the Marston Vale. The TV locals are part of the WCML services - 20 years ago that was achieved by stopping long distance services at random times at odd stations - it wasn't a coherent service. That's a change for the better, but it's still providing services to destinations on the WCML.

Everyone seems to want EWR to start being things it can't / shouldn't be - we've had the 'it should serve Luton Airport' line, which ignored the lack of capacity on the MML, 'it should serve Peterboro' which means finding paths on the ECML, 'it should serve Reading' ignoring the pathing challenges between Oxford and Reading, 'it should serve Bristol' - see Reading. None of which will add any sensible value and instead will risk EWR becoming a reliable, well run service running between Oxford - Cambridge and providing links onto other key lines. Look at it in the way the North London Line works - that's how EWR should work.

 

[jfowkes]

I assume one big difference between Oxford and Cambridge in the 1950s and today is the sheer number of private science and technology companies that exist there. They're not just university towns, they are massive sci/tech centres and I imagine there's at least some supressed demand for fast transport between the two, given the current options are a long car journey, a longer bus journey or train via London.

I fully agree that EWR should serve MKC, but I wouldn't discount the amount of Oxford-Cambridge demand.

 

[Tobbes]

I assume one big difference between Oxford and Cambridge in the 1950s and today is the sheer number of private science and technology companies that exist there. They're not just university towns, they are massive sci/tech centres and I imagine there's at least some supressed demand for fast transport between the two, given the current options are a long car journey, a longer bus journey or train via London.

I fully agree that EWR should serve MKC, but I wouldn't discount the amount of Oxford-Cambridge demand.

Correct, which is why a true regional express service (Cambs/Cambs South/Bedford (Midland ML)/Bletchley (WCML)/Oxford) should be the core service. I'm not sure that with electrification limiting the performance penalty of Bedford & Bletchley stops there is much point in a "Varsity Express" service non-stop, but time will tell.

 

[swt_passenger]

[…]
Everyone seems to want EWR to start being things it can't / shouldn't be - we've had the 'it should serve Luton Airport' line, which ignored the lack of capacity on the MML, 'it should serve Peterboro' which means finding paths on the ECML, 'it should serve Reading' ignoring the pathing challenges between Oxford and Reading, 'it should serve Bristol' - see Reading. None of which will add any sensible value and instead will risk EWR becoming a reliable, well run service running between Oxford - Cambridge and providing links onto other key lines. Look at it in the way the North London Line works - that's how EWR should work.

Yes, nearly 7 years into the thread people are still coming up with regular redesign proposals. Flogging a dead horse is what springs to mind...

 

[cle]

I assume one big difference between Oxford and Cambridge in the 1950s and today is the sheer number of private science and technology companies that exist there. They're not just university towns, they are massive sci/tech centres and I imagine there's at least some supressed demand for fast transport between the two, given the current options are a long car journey, a longer bus journey or train via London.

I fully agree that EWR should serve MKC, but I wouldn't discount the amount of Oxford-Cambridge demand.

I agree with this a lot. Both cities have a lot of business travel (and not all from London) and high-value employment. And more would be encouraged.

There will be a lot more demand for various combinations of journey pairs. Bicester Village is a huge draw too, and the town itself has had massive growth, pegged for much more.

That said, MKC is hugely important as a destination, but also, and especially post HS2, as a WCML hub. All trains will call there, so usage will rise. I do think that to make this more viable, they should plan to develop a ton of housing at Bletchley, or a whole garden city/neighbourhood - to help the business case as I think we can all see where this is heading, sadly.

Perhaps there will indeed be a path for a Oxford - Bletchley - Bedford - MML service after all, and this takes on a longer distance function too, as an additional XC route. Maybe to Nottingham.

 

[Nottingham59]

With all the speculation around (and yes, I have added to this!) can I just check what we are actually getting?

The DfT has now committed funds to build/rebuild a non-electrified double-track railway from Bicester to Bletchley flyover, plus a new station at Winslow and new platforms at Bletchley. And the only service that the DfT has promised so far is 2tph from Oxford to Milton Keynes, plus presumably the existing stopping service from Bletchley to Bedford Midland. Is that it?

To run services from Aylesbury to MK would need further investment, not yet committed. As would running more or faster services between Bletchley and Bedford.

And running more (or any?) EWR services between Bletchley and MK would need the paths to be found from the WCML timetable, which would probably mean some WCML services being curtailed. Have I understood correctly? Thanks.

 

[Tobbes]

With all the speculation around (and yes, I have added to this!) can I just check what we are actually getting?

The DfT has now committed funds to build/rebuild a non-electrified double-track railway from Bicester to Bletchley flyover, plus a new station at Winslow and new platforms at Bletchley. And the only service that the DfT has promised so far is 2tph from Oxford to Milton Keynes, plus presumably the existing stopping service from Bletchley to Bedford Midland. Is that it?

To run services from Aylesbury to MK would need further investment, not yet committed. As would running more or faster services between Bletchley and Bedford.

And running more (or any?) EWR services between Bletchley and MK would need the paths to be found from the WCML timetable, which would probably mean some WCML services being curtailed. Have I understood correctly? Thanks.

I thought it was a double track 100mph railway Oxford (ie Bicester)-Bletchley HL and an improved (fewer LCs) route from Bletchley HL-Bedford Midland at 60 mph.

Have I misunderstood?

 

[Bletchleyite]

You keep banging on about the commuting into MK - but you keep ignoring the fact most employees in MK live there, of those that don't the vast majority drive *because* the employment areas area scattered across the city.

Not any more than any other city. A considerable number of people will drive because the east-west public transport is, unless you live in one of the towns served by the X5, utterly appalling, and even that sits in a lot of traffic.

The queueing traffic up the A421 from the Buckingham side in the mornings and along Standing Way poses a big opportunity for EWR.

Nobody's going to sit on a train for 30 mins to get to MKC station a bus for 20 mins to get to the industrial area when they could drive the same journey in 40 mins.

Perhaps not, but a lot of people who work in the warehousing type work are quite poor, and often aren't car owners (if you don't believe me, go and check the bus queues at shift change times). So maybe that opens up that employment to those in Aylesbury, say?

And the employment area growth is away from the city centre because they can't develop more in the city centre (and that was pre-Covid).

That is simply false. There is lots of development going on in CMK all the time. The Network Rail building is quite recent with thousands of jobs based there, and Santander are also building new on a car park.

There's a world of difference between finding 2 paths for services *which start and terminate at MK* and sending through services on a 15 minute detour. Particularly when there are frequent services to Bletchley which would allow a simple interchange.

I wouldn't operate any through services. Quick change at Bletchley from P7 to P8 or vice versa if you want to go past there, avoiding the detour.

If the through usage is that low, then why build the line ?

Because, as I said, Milton Keynes will have a population of over 400,000 in the coming 10-20 years or so, possibly more.

That's heading into comparable with:

• Liverpool – 492,000
• Bristol – 466,000

and far in excess of:

• Newcastle – 296,000
• Sunderland – 276,000

and probably already in excess of now:

• Wolverhampton – 260,000

Warrington's population, as an example, is 210,014 (source: Google search) and yet on other threads there is a lot of shouting about the connectivity to that.

(source: https://citymonitor.ai/environment/where-are-largest-cities-britain-1404)

In essence, Milton Keynes is pretty much the entire reason why EWR is viable now and wasn't in the 1960s. MK is also a key reason for HS2; if it hadn't been built south WCML commuting would be much thinner and so there'd be no need for the paths it creates (a major reason for which is to improve MK-London services to metro type frequencies and far more stops in long distance services too). Again, the case for HS2 would be weaker if there were just small commuter towns plus Watford, Rugby and Northampton between London and Brum.

Everyone seems to want EWR to start being things it can't / shouldn't be - we've had the 'it should serve Luton Airport' line, which ignored the lack of capacity on the MML, 'it should serve Peterboro' which means finding paths on the ECML, 'it should serve Reading' ignoring the pathing challenges between Oxford and Reading, 'it should serve Bristol' - see Reading. None of which will add any sensible value and instead will risk EWR becoming a reliable, well run service running between Oxford - Cambridge and providing links onto other key lines. Look at it in the way the North London Line works - that's how EWR should work.

But you are missing the point - EWR is viable because of Milton Keynes, and so it must serve it. If MK had never been built (and a nearby alternative also wasn't, before anyone suggests e.g. a Bedford new town or something), this thread wouldn't be here, and EWR wouldn't even be under consideration.

 

[BrianW]

Yes, nearly 7 years into the thread people are still coming up with regular redesign proposals. Flogging a dead horse is what springs to mind...

Well now, posting #4630 and rising ... it's hard to imagine a newcomer to the thread reading back over all those, so I hope Forumers of longer-standing might be less dismissive. I grant the Thread Title says [not speculation] but all threads wander until pulled back by our Moderators, because one thought leads to another ...

I'm happy for this contribution to be 'transferred' ...

I was student (in Sheffield) in the late 1960s; our Professor of Twon and Regional Planning was Jimmy James, who had been Chief Planner at the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He had been involved with the development of what became MK. We saw how ideas had developed from the Garden Cities of Letchworth and Welwyn through to what became Telford and MK, the former building on existing towns as 'centres' and the latter generating multiple centres (polynucleic was the term), no MKC as we now know it. Indeed I recall no mention of railways- Beeching was about. Computers took up whole rooms. How things change, even for Oxford and Cambridge!
It's difficult 'planning' today for even tomorrow let alone 50 years or more hence. We, and the planners, can only do their best based on today and what? As we see, even a 'plan' agreed 'way back still takes an age to start on site, let alone 'complete'.
'The plans' as I see them discussed and dismissed can all be adapted over time as we see patterns of travel change or not.
I have said on another thread (re congested Castlefield corridor in Manchester) it's good to think planners are trying to get the best, the most from the least- it's their job and their commitment; they are not all dunderheads as some may think.
I like seeing how East-West is developing, like a phoenix from the ashes. What was dead is coming back to life. Thank you to all those who are working on it, through the slings and arrows ... Wishing you well.

Some links to the jrjamesarchive at Sheffield Uni:

Stage one plan of new development between Northampton, Bedford and Luton

New development between Northampton, Bedford and Luton plan

www.flickr.com

Provision for possible future transport systems, Milton Keynes.

Figure 15 from an unknown publication. Used in a lecture presented by JR James at the Department of Town and Regional Planning at The University of Sheffield between 1967 and 1978.

www.flickr.com

Housing, Milton Keynes

Photos, sketches, tables and plans of a New Town in Milton Keynes. Taken from the JR James Slide Collection.

www.flickr.com

Employment sites, Milton Keynes

Photos, sketches, tables and plans of a New Town in Milton Keynes. Taken from the JR James Slide Collection.

www.flickr.com

From other sources:

Historic Ordnance Survey Map of Milton Keynes Village, 1924

Map of Milton Keynes Village, 1924 from Francis Frith

www.francisfrith.com

Driverless pods - Catapult

In 2016 the Transport Systems Catapult was responsible for putting a self-driving vehicle on UK public streets for the first time. Explore the project here.

ts.catapult.org.uk

Some of you will also be aware of the proposals regarding England's Economic Heartland, with MK at the heart?:

England's Economic Heartland

England's Economic Heartland is at the heart of the UK's global competitiveness in science and technology based innovation.

www.englandseconomicheartland.com

Enough from me, on this, for now ...

 

[eMeS]

Well now, posting #4630 and rising ... it's hard to imagine a newcomer to the thread reading back over all those, so I hope Forumers of longer-standing might be less dismissive. I grant the Thread Title says [not speculation] but all threads wander until pulled back by our Moderators, because one thought leads to another ...

I'm happy for this contribution to be 'transferred' ...

I was student (in Sheffield) in the late 1960s; our Professor of Twon and Regional Planning was Jimmy James, who had been Chief Planner at the then Ministry of Housing and Local Government. He had been involved with the development of what became MK. We saw how ideas had developed from the Garden Cities of Letchworth and Welwyn through to what became Telford and MK, the former building on existing towns as 'centres' and the latter generating multiple centres (polynucleic was the term), no MKC as we now know it. Indeed I recall no mention of railways- Beeching was about. Computers took up whole rooms. How things change, even for Oxford and Cambridge!
It's difficult 'planning' today for even tomorrow let alone 50 years or more hence. We, and the planners, can only do their best based on today and what? As we see, even a 'plan' agreed 'way back still takes an age to start on site, let alone 'complete'.
'The plans' as I see them discussed and dismissed can all be adapted over time as we see patterns of travel change or not.
I have said on another thread (re congested Castlefield corridor in Manchester) it's good to think planners are trying to get the best, the most from the least- it's their job and their commitment; they are not all dunderheads as some may think.
I like seeing how East-West is developing, like a phoenix from the ashes. What was dead is coming back to life. Thank you to all those who are working on it, through the slings and arrows ... Wishing you well.

Some links to the jrjamesarchive at Sheffield Uni:

Stage one plan of new development between Northampton, Bedford and Luton

New development between Northampton, Bedford and Luton plan

www.flickr.com

Provision for possible future transport systems, Milton Keynes.

Figure 15 from an unknown publication. Used in a lecture presented by JR James at the Department of Town and Regional Planning at The University of Sheffield between 1967 and 1978.

www.flickr.com

Housing, Milton Keynes

Photos, sketches, tables and plans of a New Town in Milton Keynes. Taken from the JR James Slide Collection.

www.flickr.com

Employment sites, Milton Keynes

Photos, sketches, tables and plans of a New Town in Milton Keynes. Taken from the JR James Slide Collection.

www.flickr.com

From other sources:

Historic Ordnance Survey Map of Milton Keynes Village, 1924

Map of Milton Keynes Village, 1924 from Francis Frith

www.francisfrith.com

Driverless pods - Catapult

In 2016 the Transport Systems Catapult was responsible for putting a self-driving vehicle on UK public streets for the first time. Explore the project here.

ts.catapult.org.uk

Some of you will also be aware of the proposals regarding England's Economic Heartland, with MK at the heart?:

England's Economic Heartland

England's Economic Heartland is at the heart of the UK's global competitiveness in science and technology based innovation.

www.englandseconomicheartland.com

Enough from me, on this, for now ...

Thanks for the offer of historic images etc.
I'm interested as I'm a long term resident of Milton Keynes (moved here for work in 1980), but the few I've tried have returned "Bad gateway" and similar responses.

 

[The Planner]

And running more (or any?) EWR services between Bletchley and MK would need the paths to be found from the WCML timetable, which would probably mean some WCML services being curtailed. Have I understood correctly? Thanks.

Not necessarily. What it is likely to be is that the paths are there, but potentially bang smack in the middle of two others, whereupon if anything becomes late on the day causes delay and reliability to suffer more than what is considered acceptable.

 

[BrianW]

Thanks for the offer of historic images etc.
I'm interested as I'm a long term resident of Milton Keynes (moved here for work in 1980), but the few I've tried have returned "Bad gateway" and similar responses.

Sorry they didn't 'link' for you. They did and still do for me- Let's hope there's someone 'out there' who can offer some geekery by way of help. If not, you may get somewhere by 'Googling' on <Jimmy James Sheffield University> and thence to his archive. There were 5-600 under New Towns, so not only MK.

 

[A0wen]

Not any more than any other city. A considerable number of people will drive because the east-west public transport is, unless you live in one of the towns served by the X5, utterly appalling, and even that sits in a lot of traffic.

The queueing traffic up the A421 from the Buckingham side in the mornings and along Standing Way poses a big opportunity for EWR.

Perhaps not, but a lot of people who work in the warehousing type work are quite poor, and often aren't car owners (if you don't believe me, go and check the bus queues at shift change times). So maybe that opens up that employment to those in Aylesbury, say?

That is simply false. There is lots of development going on in CMK all the time. The Network Rail building is quite recent with thousands of jobs based there, and Santander are also building new on a car park.

I wouldn't operate any through services. Quick change at Bletchley from P7 to P8 or vice versa if you want to go past there, avoiding the detour.

Because, as I said, Milton Keynes will have a population of over 400,000 in the coming 10-20 years or so, possibly more.

That's heading into comparable with:

• Liverpool – 492,000
• Bristol – 466,000

and far in excess of:

• Newcastle – 296,000
• Sunderland – 276,000

and probably already in excess of now:

• Wolverhampton – 260,000

Warrington's population, as an example, is 210,014 (source: Google search) and yet on other threads there is a lot of shouting about the connectivity to that.

(source: https://citymonitor.ai/environment/where-are-largest-cities-britain-1404)

In essence, Milton Keynes is pretty much the entire reason why EWR is viable now and wasn't in the 1960s. MK is also a key reason for HS2; if it hadn't been built south WCML commuting would be much thinner and so there'd be no need for the paths it creates (a major reason for which is to improve MK-London services to metro type frequencies and far more stops in long distance services too). Again, the case for HS2 would be weaker if there were just small commuter towns plus Watford, Rugby and Northampton between London and Brum.



But you are missing the point - EWR is viable because of Milton Keynes, and so it must serve it. If MK had never been built (and a nearby alternative also wasn't, before anyone suggests e.g. a Bedford new town or something), this thread wouldn't be here, and EWR wouldn't even be under consideration.

OK - let's deal with a few of those points.

The A421 queues are no worse than many others in the area - in fact the A421 on the East side *used* to be far worse until they dualled across to Bedford and rebuilt Jnc 13. Perhaps the biggest problem with the A421 is it makes people go to Bletchley to then go to towards the Centre of MK - though I suspect some of the future developments on the west side of MK will deal with that.

People who work in warehousing are, as you say, generally low paid. They also tend to work close to their employment - regardless of the transport links available. So, for example, you don't get warehouse workers in Northampton commuting to Milton Keynes. Aylesbury's just as far from MK as Northampton is. You seem to forget it's the 'professional' workers who tend to commute distances, mainly because the salaries are better. Low paid, low skilled workers don't. And building a new railway won't change that.

The NR HQ actually was built 10 years ago - so define "recent". There's far more being built around, for example, Bow Brickhill where Red Bull are. Or over at Kingston.

So MK will be a city of 400,000 - that doesn't automatically mean every train service that runs close to it should be diverted there - as I said, look at how the North London Line works - there's a perfect template for EWR, it provides East - West journeys and provides links to most mainlines from which other journeys can be made. It doesn't go diverting services into Euston or Kings Cross.

Warrington's case is entirely different to MK - Warrington probably isn't a commuter destination - it's mid way between the two largest cities in the area. It's position on the WCML is historic - if you were building a fast route from London to Glasgow now, you'd probably go nowhere near Warrington.

I don't agree with your basic premise that through services must be diverted to serve MKC - there will be connectivity which can achieve the same end whilst keeping E2E journey times competitive. And more importantly, without negatively impacting other places for whom the WCML is far more important.

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure that with electrification limiting the performance penalty of Bedford & Bletchley stops there is much point in a "Varsity Express" service non-stop, but time will tell.

I may have missed it, but I don't recall seeing any proposal of a non-stop end-to-end service even amongst the speculative posts on this subject, and certainly not from any official source. A service calling at Bedford, Bletchley and maybe an ECML interchange would be good enough for whatever Oxford-Cambridge traffic there is.

 

[cle]

Things beyond Bletchley/MKC are for later phases anyway, and would be additional services.

As it stands now, the phase 1 service would be 2tph Oxford - Bicester - Bletchley. With MKC as the firm aspiration, but more through scheduling difficulty than infrastructure.

In this scenario, Marston service is probably unchanged. Perhaps a semi-fast emulating the future EWR stopping pattern could come in next, giving quicker and better journeys to Bletchley and the new connections there. But then Bedford-Oxford at 1tph. I'm assuming no Reading extensions any more. But maybe Cowley.

And Aylesbury, once coming from Marylebone and with upgrades to the HW-Aylesbury line, now quietly fizzling away.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The A421 queues are no worse than many others in the area

Doesn't mean they aren't bad.

- in fact the A421 on the East side *used* to be far worse until they dualled across to Bedford and rebuilt Jnc 13. Perhaps the biggest problem with the A421 is it makes people go to Bletchley to then go to towards the Centre of MK

It doesn't really. It skirts West Bletchley, it doesn't go near the centre of Bletchley. If you have the impression that people come in then turn right, lap the roundabout and back up to CMK that way, you'd be wrong, nobody does that as it's not quicker. They go down to Grafton, Saxon or Marlborough Streets (depending which bit of CMK they want) and turn left.

The mistake was not planning an east-west segregated motorway style road like the A5 into MK's original masterplan, I suppose, but we are where we are. A southern bypass will come at some point and relieve it a bit, taking traffic round and up the A5 to CMK.

People who work in warehousing are, as you say, generally low paid. They also tend to work close to their employment - regardless of the transport links available. So, for example, you don't get warehouse workers in Northampton commuting to Milton Keynes.

I bet you do (and vice versa) to some extent.

Aylesbury's just as far from MK as Northampton is. You seem to forget it's the 'professional' workers who tend to commute distances, mainly because the salaries are better. Low paid, low skilled workers don't. And building a new railway won't change that.

Aylesbury to MK isn't a great distance, nor is Bicester to MK, they're the sort of commuting distances you regularly get outside the South East.

The NR HQ actually was built 10 years ago - so define "recent". There's far more being built around, for example, Bow Brickhill where Red Bull are. Or over at Kingston.

Very little going up at Tilbrook, if that's what you mean. When were you last there?

So MK will be a city of 400,000 - that doesn't automatically mean every train service that runs close to it should be diverted there - as I said, look at how the North London Line works - there's a perfect template for EWR, it provides East - West journeys and provides links to most mainlines from which other journeys can be made. It doesn't go diverting services into Euston or Kings Cross.

The NLL isn't comparable. It's a circumferential metro line, not a regional expres connecting adjacent towns and cities. Yes, it sort of circuits London, but it's so far out that it doesn't in any meaningful sense. It's more like giving parts of the SE a more web-like network as the North West has.

Warrington's case is entirely different to MK - Warrington probably isn't a commuter destination - it's mid way between the two largest cities in the area.

It absolutely is. There's a lot of industry and office work there, enabled by proximity to the M6. I don't know figures, but it will be similar to MK - a lot of commuting out but also a lot of commuting in. It also has some New Town aspects to it.

It's position on the WCML is historic - if you were building a fast route from London to Glasgow now, you'd probably go nowhere near Warrington.

You might not, but you unquestionably would give it a quality regional express service as a major centre of employment. London to Glasgow is a very small part of the WCML's role - London to the North West is much, much greater.

I don't agree with your basic premise that through services must be diverted to serve MKC - there will be connectivity which can achieve the same end whilst keeping E2E journey times competitive. And more importantly, without negatively impacting other places for whom the WCML is far more important.

The trouble is that those connections can't be good because you can't prat with the WCML timetable too much to create it. So they'll be poor, like they are now. And the result is considerably reduced usage.

 

[100andthirty]

All this debate about whether E-W rail should serve MKC rather depends on what it's for.

If it's for connecting the major towns/cities on the Oxford/Cambridge corridor, then MKC is an absolutely vital stop, and (in normal times), one only has to go to the station at about 8:30 to see the large number of incoming travellers.
If it's to allow people to interchange to North South services, then the MKC stop is vital
If it's to enable fast trains from Oxford to Cambridge then the MKC stop isn't important. But, I suspect, just like most flows in UK, that intermediate journeys are as important, if not more so, than the end to end ones.


I suspect that the planners have used all sorts of surveys to determine who is likely to use the line. I doubt that those are currently valid but who knows what the situation is likely to be by the time the railway has been built?

 

[Bletchleyite]

All this debate about whether E-W rail should serve MKC rather depends on what it's for.

If it's for connecting the major towns/cities on the Oxford/Cambridge corridor, then MKC is an absolutely vital stop, and (in normal times), one only has to go to the station at about 8:30 to see the large number of incoming travellers.
If it's to allow people to interchange to North South services, then the MKC stop is vital
If it's to enable fast trains from Oxford to Cambridge then the MKC stop isn't important. But, I suspect, just like most flows in UK, that intermediate journeys are as important, if not more so, than the end to end ones.


I suspect that the planners have used all sorts of surveys to determine who is likely to use the line. I doubt that those are currently valid but who knows what the situation is likely to be by the time the railway has been built?

I would say it's the first two. Indeed, one of the things it was predicated on was development of the "Oxford-Cambridge Arc", i.e. employment etc in all the places along the way, though most notably MK as it's already the biggest place on the route and by the time it's grown as planned will be close to the size of Oxford, Bedford and Cambridge put together. It'll also be useful for people wanting to travel from Aylesbury to WCML destinations if the Aylesbury bit happens, though less so for Oxford as they can go via Brum (and when HS2 opens it'll be faster to go via Brum).

I suspect end to end barely even figures. There are people who did the X5 end to end, e.g. students in one who have a friend in the other, so demand isn't zero, but it isn't likely to be high. Clearly Stagecoach didn't think it was that considerable or they'd not have lopped the X5 in half at Bedford as they have (permanently, it's not just for COVID).

 

[eMeS]

Sorry they didn't 'link' for you. They did and still do for me- Let's hope there's someone 'out there' who can offer some geekery by way of help. If not, you may get somewhere by 'Googling' on <Jimmy James Sheffield University> and thence to his archive. There were 5-600 under New Towns, so not only MK.

Thanks - I've tried again, and they all worked OK. Interesting to see some of the early concepts.
I moved to MK whilst the Development Corporation was still active, and certainly noticed the difference when local politics started making decisions.

 

[100andthirty]

Bletchleyite.....I think you and I are on the same wavelength!

 

[Nottingham59]

MK ... will be close to the size of Oxford, Bedford and Cambridge put together.

MK is already bigger than Oxford, Bedford and Cambridge, as shown by this night-time satellite image courtesy of NASA

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is physically, but it's very low density - I was more thinking of with regard to population.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

You keep banging on about the commuting into MK - but you keep ignoring the fact most employees in MK live there

Both of those can be true.

"At the time of the 2001 Census over 38,000 people commuted into the Borough of Milton Keynes to work and over 22,000 people commuted out resulting in net in- commuting to Milton Keynes of over 16,000 people.

"Milton Keynes has a high degree of self-containment; in 2001 nearly 80% of the resident population in employment lived and worked within the Borough."

(That was 20 years ago: scale the figures up accordingly. My anecdata, based on a couple of companies in Central MK I've contracted for, is that the amount of "in-commuting" is probably a lot higher in CMK offices than in the borough as a whole.)

 

[BrianW]

Thanks - I've tried again, and they all worked OK. Interesting to see some of the early concepts.
I moved to MK whilst the Development Corporation was still active, and certainly noticed the difference when local politics started making decisions.

Glad they worked now- technology huh!
Re the Development Corp- similar happened in London Docklands with the 'Enterprize Zone.
People seem determined to have the ability to object, and when they lose, to object again , either on something else or about some shortcoming inn process.
I guess if it was planned to demolish MY house I would do that!
So we have systems that add to costs, delay, changing 'plans', and we complain about those too!
People need somewhere to live, like MK; I hope you feel 'at home' there.
My brother was working for what was then Post Office Telephones; they wouldn't let him transfer to MK- too much 'need' where he was.
I know it has been common to 'slag off' MK- why is that? It seems to me to offer lots- maybe short in some things but that's coming everywhere now ...
If getting out from MK for whatever reason where would you like to be able to travel to, however easy or difficult that was pre-Covid or at present?