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

[ABB125]

Here's a summary of the first section of the consultation.

They’ve redone their numbers, and concluded (again) that a southern approach to Cambridge is the best.
(Is that the interior of a double-deck train I see on (printed number) page 75?! )

There are six different sections in the consultation:

• Oxford to Bicester
• Bletchley to Bedford
• Bedford
• North of Bedford to not-quite Cambridge
• Interface between EWR and the Kings Cross/Liverpool Street lines
• Approach to Cambridge

All the detail at the moment is high-level, no track diagrams or anything yet!

Section A: Oxford to Bicester

• Additional platforms at Oxford (which are implied to be through platforms rather than terminal)
• Improved turnback facilities south of Oxford (Cowley branch anyone? )
• Station building improvements
• Possible additional tracks between Oxford and Oxford North Junction (various options; interestingly this bit refers to bay platforms at Oxford, which possibly contradicts the previous points about through platforms?)
• More parking at Oxford Parkway, as well as highway “improvements” (highly likely to be more traffic lights and a bigger roundabout, rather than anything actually useful), and associated station building improvements
• The same again at Bicester Village
• Closure of London Road level crossing, Bicester, with various replacement options

Section B: Bletchley to Bedford

• Two options for service patterns;
• Option 1: 1tph stopping all stations, 4tph EWR stopping at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont, with passing loops at Ridgmont for the stopper to be overtaken
• Option 2: the 10 existing stations to be replaced by five new, relocated stations, allowing 2tph EWR stopping all stations and 2tph EWR calling only at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont
• Approximate new station locations are given
• In both options, Ridgmont station is relocated to just west of Bedford Road… directly in the path of any future extension of the A421 bypassing Milton Keynes
• A possible additional low-level platform at Bletchley, for services from Bedford and beyond to terminate
• Station enhancements, eg: more parking, new footbridge etc
• Additional track through Fenny Stratford
• Closure of all (I think) level crossings on the Marson Vale line (I skimmed over this bit as I’m not local, so (without wanting to upset locals) it has no meaning to me)

Section C: Bedford

• Replacement of St John’s station, either north or south (round the bend towards Bletchley) of the present station
• In both cases, easement of the St John’s curve, through Britannia Road car park (which looks like former railway land). For the southern option, a new bridge over the Great Ouse would be built just north of the existing one. The north option would increase linespeed to 40mph, the southern option to 60mph. The north option is currently preferred
• Realignment of the approach to Bedford through the (recently-built?) 12-car Thameslink sidings, apparently splitting into three tracks
• To accompany the three new tracks, three new platforms at Bedford (surely I’m misinterpreting this? Three new platforms?)
• Two new tracks to the east of the current railway (in the absence of evidence to the contrary, I’m assuming all the way from Bedford station) as far as the high-voltage substation south-west of Sainsbury’s, before curving off to the north-east under The Great Ouse Way, then over the river and Paula Radcliffe Way

Section D: not-Bedford to not-Cambridge

There's too much to type here to summarise, here's a map instead!

https://eastwestrail-production.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/public/Shortlisted-five-route-alignments-overview.pdf

Also, here's a map of the discounted options:

https://eastwestrail-production.s3.eu-west-2.amazonaws.com/public/Discounted-four-route-alignments-overview.pdf

Section E:

• At the point where EWR joins the Hitchin-Cambridge line, the preferred option is a grade-separated junction, with the whole railway being moved slightly south between Harston and Newton, which is where EWR is proposed to join
• I believe the reasoning for the southward move is so that the whole junction can be built without affecting the existing railway; once built, it "simply just" becomes a case of plugging the new tracks in at either end
• In addition, Hauxton Road level crossing in Little Shelford will be replaced by a bridge/underpass

Section F:

• Four tracks all the way from Shepreth Branch Junction (where the Liverpool Street line joins) to Cambridge
• The EWR/KGX lines can either be the western pair or eastern pair of tracks on the approach to Cambridge, depending on whether a bridge over the LST lines is built. Personally I think EWR/KGX on the eastern side is better, as most of the trains on this pair of lines continues north of Cambridge, whereas most trains from Liverpool Street terminate at CBG (I think; please do correct me if I'm wrong); given that the bay platforms are on the western side of the station, this would make sense.
• At least two new platforms on the eastern side of Cambridge station are needed

 

[The Planner]

The irony meter will explode if they decide to build the independent line. They decided initially that the up and down Jericho wasn't going to be bidi.

 

[jopsuk]

in the current arrangements, it is Liverpool Street trains that mainly go on to Cambridge North, with Thameslink services terminating at Cambridge

I think it would be better for operational flexibility and passenger interchange to have the Shepreth Branch Junction to Cambridge section paired by direction with Cambridge South built as a twin island, however I think Network Rail are determined to do Cambridge South as outer platforms and a single island, removing the passenger benefits of paired by direction.

With Section D, I think placing Cambourne station north of the A428 is madness, especially as EWR are very much discounting the bonkers idea from a load of NIMBYs to route the line to approach Cambridge from the north. The southern option looks to me to maximise the number of people who will live within walking distance of the station and avoid crossing the A428 twice.

 

[Ianno87]

I think it would be better for operational flexibility and passenger interchange to have the Shepreth Branch Junction to Cambridge section paired by direction with Cambridge South built as a twin island, however I think Network Rail are determined to do Cambridge South as outer platforms and a single island, removing the passenger benefits of paired by direction.

Down side of paired by direction is that services on the outermost tracks have to cross absolutely everything to turn back.

That's why "paired by direction" railways (e.g. ECML and Waterloo) switch to paired by use just before reaching the terminal. Same applies here.

 

[camflyer]

From the Cambridge Independent.

East West Rail launches new consultation on route: Huge flyover proposed for South Cambridgeshire countryside

Southern approach into Cambridge still favoured - but Cambourne station could go to the north.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

Its going to be a NIMBY vs NIMBY battle.

 

[ABB125]

From the Cambridge Independent.

East West Rail launches new consultation on route: Huge flyover proposed for South Cambridgeshire countryside

Southern approach into Cambridge still favoured - but Cambourne station could go to the north.

www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk

Its going to be a NIMBY vs NIMBY battle.

**picks up popcorn**



I'm really looking forward to seeing how this pans out, compared with HS2, as both are totally new-build railways.
Also, I wonder how the journalist who wrote that article knows it'll be a "huge flyover"? And the "loads of freight at night" argument seems to have resurfaced again!

 

[snowball]

Also, I wonder how the journalist who wrote that article knows it'll be a "huge flyover"?

I haven't read the article but there are longitudinal sections in the Consultation Technical Report which might show where there would be a flyover.

 

[ABB125]

I haven't read the article but there are longitudinal sections in the Consultation Technical Report which might show where there would be a flyover.

Yes, grade separation is the preferred option. My comment was about the adjective "huge", rather than the presence of a flyover - apologies if that wasn't clear!

 

[camflyer]

**picks up popcorn**



I'm really looking forward to seeing how this pans out, compared with HS2, as both are totally new-build railways.
Also, I wonder how the journalist who wrote that article knows it'll be a "huge flyover"? And the "loads of freight at night" argument seems to have resurfaced again!

Indeed. It's going to be an interesting battle to watch.

The Cambridge Independent is a reasonable source of journalism but I wouldn't expect any analysis from the Cambridge News other than clickbait nonsense.

I haven't looked at the consultation in detail (all 144 pages of it), but my first reaction is that I'm pleased that they are sticking with the southern approach but the suggestion of a station at Cambourne north of the A428 only makes sense if there are plans for a huge housing development around it otherwise you are going to have an out of town station with limited pedestrian access which would need a huge car park.

 

[ABB125]

Indeed. It's going to be an interesting battle to watch.

The Cambridge Independent is a reasonable source of journalism but I wouldn't expect any analysis from the Cambridge News other than clickbait nonsense.

I haven't looked at the consultation in detail (all 144 pages of it), but my first reaction is that I'm pleased that they are sticking with the southern approach but the suggestion of a station at Cambourne north of the A428 only makes sense if there are plans for a huge housing development around it otherwise you are going to have an out of town station with limited pedestrian access which would need a huge car park.

Well, new housing is supposed to be one of the main drivers for EWR (and the now-cancelled (unfortunately) Oxford-Cambridge expressway). However, I do agree that a northern station would be sub-optimal (as is housing development on that side) due to the severance caused by the A428.

 

[camflyer]

Well, new housing is supposed to be one of the main drivers for EWR (and the now-cancelled (unfortunately) Oxford-Cambridge expressway). However, I do agree that a northern station would be sub-optimal (as is housing development on that side) due to the severance caused by the A428.

Well, the A428/Blackcat upgrade is still going ahead so the Expressway will be effectively a Cambridge to Milton Keynes one. You'll then hit backroads on the way to the Other Place. I can understand why it was cancelled for political reasons but if they want to go ahead with the planned housing and economic development along the "Arc of Prosperity" then roads as well as rail will need upgrading. The lack of integrated transport planning in this country is endlessly frustrating. EWR and the Expressway should have been part of the same project.

 

[Bald Rick]

Wow. That is a seriously impressive consultation. It will have taken several months just to prepare
the documentation, and that doesn’t include all the development work that the documents are explaining. Very well done.

 

[DaveN]

East West Rail themselves.

East West Rail Company to be precise

 

[camflyer]

Presumably the need for two new platforms at Cambridge would strengthen the case for a new eastern entrance to the station from what is currently the trading estate and which the city council have earmarked for redevelopment.

 

[jopsuk]

Presumably the need for two new platforms at Cambridge would strengthen the case for a new eastern entrance to the station from what is currently the trading estate and which the city council have earmarked for redevelopment.

absolutely! an eastern entrance has been proposed on and off for well over a century, and of the long running objections (commuters clogging up streets with parking) was dealt with a couple of years back when those streets became controlled parking anyway

 

[ABB125]

Well, the A428/Blackcat upgrade is still going ahead so the Expressway will be effectively a Cambridge to Milton Keynes one. You'll then hit backroads on the way to the Other Place. I can understand why it was cancelled for political reasons but if they want to go ahead with the planned housing and economic development along the "Arc of Prosperity" then roads as well as rail will need upgrading. The lack of integrated transport planning in this country is endlessly frustrating. EWR and the Expressway should have been part of the same project.

I totally agree. Notably at least one of their preferred alignments closely follows the Black Cat upgrade (although I thought this type of construction isn't favoured any more, as it leaves a thin slice of land between the road and railway?). They do seem to have made a bit of an effort to integrate the road and railway between St Neots and Cambourne, hopefully a sign of things to come (I'm not holding my breath though!).

 

[flitwickbeds]

My interest is in the existing Marston Vale line (Section B), and Bedford itself (Section C). I have only read the summary document, not the full consultation, but as others have said I am impressed with the detail so far.

The "Bedford South" station option (with EWR not serving Bedford Midland, but a new "parkway" station near the Interchange Retail Park where the EWR/Vale line crosses the Midland Mainline) would have been my preferred option, but that ship has now sailed.

For Marston Vale, it's an interesting use of language they use in Concept 2 where they talk about "merging" (not "closing") stations, but this is indeed what they are suggesting, with Fenny Stratford, Bow Brickhill, Aspley Guise, Millbrook, and Kempston Hardwick all up for the chop. While most of these closures seem reasonable (Fenny Stratford is essentially Bletchley, the village of Aspley Guise is as far away from the station as Woburn Sands Station is, Millbrook is miles away from the village it's named after with not much else around it other than fields and lakes, and don't even get me started on the point of Kempston Hardwick), I think there will be a campaign to save them all and especially Bow Brickhill as a large part of Milton Keynes might find that more convenient to get to and park compared to Central MK or Bletchley.

As for the Bedford section, I've seen local opposition on social media today that 90 houses will need to be demolished to fit in extra tracks north of the station. Don't know how true that is as the summary document doesn't seem to talk about this, but I imagine - given how constrained the current station is - that it will need a massive makeover and enlarging to accommodate the new route. Some of this could have been solved by moving the northern terminus of Thameslink to Corby during that electrification, or a new "Bedford North" Station somewhere around Sharnbrook, so that all platforms would become through roads and no train would ever need to stay in the platform for more than a few minutes. That might have meant no need for extra tracks through the station (there are 5 already, with the potential for 6 by making Platform 1a a through road rather than a bay).

 

[Horizon22]

That's quite the extensive consultation, will be a long time I imagine for outcomes to come considering its been broken down into 6 parts each with a considerable number of specifics to consider. Hopefully though this will cover all the bases.

Interesting consideration of the Marston Vale stations - I imaging resiting is not going to be the easiest option and might end up displeasing more than it pleases overall. I would overlay the two maps, but annoying the PDFs are at different scales. They could have on "Concept 1" marked the "old" stations for reference too. The wording leads towards preference of the rebuilding and closure of Concept 2 though.

Adding more sidings around Oxford will make that an additionally complicated operation, so hopefully there's some rationalisation there.

Edit: A service structure of Concepts 1 & 2 is attached.

 

[ABB125]

As for the Bedford section, I've seen local opposition on social media today that 90 houses will need to be demolished to fit in extra tracks north of the station. Don't know how true that is as the summary document doesn't seem to talk about this, but I imagine - given how constrained the current station is - that it will need a massive makeover and enlarging to accommodate the new route. Some of this could have been solved by moving the northern terminus of Thameslink to Corby during that electrification, or a new "Bedford North" Station somewhere around Sharnbrook, so that all platforms would become through roads and no train would ever need to stay in the platform for more than a few minutes. That might have meant no need for extra tracks through the station (there are 5 already, with the potential for 6 by making Platform 1a a through road rather than a bay).

I think the plan is to have six tracks north of Bedford station, as far as the point where EWR diverges, so that EWR services are completely segregated from everything else. I think one of the reasons for this was to reduce/eliminate the signalling interface between EWR and the midland mainline.

 

[BrianW]

Well, the A428/Blackcat upgrade is still going ahead so the Expressway will be effectively a Cambridge to Milton Keynes one. You'll then hit backroads on the way to the Other Place. I can understand why it was cancelled for political reasons but if they want to go ahead with the planned housing and economic development along the "Arc of Prosperity" then roads as well as rail will need upgrading. The lack of integrated transport planning in this country is endlessly frustrating. EWR and the Expressway should have been part of the same project.

I imagine (wrongly?) that periodic upgrading of EWR to accommodate 12-car or 400m long trains at 12-14tph will 'stave off' the 'need' for an Expressway for some time (several parliaments). Congestion will 'encourage' drivers to take to the train or work from home, both of which have been trends. Perhaps the 'fall' of the Expressway has something to do with local MPs and/or the demise of predict and provide in the light of its inability to meet insatiable 'demand'- ie more road creates more traffic and more congestion. Many residents of the 'arc of prosperity' now and into the future will be high-tech home-workers.

 

[mr_jrt]

I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised to read they're intending a new pair of tracks north of Bedford, and all that discussion on Bromham Road bridge and the capacity on the existing slow lines wasn't completely pointless.

W/r to Bedford St. Johns, I'm confused - most of the negatives attached to option 2 seem to be related to realigning the railway (new river bridge, etc), but given the line is at the exact same spot at the eastern end of the proposed location as it would be for option 1, I don't see why they can't just have location 2 with the rail alignment of option 1, which would appear to negate a number of the negatives of option2?

As for Bedford...very bold (though I should point out, this is the alternative option south of Ford End Road, though even the option on the current site involves three new EWR platforms). I do wonder if two bay platforms for Thameslink isn't slightly gold plating things though, I wonder if two turnback sidings would achieve most of the benefits without needing 4 platforms. I certainly wasn't expecting anything this dramatic to be on the table.

 

[Aictos]

I have to say, I'm pleasantly surprised to read they're intending a new pair of tracks north of Bedford, and all that discussion on Bromham Road bridge and the capacity on the existing slow lines wasn't completely pointless.

W/r to Bedford St. Johns, I'm confused - most of the negatives attached to option 2 seem to be related to realigning the railway (new river bridge, etc), but given the line is at the exact same spot at the eastern end of the proposed location as it would be for option 1, I don't see why they can't just have location 2 with the rail alignment of option 1, which would appear to negate a number of the negatives of option2?

As for Bedford...very bold (though I should point out, this is the alternative option south of Ford End Road, though even the option on the current site involves three new EWR platforms). I do wonder if two bay platforms for Thameslink isn't slightly gold plating things though, I wonder if two turnback sidings would achieve most of the benefits without needing 4 platforms. I certainly wasn't expecting anything this dramatic to be on the table.

View attachment 93508

The one issue I can see with that diagram is the turnback siding is only available from two platforms and not the four I can see there which surely would provide more flexibility?

I mean if St Albans can cope with 4tph using the centre siding there then should Bedford not be able to cope with their 4tph (Please note I am not including peak extras such as East Grinstead or Littlehampton which may not be back for a while as there are Southern alternatives available).

​

 

[Nicholas43]

There was me, aged 77, looking at the lovely pictures upthread of actual diggers north of Bicester, and thinking I might live to see trains Oxford to Bletchley. And now it turns out that was all (cough) speculation, and it won't happen unless they can rebuild Oxford station and turn (most of) the Beckley Street car park into turnback sidings.

 

[Ianno87]

There was me, aged 77, looking at the lovely pictures upthread of actual diggers north of Bicester, and thinking I might live to see trains Oxford to Bletchley. And now it turns out that was all (cough) speculation, and it won't happen unless they can rebuild Oxford station and turn (most of) the Beckley Street car park into turnback sidings.

No, I think what this consultation is proposing is to permit the Cambridge services to operate, which are additional to the services running only between Bedford/Bletchley and Oxford.

Therefore a Bletchley-Oxford service can be introduced without needing these infrastructure alterations; it's only when the Cambridge section opens and adds further additional services that these are required.

 

[Roast Veg]

Wow. That is a seriously impressive consultation. It will have taken several months just to prepare
the documentation, and that doesn’t include all the development work that the documents are explaining. Very well done.

A score for the privately financed railways against NR, no? NR should definitely be putting out consultations like this one, but I suspect that money is holding that back.

 

[richieb1971]

I just read there is now consultation for 6 tracks North of Bedford which will result in a compulsive purchase order of all the homes on the North East Side of Bedford Mml.

I'm on my phone I don't know how to copy all that text. Can someone else please do it.

Residents left 'reeling' ahead of next stage of East West rail consultation - Bedford Independent

Ahead of today's announcement of the next stage of the East West Rail (EWR) consultation, residents of the Poets Area...

www.bedfordindependent.co.uk

 

[Roast Veg]

Here is the text from the above link:

Ahead of today’s announcement of the next stage of the East West Rail (EWR) consultation, residents of the Poets Area, near Bedford Station, have been left reeling at the news that their homes are under threat.

Currently, there are four tracks serving Bedford Station, but today’s announcement shows a six-track station, requiring the compulsory purchase and demolition of a number of properties on Sidney Road, Spenser Road, Chesterton Mews, Milton Road and Granet Close.


Speaking as a resident and member of the Protect Poets – Save our Homes group, Cllr Colleen Atkins said, “Everyone had presumed [the existing four tracks] would be used before branching off north of Sainsbury’s.”

She said the action group will be campaigning for a route that doesn’t require the six tracks.

“The shock news of houses under threat of demolition in the Poets area has left the close-knit community reeling.

“It is heartbreaking news. As well as people losing their homes, it will have an impact on the wider community. I live in Poets and know how this will change the area. I urge everyone to join the campaign and respond to the consultation.”

Mayor Dave Hodgson said that he could, “immediately appreciate the distress this proposal will bring, particularly for those with homes on the route north of Bedford Station.”

He acknowledged that any significant infrastructure project was a ‘once in a generation investment and while there is certain to be an impact on residents, he said: “We must make sure that people affected are properly considered and, wherever possible, impacts are removed or at least reduced.

“That is why I am encouraging everyone to respond to the consultation from the East West Railway Company. It’s vital that all of the issues are made clear to the company.”

Respond to the consultation here.

The Council said it would be carrying out its own exercise, alongside EWR’s consultation, in the coming weeks to inform their own response.

The Mayor assured residents that the council response will be debated at a Full Council meeting before it is submitted.

“In that response, we will continue to push the EWR Company to minimise the impact on the environment and local communities both during the construction and operation of the railway,” he said.

“We will also press for the railway to be electrified throughout to maximise the benefit to our environment by taking traffic off roads in a way that tackles climate change.”

Among the considerations are options for new stations at Bedford and Bedford St Johns and their supporting infrastructure.

EWR Co is presenting developing plans for a new Bedford St Johns Station nearer to the hospital, and a complete redevelopment of Bedford Station itself, which it says would “bring significant investment into the centre of Bedford, unlocking the potential for regeneration, new jobs, growth and prosperity for the town.”

Affected residents were informed ahead of today’s announcement and councillors were invited to meetings with EWR today.

Following the meeting, Cllr Ben Foley said: “I am relieved they are not planning any demolitions of housing in Castle Ward which my fellow Green Councillor, Lucy Bywater, and I represent.

“By taking a careful look at satellite images, I am convinced East West Rail can run the extra pair of tracks alongside the existing tracks with a lot less impact on people’s homes north of Bromham Road.”

EWR is encouraging all Borough residents to take part in this latest phase of public consultation, which launched at 2pm today (31 March).

In the initial public consultation held in 2019, Route E emerged as the favoured route and, according to EWR, was found to provide the most benefits for every £ of taxpayers’ money spent.

EWR say it was also found to best support community aspirations for sustainability, environmental protection and increasing biodiversity.

Local residents are disputing the validity of the original consultation and are mounting a legal challenge.

Read: Further consultation called for as opposition grows to chosen East West Rail route

Richard Fuller, MP for a number of the affected villages, said: “There is a general sense, and I share this sense, that some questions remain unanswered ahead of this next stage of the consultation.”

Mike Barlow, of the BFARe campaign group, opposing Route E, says that around 50,000 homes in the affected area were not notified by EWR ahead of the original 2019 consultation.

Despite EWR distributing postcards to 120,000 residents, many affected areas were not covered by the mailshot and many residents claim they never received the information and were unaware that a consultation was taking place.

“Bedford is very much in the way, both metaphorically and literally,” he said.

Responding the allegations that whole villages were omitted from the original mailshot, a spokesperson for EWR said: “We carried out a six-week early stage, non-statutory consultation.

“Non-statutory consultation means that there are no rules as to who must or must not be consulted, and so there is no ‘prescribed’ consultee list.”

EWR state that as part of the consultation they held a series of workshops with those parishes that sat close to the route options.

“Many parish representatives attended these sessions, including from Childerley, Clapham, Knapwell, Litlington, Ravensden, Stapleford and Wilden Parish Councils.”

Today’s launch will be followed by the mailing of a summary of the consultation to 270,000 addresses along the route and EWR will be holding a series of online events for communities and stakeholders.

There will be community events, live-chat sessions with EWR Co’s team of experts and an interactive virtual consultation room, launching on 12 April.

Bedford and Kempston MP, Mohammad Yasin urged residents to make their views known.

“It’s an ambitious project which will inevitably bring disruption that will affect us all, and certainly some more severely than others.

“So, it’s vital that everyone engages with the consultation to ensure their voice is heard.”

He said he was excited about the opportunity for our town but had concerns about the impact of the proposals.

“I will be scrutinising the plans, which I’ve only just seen for the first time in detail and listening to residents and constituents before coming to any conclusions on a preferred route,” he said.

EWR Co’s chief executive, Simon Blanchflower CBE, said: “In developing these proposals, our team has focused on how we can minimise disruption to local communities and looked for ways we can protect and enhance the local environment.

“Now it’s time for communities to share their valuable local knowledge and ideas with us.”

You can take part in the consultation here.

 

[InTheEastMids]

I just read there is now consultation for 6 tracks North of Bedford which will result in a compulsive purchase order of all the homes on the North East Side of Bedford Mml.

I'm on my phone I don't know how to copy all that text. Can someone else please do it.

Residents left 'reeling' ahead of next stage of East West rail consultation - Bedford Independent

Ahead of today's announcement of the next stage of the East West Rail (EWR) consultation, residents of the Poets Area...

www.bedfordindependent.co.uk

I felt surprised that EWR want to effectively 6-track a bit of the MML immediately to the North of where a significant number of trains terminate (so intuitively I'd have expected there to be capacity).
Certainly showed they're not proposing to do a cheapskate approach, which would probably be a slow and messy set of junctions as EWR services merge onto the MML slows at the station and then off again after about a mile.
It does also look like the Bedford works will address some other stuff - a platform on the Up Fast for instance.

I mustn't have been paying enough attention to developments on the Western Section. Is it correct to say that Aylesbury is no longer part of EWR?

 

[swt_passenger]

I mustn't have been paying enough attention to developments on the Western Section. Is it correct to say that Aylesbury is no longer part of EWR?

I think it’s still only a supposition, even though it’s come up a few times already in this thread..

The absence of any mention in this new consultation might just mean there’s nothing about the Bicester to Bletchley section that changes because of the future requirements to deal with extension to the east...

 

[Mikey C]

I think it’s still only a supposition, even though it’s come up a few times already in this thread..

The absence of any mention in this new consultation might just mean there’s nothing about the Bicester to Bletchley section that changes because of the future requirements to deal with extension to the east...

It would make no sense to propose spending a fortune on other sections, with the 6 tracking north of Bedford, while at the same time chopping a section in the western section