EWR, plausibility of a northern curve at Bedford/Oakley or Bletchley

[The Planner]

There is a very clear demand for a reasonably quick Milton Keynes Central to/from Bedford train service plus the interchange benefits such a thing would bring, and an underused Bedford to Bletchley one. That is very clearly a problem that it would solve, and the X5 demonstrates clearly that Stagecoach make plenty of money out of providing such a service. So I don't think it could in any way be placed in that category, though it might well fail cost-benefit analysis and it would be better not to solve the problem and spend the money on something else.

In terms of building it, it wouldn't be the most difficult one in the world - all the land needed is in a fairly old and ramshackle industrial estate, you wouldn't have to knock down a single house for it.

It still doesn't answer how a curve would serve Bletchley though, unless like suggested elsewhere you build a platform out on a significant limb, which in turn is likely to cause an increase in connection time for anyone who potentially wants to go south from there. Unless Bletchley is completely ignored and it goes straight to MK. A reversal at Bletchley is 4 minutes as a standard time.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2021 ==

As for the rest of your post, you're looking for 3 new paths between MK to Bletchley and onto EWR - I'll leave it to people like @The Planner to tell you whether that's even remotely viable........

In a post HS2 world it is difficult to answer, but based on the issues of trying to just get the base Oxford MK trains in now it would be a bigger problem.

 

[A0]

In a post HS2 world it is difficult to answer, but based on the issues of trying to just get the base Oxford MK trains in now it would be a bigger problem.

Given the first phase (London - Birmingham) of HS2 is unlikely to be open before about 2030, I won't take bets on the other phases....

But with London - Birmingham, surely the only question will be about the 3tph Avanti services, but since HS2 won't provide connectivity between Birmingham, Coventry, Rugby, MK and Watford then removing these services completely seems unlikely. Surely it'll result in them becoming more 'semi-fast' i.e all stopping at Watford, MK, Rugby and Coventry and perhaps being 2tph ? Because otherwise MK's link to the West Mids becomes the LNW services which all run via Northampton and that has a circa 20 minute time penalty. If that were to happen it only frees up one path and I'm sure there are other uses for that which are higher up NR / TOCs wish lists.

 

[richieb1971]

So it would seem that having a triangle junction at Oakley is the cheapest option and most easily done since it won't be much harder than what is planned anyway.

The crap fest is that its the most useless junction.

I find it quite odd that cost keeps coming up since the white elephant aka Bletchley flyover must have cost a pretty penny in its day, never used regularly and from I can see it practically being rebuilt from scratch using assets that were already there.

Freight from Southampton could use Oxford/EWR/Bletchley once its done so there is no use of channeling it down the from the east. I would assume that would get used quite a bit or even preferred over the current routes as it would free up the WCML up until Bletchley from the south where it is busiest (I have no idea of gauge clearances expected on the EWR but you would think they would future proof the design).

Any freight from the East (Felixstowe) is not likely to ever reach the EWR from what I am gathering. In the event of a closedown of other routes currently used there is always the long way round through London. In a post HS2 world the amount of paths on the WCML will increase anyway.

I heard a rumour a year or so ago that Croft Quarry and Mountsorrel will be used as spoil dumps for HS2. Croft only has immediate access from the east side which would favour a MML run rather than a WCML run. For Mountsorrel it could go 2 different ways, up the WCML to Nuneaton and head east or take the Vale line and head north (if EWR is ready in time between HS2 and Bletchley).

 

[RT4038]

I find it quite odd that cost keeps coming up since the white elephant aka Bletchley flyover must have cost a pretty penny in its day, never used regularly and from I can see it practically being rebuilt from scratch using assets that were already there.

Possibly because wasting money in the past doesn't give an excuse for wasting more in the future?

 

[zwk500]

I find it quite odd that cost keeps coming up since the white elephant aka Bletchley flyover must have cost a pretty penny in its day, never used regularly and from I can see it practically being rebuilt from scratch using assets that were already there.

The flyover wasn't used to it's full potential, but it was used and to good effect. The flyover was built in the late 50s/early 60s and the Bedford-Oxford line closed in the 70s. Swanbourne siding saw trains into the 2000s. Also, in 60 years it's become a lot more expensive to build a railway - the cost of land and legal process being a significant part of that.

Freight from Southampton could use Oxford/EWR/Bletchley once its done so there is no use of channeling it down the from the east. I would assume that would get used quite a bit or even preferred over the current routes as it would free up the WCML up until Bletchley from the south where it is busiest (I have no idea of gauge clearances expected on the EWR but you would think they would future proof the design).

Any freight from the East (Felixstowe) is not likely to ever reach the EWR from what I am gathering. In the event of a closedown of other routes currently used there is always the long way round through London. In a post HS2 world the amount of paths on the WCML will increase anyway.

EWR is likely to be built to W12 between Bicester and Bletchley, not sure if Bletchley to Bedford will be upgraded or if that will have to wait for the wires. The big sticking point for Felixstowe flows is Newmarket Tunnel and Cambridge EDIT: tunnel capacity before a chord is even worth considering.

I heard a rumour a year or so ago that Croft Quarry and Mountsorrel will be used as spoil dumps for HS2. Croft only has immediate access from the east side which would favour a MML run rather than a WCML run. For Mountsorrel it could go 2 different ways, up the WCML to Nuneaton and head east or take the Vale line and head north (if EWR is ready in time between HS2 and Bletchley).

Croft has connections facing west, running round in the reception yard is not an issue. However running round in Nuneaton station and crossing the WCML or getting up to the flyover will be. You'd have to run beyond Nuneaton and find somewhere to runround (Hams Hall or even Washwood heath), or be routed via Coventry, Aston and Walsall to Water Orton. The most likely route for both would be via Bedford and Corby to avoid delaying EMR's long-distance services.

 

[richieb1971]

Possibly because wasting money in the past doesn't give an excuse for wasting more in the future?

True, but there are probably 100's of junctions in the network which are used by services because they were already there. If you had no junction there, there probably would be no services to speak of.

We are talking about a curve, not an 82 arch viaduct. If this forum has taught me anything its that railways (at least in this country) require all sorts of sign offs for pretty simple things, usually making it a much larger thing than it needs to be. Providing a curve opens possibilities and that is what I want to hear on this thread. But yeah, money is always important and the justification needs to be there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2021 ==

Croft has connections facing west, running round in the reception yard is not an issue. However running round in Nuneaton station and crossing the WCML or getting up to the flyover will be. You'd have to run beyond Nuneaton and find somewhere to runround (Hams Hall or even Washwood heath), or be routed via Coventry, Aston and Walsall to Water Orton. The most likely route for both would be via Bedford and Corby to avoid delaying EMR's long-distance services.

Google maps shows this -



I do not see any connection from the west. Has one recently been put in?

 

[MarkyT]

It won't be painless, by any stretch. The need to landscape, the impact on nearby housing's views over the countryside and the noise of Class 66s stood idling will cause significant headaches in the planning process. Especially as trains could hold on the connecting line between Denbigh Hall Jn and Bletchley High Level (although that probably can't take 775m length). A regulating point would be much easier to provide at Bicester, if required.

Bicester's a long way back to react to real-time conditions on the WCML and would have its own neighbourhood issues I suspect. That connecting line from the High Level to Denbigh Hall will also be hosting passenger trains in the future, so freights waiting more than a few minutes wouldn't be desirable, although that might be mitigated by providing bidi on the up line, so a waiting freight could be overtaken there in the down direction if desired. Perhaps the old yard just to the west of Newton Longville at Whaddon Road bridge could be an option. Fairly short sidings originally, but might plausibly be lengthened.

 

[The Planner]

I heard a rumour a year or so ago that Croft Quarry and Mountsorrel will be used as spoil dumps for HS2. Croft only has immediate access from the east side which would favour a MML run rather than a WCML run. For Mountsorrel it could go 2 different ways, up the WCML to Nuneaton and head east or take the Vale line and head north (if EWR is ready in time between HS2 and Bletchley).

EWR is likely to be built to W12 between Bicester and Bletchley, not sure if Bletchley to Bedford will be upgraded or if that will have to wait for the wires. The big sticking point for Felixstowe flows is Newmarket Tunnel and Cambridge tunnel before a chord is even worth considering.

Croft has connections facing west, running round in the reception yard is not an issue. However running round in Nuneaton station and crossing the WCML or getting up to the flyover will be. You'd have to run beyond Nuneaton and find somewhere to runround (Hams Hall or even Washwood heath), or be routed via Coventry, Aston and Walsall to Water Orton. The most likely route for both would be via Bedford and Corby to avoid delaying EMR's long-distance services.

Croft was looked at and discarded, New Bilton got chosen instead I believe. Unless it was GBRf running the train to Croft you won't be running round at Hams Hall, if you are short enough you could do it at Whitacre to get away from the hassle of Water Orton.
E-W will be W12 to Bletchley.

 

[zwk500]

True, but there are probably 100's of junctions in the network which are used by services because they were already there. If you had no junction there, there probably would be no services to speak of.

We are talking about a curve, not an 82 arch viaduct. If this forum has taught me anything its that railways (at least in this country) require all sorts of sign offs for pretty simple things, usually making it a much larger thing than it needs to be. Providing a curve opens possibilities and that is what I want to hear on this thread. But yeah, money is always important and the justification needs to be there.

We're not talking about Crossrail level engineering, but we are talking about potential demolition of places of empoyment, and signficant impact on the Rail Depot. the ground drops away from the railway as well so depending on the line you could be talking a 5m+ high embankment/viaduct. Personally, I think it's right that the railway (and therefore also Motorway authority) has to demonstrate there's a genuine need for new lines before it can start turfing people out of the way. When it does, it gets given the powers to do what it needs, see Ipswich, Nuneaton, Thameslink, Crossrail, Norton Bridge, etc. If nobody's going to use the new line, why spend the money building it?

Google maps shows this <SNIP> I do not see any connection from the west. Has one recently been put in?

Look closely above the crooked reverse L-shaped building to the left of Extreme Airsoft. There's a west-facing crossover and connection to the runround line. Trains come off the westbound line into the sidings, then runround or split the train up before heading to the quarry.

Bicester's a long way back to react to real-time conditions on the WCML and would have its own neighbourhood issues I suspect. That connecting line from the High Level to Denbigh Hall will also be hosting passenger trains in the future, so freights waiting more than a few minutes wouldn't be desirable, although that might be mitigated by providing bidi on the up line, so a waiting freight could be overtaken there in the down direction if desired. Perhaps the old yard just to the west of Newton Longville at Whaddon Road bridge could be an option. Fairly short sidings originally, but might plausibly be lengthened.

I agree that holding trains at Denbigh Hall is not ideal. If trains from EWR to MK are every 30 mins it's possible, every 15 mins it's harder to see sensible paths. Yes, Bicester is a way back from the WCML but as long as the loop was beyond the junction for the Chiltern line (another connecting chord added recently, btw) so the freight only had to slot in between EWR services it isn't too bad, depends on the speed difference between freight and passenger. Buying the additional land for Whaddon Road might be affordable, but if the HS2 spoil loading site is being built near Calvert then incorporating a loop into that might be the best value for money.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jan 2021 ==

Croft was looked at and discarded, New Bilton got chosen instead I believe. Unless it was GBRf running the train to Croft you won't be running round at Hams Hall, if you are short enough you could do it at Whitacre to get away from the hassle of Water Orton.

Fair enough, I haven't really kept up with the arrangements for HS2. I'd imagine most TOCs would take the rounadabout route via Walsall over a runround in any event.

E-W will be W12 to Bletchley.

Do you know if Bletchley-Bedford will be upgraded?

 

[The Planner]

I agree that holding trains at Denbigh Hall is not ideal. If trains from EWR to MK are every 30 mins it's possible, every 15 mins it's harder to see sensible paths. Yes, Bicester is a way back from the WCML but as long as the loop was beyond the junction for the Chiltern line (another connecting chord added recently, btw) so the freight only had to slot in between EWR services it isn't too bad, depends on the speed difference between freight and passenger. Buying the additional land for Whaddon Road might be affordable, but if the HS2 spoil loading site is being built near Calvert then incorporating a loop into that might be the best value for money.

Do you know if Bletchley-Bedford will be upgraded?

Last opportunity prior to Bletchley will be Claydon, though if it was really going Pete Tong you could use the Bicester Depot Loop. Most stuff for HS2 around there is going in rather than out last I heard.
Bletchley Bedford doesn't appear to be getting a lot of attention at the mo, but to not make it W12 would be odd.

 

[zwk500]

Bletchley Bedford doesn't appear to be getting a lot of attention at the mo, but to not make it W12 would be odd.

Here's hoping sense prevails, but I won't hold my breath.

 

[cle]

Here's hoping sense prevails, but I won't hold my breath.

Given the 60mph stasis, I wouldn't...

 

[Trainician]

I would have a curve at Bletchley for MKC and I would like to see Oakley have a new station for EWR

 

[zwk500]

I would have a curve at Bletchley for MKC and I would like to see Oakley have a new station for EWR

Which services would run over the new curve at Bletchley that haven't already been addressed upthread? Do the benefits outweigh the costs (again, many of these are addressed upthread)?
Money no object I'd certainly like the curve, but it only really facilitates 1 flow (MK <> Bedford). The Bus is never full, and stops at far more convenient places. Any freight already has an existing route (if a long way round), and a runround or top/tail reversal is possible at Bletchley today if required at a pinch.

The line of EWR passes east of Clapham, so a new station for Oakley would be quite far from the village itself. However, a station near Clapham does have some merit - the question would be if stopping again so close to Bedford costs too much time for the Cambridge <> MK journey time. It will be tight on that factor. Unless you are proposing the station for Oakley on a new northern curve, so the Oakley trains could only run to Wellingborough or St Neots, and not Bedford itself.
Perhaps the better option for both Oakley and Clapham would be a new station on the Slow lines next to the A6 junction, served either by extending some Thameslinks, or (preferably) the new Corby services. You lose the opportunity to go direct to Cambridge, but get a station in a far more convenient location with a regular London service.

 

[A0]

.
Perhaps the better option for both Oakley and Clapham would be a new station on the Slow lines next to the A6 junction, served either by extending some Thameslinks, or (preferably) the new Corby services. You lose the opportunity to go direct to Cambridge, but get a station in a far more convenient location with a regular London service.

The problem with adding more stops to the new EMR Corby services is it will slow them down, which then will negatively impact people travelling from further afield.

I reckon it is likely a stop will be added between Wellingborough and Bedford, but it won't be Oakley / Clapham - Bedford station's only 4 miles from Oakley.

The two which are more likely are either Sharnbrook - which is mid point between the two or between Rushden and Irchester - now whilst that's a similar distance to Wellingborough that Oakley is to Bedford, the big difference is population - Rushden's got a population of 30,000 with expansion planned and Wellingborough station is already seeing alot of development all on the east side of it.

 

[zwk500]

The problem with adding more stops to the new EMR Corby services is it will slow them down, which then will negatively impact people travelling from further afield.

I reckon it is likely a stop will be added between Wellingborough and Bedford, but it won't be Oakley / Clapham - Bedford station's only 4 miles from Oakley.

Agreed - I was trying to engage with Trainician's post rather than slap it down out of hand.

The two which are more likely are either Sharnbrook - which is mid point between the two or between Rushden and Irchester - now whilst that's a similar distance to Wellingborough that Oakley is to Bedford, the big difference is population - Rushden's got a population of 30,000 with expansion planned and Wellingborough station is already seeing alot of development all on the east side of it.

Sharnbrook is very unlikely - the village itself is removed from the rail line and very small anyway. Reinstating the former Irchester station is possible, but would need a big push of housing development to fill in the gap between Rushden and Irchester, which won't be popular with Irchester residents. Personally I can't see any additional stations on the MML any time soon.

Back on topic, a station between Bedford and Wellingborough is unlikely to increase demand for a north curve to St Neots, as most travel south will either be to Bedford, Luton or London. A simple change at Bedford still offers the better value option for the remaining Kettering/Wellingborough flows east.
Tbh the only way I can see a north curve at Oakley/Clapham is if either a. Corby Car plant starts exporting via East anglian ports (extremely unlikely) or b. Wellingborough freight yard starts receiving regular and sustained aggregate imports from East Anglia, to remove that flow from Leicester-Market Harborough. This shift would have to be very large to justify building a chord given an already viable route (which also is routed via Peterborough, giving good operational flexibility in drivers and locos).

 

[richieb1971]

It does stand to reason that a justifiable source of revenue income is required to justify a curve at Clapham/Oakley, but you sometimes wonder how many routes are crossed out because 100 metres of track isn't laid.

I have a couple of questions -

Is Sharnbrook tunnel part of the W12 gauging? Or would any intermodals have to go over to the fasts?
Where is the proposed southern facing curve at Oakley/Clapham likely to be? If you can shorten it down to south of the northern Oakley bridge or south of it (or north of the old station or south of it). I still haven't seen precise maps of this.

As for stations, any station would require quite a bit of space for car parking. If one was built on the MML section i'd like to see some extra sidings there for THL trains relieving Bedford of capacity issues. Bedford would better be served as a through station than a terminating one, at least for a couple of services an hour.

As for Oakley only being 4 miles north of Bedford, you have to remember that Wixams is only 4 miles south of Bedford and the station still has some justification as it was sold as a sweetener for anyone buying homes there years ago.. never happened yet though.

 

[zwk500]

It does stand to reason that a justifiable source of revenue income is required to justify a curve at Clapham/Oakley, but you sometimes wonder how many routes are crossed out because 100 metres of track isn't laid.

But it isn't just 100m of track. Avoiding freight standing foul requires 1km minimum. There's also 2 or more junctions, legal costs, land costs, design costs, feasibility studies (technical, engineering, capacity, operations), public consultation, compensation to Passengers & Operators for disruption while the line is built, compensation to neighbours for noise/value loss. Yes there are plenty of curves that are below standard that are still in use, but they're a colossal pain for the railway and it's only the cost of rebuilding them to standard that stops them being rebuilt from scratch.

I have a couple of questions -

Is Sharnbrook tunnel part of the W12 gauging? Or would any intermodals have to go over to the fasts?

I don't know 100% but if the tunnels have been wired (fairly sure they have) they will almost certainly be cleared to W10/12.

Where is the proposed southern facing curve at Oakley/Clapham likely to be? If you can shorten it down to south of the northern Oakley bridge or south of it (or north of the old station or south of it). I still haven't seen precise maps of this.

The precise line of EWR has not been fixed, but the broad corridor indicated is to pass between Bedford itself and Clapham, east of the village itself.

As for stations, any station would require quite a bit of space for car parking. If one was built on the MML section i'd like to see some extra sidings there for THL trains relieving Bedford of capacity issues. Bedford would better be served as a through station than a terminating one, at least for a couple of services an hour.

TL (THL makes no sense as an acronym, personal pet peeve) will continue to terminate at Bedford for the majority of services. When EWR comes in it'll need to be rebuilt anyway, so building a new station to relieve Bedford is not money well spent. The new Corby electric services are proposed to stop at Bedford on their way north, so the benefit to extending TL to a new station would be purely for the community served by the new station.
Any new station would need to make it's case independent of changes to Bedford, but the line near both Oakley and Rushden is close to the A6, and there is a lot of development going on around there so car parking shouldn't be too much of a problem to provide.

As for Oakley only being 4 miles north of Bedford, you have to remember that Wixams is only 4 miles south of Bedford and the station still has some justification as it was sold as a sweetener for anyone buying homes there years ago.. never happened yet though.

Using a station that has only been talked about rather than in any serious state of advancement is perhaps not the strongest comparison to make. A better one would be Bletchley and Wolverton, both 3 miles from Milton Keynes Central.

 

[A0]

Using a station that has only been talked about rather than in any serious state of advancement is perhaps not the strongest comparison to make. A better one would be Bletchley and Wolverton, both 3 miles from Milton Keynes Central.

That's an equally poor comparison, because both Wolverton and Bletchley long pre-date both Milton Keynes Central station and indeed Milton Keynes itself - they both served towns which still exist in their own right, so their reason for existing hasn't changed.

 

[zwk500]

That's an equally poor comparison, because both Wolverton and Bletchley long pre-date both Milton Keynes Central station and indeed Milton Keynes itself - they both served towns which still exist in their own right, so their reason for existing hasn't changed.

It's a 'better' (not 'good') comparison in terms of the operational impact - some trains still terminate MK, but 3 stops in 6 miles is perfectly workable. Equally useful in the comparison is that nothing terminates at Bletchley or Wolverton during the day - either turning at MK or going through to Northampton/Birmingham. Therefore an Oakley/Clapham station probably needs to have demand for travel to Wellingborough/Kettering to be viable.
Another key part of the comparison is that both stations have significant flows to MKC, so the demand for EWR services to use an avoiding curve would likely be limited, as the trains would need to serve Bedford.

The difficulty for the econmic case is that Clapham and Oakley together are less than 5,000 people (wiki figures, happy to be corrected). 10-15,000 people in the catchment area tends to be a more viable number, without infrastructure investment required.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's an equally poor comparison, because both Wolverton and Bletchley long pre-date both Milton Keynes Central station and indeed Milton Keynes itself - they both served towns which still exist in their own right, so their reason for existing hasn't changed.

Sort of. Bletchley and Wolverton town centres were much more like Bedford in their day, with more "major" shops than they now have. Most of that demand has moved to CMK plus a few out of town malls e.g. the one at the stadium (which could arguably now be considered more of a town centre than the actual town centre) and so now Bletchley and Wolverton are mostly traffic sources (people taking the train to London and Brum) than traffic sinks as they once were.

 

[richieb1971]

After talking on facebook to a Bedford group about EWR. I got bombarded with upset residents in the Clapham area saying they were in the alignment area of the eastern curve and that some of them will be issued compulsory purchase orders. Amazingly after investigation it seems the curve is going to be right next to the new roundabout, pass through a farm and rifle club.

Some of these residents swear they went to a hearing where EWR stated freight would be commonplace and run through the night. Since i've heard on here that nobody believes there will be any freight, whose telling the truth?

 

[RT4038]

After talking on facebook to a Bedford group about EWR. I got bombarded with upset residents in the Clapham area saying they were in the alignment area of the eastern curve and that some of them will be issued compulsory purchase orders. Amazingly after investigation it seems the curve is going to be right next to the new roundabout, pass through a farm and rifle club.

Some of these residents swear they went to a hearing where EWR stated freight would be commonplace and run through the night. Since i've heard on here that nobody believes there will be any freight, whose telling the truth?

EWR will be covering themselves - they do not want to say there will be no, or little, freight and then a flow materialises and the residents are up in arms saying that they were promised no freight trains. However any commercial freight looks unlikely at present.

 

[zwk500]

After talking on facebook to a Bedford group about EWR. I got bombarded with upset residents in the Clapham area saying they were in the alignment area of the eastern curve and that some of them will be issued compulsory purchase orders. Amazingly after investigation it seems the curve is going to be right next to the new roundabout, pass through a farm and rifle club.

Some of these residents swear they went to a hearing where EWR stated freight would be commonplace and run through the night. Since i've heard on here that nobody believes there will be any freight, whose telling the truth?

Nobody believes there will be any freight on the speculative chords at Bletchley (MK <> Fenny Stratford) and Clapham (St Neots <> Wellingborough) that are not part of the official plan. Freight is, however, likely on EWR as proposed.
I'm not sure what might run through Bedford, although its most likely to be stone or sand, but when it does run it will need to be when passenger demand is less.

As for the alignment - the precise line hasn't been fixed, but in order to turn east without a heavy speed restriction there isn't really anywhere it could go that wouldn't hurt something.

 

[richieb1971]

the official map shows the curve is in this narrow area.

 

[A0]

Nobody believes there will be any freight on the speculative chords at Bletchley (MK <> Fenny Stratford) and Clapham (St Neots <> Wellingborough) that are not part of the official plan. Freight is, however, likely on EWR as proposed.
I'm not sure what might run through Bedford, although its most likely to be stone or sand, but when it does run it will need to be when passenger demand is less.

As for the alignment - the precise line hasn't been fixed, but in order to turn east without a heavy speed restriction there isn't really anywhere it could go that wouldn't hurt something.

Well there is freight on Bedford - Bletchley at present, so by virtue of that becoming part of EWR, there will be freight on EWR.....

However, whether there will be freight on the Cambridge - Bedford section is a moot point - I'm not sure there are any logical traffic flows for that - freight heading for the Midlands is already better handled via Peterboro and will be even more so once Werrington is sorted.

 

[richieb1971]

Well there is freight on Bedford - Bletchley at present, so by virtue of that becoming part of EWR, there will be freight on EWR.....

However, whether there will be freight on the Cambridge - Bedford section is a moot point - I'm not sure there are any logical traffic flows for that - freight heading for the Midlands is already better handled via Peterboro and will be even more so once Werrington is sorted.

All freight through Bedford even if using the Vale line is going north and south.

For ewr to be used it sounds like the az of the path would need to start somewhere really local.