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

[tankertop]

I spoke to a gentlemen yesterday who said EWR will branch off roughly where the northampton spur was previously (going in the opposite direction). Is there any evidence to support that?
View attachment 82275


He also said a leaflet given to him kept referencing to Bedford as "Bedford Central station". Given the reason MK Central was given its name it gave way to some pondering over if Wixams would be given a "Bedford South" and another station north of Bedford being given a Bedford north name.

edited picture as spur was a bit too far north, he said north of where the iron bridge is. Which is where I've put the lines now.

I believe the line has to run within the zone that EWR has publicly consulted on, ie. the gap between Clapham and Bedford.

 

[mr_jrt]

If the gradients are so severe, might we see a tunnel?

 

[si404]

I believe the line has to run within the zone that EWR has publicly consulted on, ie. the gap between Clapham and Bedford.

Only the line consulted upon (a curve would be a different matter as it wasn't in the consultation scope, AFAICS). And they can consult again on the main route.

 

[edwin_m]

Only the line consulted upon (a curve would be a different matter as it wasn't in the consultation scope, AFAICS). And they can consult again on the main route.

If they consult again then it would be several months delay and extra cost. So I'd like to hope they've covered all the bases in what they've already consulted on.

 

[MML]

It seems surprising a new station hasn't been planned for the Bedford Interchange Retail Park which is immediately adjacent to the line. In fact, Kempston and Elstow halt used to exist closeby in the days of the Varsity Line.
The retail park is open 7 days a week and would benefit if a half hourly rail service was introduced. The owners of the retail park would probably be willing to pay towards construction and upkeep.

 

[Bald Rick]

It seems surprising a new station hasn't been planned for the Bedford Interchange Retail Park which is immediately adjacent to the line. In fact, Kempston and Elstow halt used to exist closeby in the days of the Varsity Line.
The retail park is open 7 days a week and would benefit if a half hourly rail service was introduced. The owners of the retail park would probably be willing to pay towards construction and upkeep.

Where would the punters come from?

 

[flitwickbeds]

It seems surprising a new station hasn't been planned for the Bedford Interchange Retail Park which is immediately adjacent to the line. In fact, Kempston and Elstow halt used to exist closeby in the days of the Varsity Line.
The retail park is open 7 days a week and would benefit if a half hourly rail service was introduced. The owners of the retail park would probably be willing to pay towards construction and upkeep.

I've always thought EWR should have used a "Bedford South Parkway" Station where the MML and Marston Vale lines cross, which happens to be near to the Interchange Retail Park.

It would provide quicker journeys on EWR, be cheaper to build without doglegging through Bedford Midland, provide a new station for the Interchange businesses and possibly Wixams, and provide much needed car parking relief for Bedford and Flitwick stations.

If a link from the A421 and A6 could be designed into the scheme it would also act as an excellent park and ride facility in all 4 directions.

 

[Kingham West]

I've always thought EWR should have used a "Bedford South Parkway" Station where the MML and Marston Vale lines cross, which happens to be near to the Interchange Retail Park.

It would provide quicker journeys on EWR, be cheaper to build without doglegging through Bedford Midland, provide a new station for the Interchange businesses and possibly Wixams, and provide much needed car parking relief for Bedford and Flitwick stations.

If a link from the A421 and A6 could be designed into the scheme it would also act as an excellent park and ride facility in all 4 directions.

It was concidered Option A , and rejected..

 

[richieb1971]

I did ask EWR if they would move Kempston Hardwick further east near the retail park in Kempston but they are sticking to mandated tasks only.

You do have to believe that Kempston retail park that has an industrial estate on one side and a retail park on the other, along with 10's of 1000's of Kempston residents (some within 1 min walk from the line) would generate revenue much better than Kempston Hardwick which served a brickworks closed down in the 80's 90's that currently gets around 1 or 2 people a day. Kempston Hardwick only has around 12 homes or so.

The retail park/industrial estate would probably do in a week what Kempston Hardwick does in a year quite easily. The retail park causes a horrendous amount of traffic congestion in the area and there is no footbridge anywhere along the line. There is a foot crossing off Chantry Avenue but the land that joins the crossing the to the retail park is private land and gated off. Even if you could walk it it would be a long way around. A station near the retail park would double up as a bridge crossing. Also Kempston Hardwick crossing is on a chicane and building a road bridge in a straight line would be much simpler if the station wasn't there.

It annoys me north of Bedford there are huge bridges that only dog walkers use and the occasional tractor, subsequently upgraded recently in some cases at the cost of over a million pounds if rumour is true, yet where its really needed there is no mandate to provide for it.

 

[bspahh]

You do have to believe that Kempston retail park that has an industrial estate on one side and a retail park on the other, along with 10's of 1000's of Kempston residents (some within 1 min walk from the line) would generate revenue much better than Kempston Hardwick which served a brickworks closed down in the 80's 90's that currently gets around 1 or 2 people a day. Kempston Hardwick only has around 12 homes or so.

When East West rail is looking for funding to build their railway from house builders, a station at a large empty site is more valuable for them, than one at an existing settlement.

 

[DarloRich]

I did ask EWR if they would move Kempston Hardwick further east near the retail park in Kempston but they are sticking to mandated tasks only.

You do have to believe that Kempston retail park that has an industrial estate on one side and a retail park on the other, along with 10's of 1000's of Kempston residents (some within 1 min walk from the line) would generate revenue much better than Kempston Hardwick which served a brickworks closed down in the 80's 90's that currently gets around 1 or 2 people a day. Kempston Hardwick only has around 12 homes or so.

The retail park/industrial estate would probably do in a week what Kempston Hardwick does in a year quite easily. The retail park causes a horrendous amount of traffic congestion in the area and there is no footbridge anywhere along the line. There is a foot crossing off Chantry Avenue but the land that joins the crossing the to the retail park is private land and gated off. Even if you could walk it it would be a long way around. A station near the retail park would double up as a bridge crossing. Also Kempston Hardwick crossing is on a chicane and building a road bridge in a straight line would be much simpler if the station wasn't there.

It annoys me north of Bedford there are huge bridges that only dog walkers use and the occasional tractor, subsequently upgraded recently in some cases at the cost of over a million pounds if rumour is true, yet where its really needed there is no mandate to provide for it.

This again? This board just goes round and round in self pleasing pet project ideas. It will be a curve at Bletchley next.

As for bridges which ones do you mean? Do you mean ones that have been upgraded to meet legal requirements?

 

[The Planner]

It will be a curve at Bletchley next.

From the vine of grapes, someone has found a packet of Benson and Hedges to draw on from what I hear.

 

[DarloRich]

From the vine of grapes, someone has found a packet of Benson and Hedges to draw on from what I hear.

I have heard similar but I still remain to be convinced. It seems a lot of money and impact to facilities for little return. I maintain that the benefit of the curve can be achieved by reversing at Bletchley and that the costs don't justify the return against that option.

 

[BrianW]

From the vine of grapes, someone has found a packet of Benson and Hedges to draw on from what I hear.

I'm always pleased to see the knowledge and experience of more established and veteran members who have seen it all before. I'm just pleading for some kindness and understanding here for those of us still relatively new and behind the curve.
This thread for instance has 4000 threads across 137 pages which is a hell of a lot to read back on
Just askin'

 

[The Planner]

I'm always pleased to see the knowledge and experience of more established and veteran members who have seen it all before. I'm just pleading for some kindness and understanding here for those of us still relatively new and behind the curve.
This thread for instance has 4000 threads across 137 pages which is a hell of a lot to read back on
Just askin'

It just basically proves that what in the past has been put on the "no, you are having a laugh" pile, quite quickly becomes a project for someone to look at. I suspect it is also freight related more than the passenger side too, which normally doesn't get a second look.

 

[cle]

Either way, it could be interesting if workable - but agreed that Bletchley has the lines and platforms on the eastern side to do a few reversals each hour without impacting the WCML Slows too much.

A fifth line the whole way, and a new staggered platform or two at MKC would help keep this operation 'pure' if workable. A much better fit for a local service, which might be able to be increased in time (dropping those random Marston calls on EWR which are pointless).

 

[Bletchleyite]

A fifth line the whole way, and a new staggered platform or two at MKC would help keep this operation 'pure' if workable. A much better fit for a local service, which might be able to be increased in time (dropping those random Marston calls on EWR which are pointless).

Ridgmont isn't, there's a huge amount of employment at the massive Amazon site there to which people may well commute from further afield than just Bletchley. If you take a photo from the station pointing one way it looks like it's in the middle of a field, point the other way and you will see why it's an exception.

Woburn Sands is similarly reasonably big and will have commuting demand to further away than Bletchley.

I think it's only those two, isn't it?

 

[DarloRich]

I think it's only those two, isn't it?

they are the only two on the EWR stopping list.

Ridgmont isn't, there's a huge amount of employment at the massive Amazon site there to which people may well commute from further afield than just Bletchley

lots of passengers ( for the Vale!) from Bedford for Amazon and others. Actually more than form the Blethcley direction by all accounts.

 

[cle]

I'm not saying they shouldn't have calls, just different ones (an enhanced local service between MKC and Bedford, say 2tph clockface) - and leave the regional expresses as such. I'd say the same for Winslow if there was anything else to serve it.

The Marston staying at 60mph is already a weak link for the long distance services.

 

[Midnight Sun]

Seems Stagecoach have aready thrown in the towel as regards to the X5. As from Tuesday (1st September) the X5 no longer runs between Bedford and Cambridge. And is replaced with a normal bus service (905) from Bedford to Cambridge which will also stops in Cambourne, also at Cambridge Regional College and stops around Cambridge Science Park. Its busy between Milton Keynes and Cambridge. I know a number of people who commute to Milton Keynes via St Neots station, this is going to put a mocker on their commuite with having to change buses at Bedford. As to why Sragecoach have done this after 28 years is anyones guess. Instead of building Bedford-Cambridge in one go. How about opening the section between Bedford and ECML first, followed by the last section to Cambridge.

 

[eMeS]

Seems Stagecoach have already thrown in the towel as regards to the X5.

Sad, but not surprising. A few years ago on a sunny August day, we used the X5 to visit Cambridge, and on our return X5 journey found ourselves dumped in Bedford at around 20:10, with no coach or bus to take us onwards to Milton Keynes. Fortunately we were fit enough to be able walk over to Bedford rail station, and get to Bletchley, and then another train to Milton Keynes. I think we made it home by 23:00. Since then I've used the car.

 

[edwin_m]

Seems Stagecoach have aready thrown in the towel as regards to the X5. As from Tuesday (1st September) the X5 no longer runs between Bedford and Cambridge. And is replaced with a normal bus service (905) from Bedford to Cambridge which will also stops in Cambourne, also at Cambridge Regional College and stops around Cambridge Science Park. Its busy between Milton Keynes and Cambridge. I know a number of people who commute to Milton Keynes via St Neots station, this is going to put a mocker on their commuite with having to change buses at Bedford. As to why Sragecoach have done this after 28 years is anyones guess. Instead of building Bedford-Cambridge in one go. How about opening the section between Bedford and ECML first, followed by the last section to Cambridge.

I would guess Cambridge is the main attraction, as a major employment centre with a housing shortage, so the Bedford-Cambridge section would get very little use until completed in full.

 

[Mollman]

Seems Stagecoach have aready thrown in the towel as regards to the X5. As from Tuesday (1st September) the X5 no longer runs between Bedford and Cambridge. And is replaced with a normal bus service (905) from Bedford to Cambridge which will also stops in Cambourne, also at Cambridge Regional College and stops around Cambridge Science Park. Its busy between Milton Keynes and Cambridge. I know a number of people who commute to Milton Keynes via St Neots station, this is going to put a mocker on their commuite with having to change buses at Bedford. As to why Sragecoach have done this after 28 years is anyones guess. Instead of building Bedford-Cambridge in one go. How about opening the section between Bedford and ECML first, followed by the last section to Cambridge.

I think it is to do with creating extra capacity at the Cambridge end by using double deck buses and keeping coaches on the trunk service. There are also issues with reliability when running that length of service through Oxford, MK, Bedford and Cambridge.

 

[Class 170101]

Instead of building Bedford-Cambridge in one go. How about opening the section between Bedford and ECML first, followed by the last section to Cambridge.

You would have to build physical track links to the ECML if built in stages, which I don't think EWR is planning to do here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Sad, but not surprising. A few years ago on a sunny August day, we used the X5 to visit Cambridge, and on our return X5 journey found ourselves dumped in Bedford at around 20:10, with no coach or bus to take us onwards to Milton Keynes. Fortunately we were fit enough to be able walk over to Bedford rail station, and get to Bletchley, and then another train to Milton Keynes. I think we made it home by 23:00. Since then I've used the car.

Didn't you, er, look at the timetable before travelling? That was not an on-spec cancellation, that is "situation normal". The evening services are quiet and so not profitable, they only run because they are formed of the buses going home to Bedford depot for the evening and might as well run in service. So after about 1800 or so, the service is only Cambridge-Bedford and Oxford-Bedford.

 

[eMeS]

Didn't you, er, look at the timetable before travelling? ....

No we didn't.
Not everybody understands the minutiae of public transport provision as well as the experts here. But your point explains the attitude of the staff at Bedford when we asked where the continuing bus/coach was. I think what really surprised us was that the service ceased at 20.10, rather than at 21.30 or similar.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No we didn't.
Not everybody understands the minutiae of public transport provision as well as the experts here. But your point explains the attitude of the staff at Bedford when we asked where the continuing bus/coach was. I think what really surprised us was that the service ceased at 20.10, rather than at 21.30 or similar.

There's nothing "minutae" about checking to see when the last service back is when making a long distance journey! It's not at all unusual for bus services to finish around 1800 other than local services in major urban areas.

I personally make that connection anyway as Bletchley is more convenient, FWIW

 

[al green]

I have heard similar but I still remain to be convinced. It seems a lot of money and impact to facilities for little return. I maintain that the benefit of the curve can be achieved by reversing at Bletchley and that the costs don't justify the return against that option.

At the Public Inquiry last year I argued that the new high level platforms should be reversible so that trains on MV could reverse and go to MKC. (I know P5 has that capability but it needs more than one platform to be workable) Only needs a couple of points and a handful of signals. Much cheaper than a new chord. But NR wouldn't have it. It wasn't in DfT's spec and would add to cost so ruled out. Very short sighted.

 

[DarloRich]

It wasn't in DfT's spec and would add to cost so ruled out. Very short sighted.

There is the answer. It isn't about sightedness ( long or short) it is about delivering the funded specification. I absolutely agree that is cheaper than building a new chord and delivers the dame benefits for s fraction of the price mind!

In any event I don't believe there are plans for Mk > Bedford trains (much as that would please us regular customers) and so the layout works for the proposed service patterns.

 

[davetheguard]

At the Public Inquiry last year I argued that the new high level platforms should be reversible so that trains on MV could reverse and go to MKC. (I know P5 has that capability but it needs more than one platform to be workable) Only needs a couple of points and a handful of signals. Much cheaper than a new chord. But NR wouldn't have it. It wasn't in DfT's spec and would add to cost so ruled out. Very short sighted.

You're right it is short sighted; but not by Network Rail. The fact of the matter is that NR is no longer funded for enhancements. It has no money for enhancements. All of these have to go through the DfT, and there the problem lies. So, write to your MP, but it's the Transport Minister & his -some would say disfunctional- department who are responsible for specifying the enhancements you desire.