Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
...is to reduce the number of stations on the Marston Vale (other than Bedford Midland and Bletchley) to 5 from the present 9, which would allow the remaining 5 to have 2tph instead of 1tph and remove the need for the separate stopping service.
I'm still forming my views on where I would say these should go and will contribute them in due course, but I've created this thread for discussion on the matter to see what views on this are.
So all trains between Bedford and Bletchley would stop 5 times? Seems an awful lot. And frustrating for long distance journeys (and times) in the longer future. For now, it's probably ok and may be a welcome change - but you'd want to overlay actual fasts in future.
Yes, much as @DarloRich would kill us it isn't an overly useful station and is a short walk from MK's most frequent bus route. Couple this with the new entrance on the town side of Bletchley station (the walk round is about 0.4 miles according to Google) it probably has even less of a role, and as you say it's a bit in the way on the single line section. TBH I'm more concerned about the impact of closing Simpson Road and definitely think a well-lit and CCTV-covered foot and cycle bridge needs providing there. I know there's the canal but some won't feel safe walking down there alone at night. As a minimum the railway should fund and operate lighting and CCTV on that section of the towpath.
The ones I'm concerned primarily about are:
Bow Brickhill - this is presently underused, but has the potential to be much better used due to the large amount of employment nearby. There is also a plan to develop (for housing) the land between Browns Wood/Tilbrook and Woburn Sands Road which will bring a load more housing into its catchment, and may provide a fair bit more demand with a much improved service. The station is miles from the village it nominally serves, but it's probably misnamed now - it should probably be called "Tilbrook for Caldecotte Lake" or something.
Talking of the new development, in a parallel universe where EWR wasn't being built I'd more propose an additional station half way between there and Woburn Sands to serve the new development. But in the context that it is, perhaps funding a quality cycle and footpath facility (Redway standard) parallel to the railway between Old Farm Park and Woburn Sands station might be better?
Ridgmont - this is used a fair bit by commuters to the Amazon warehouse and surrounding businesses, and is probably another misnamed station, probably being better named as Brogborough which is much nearer than Ridgmont is. It appears that the proposal is to move it just the MK side of the motorway, which in my view would reduce this usage because of the need to cross, on foot, a major road junction which does not have decent pedestrian provision. I accept there are practical constraints, however. Provision of a decent car park as a J13 Parkway might be useful if a service was going to go to MKC (something I still strongly believe should happen post-HS2, either via a reversal or a new chord). I wonder if it would be possible to move it to behind the warehouses instead?
Apsley Guise - this village is very spread out though there is an area of housing around the present station and the route round both on foot and by car is long. Perhaps a new single carriageway road including a Redway standard cycleway is necessary to connect with Woburn Sands, or at least the cycle facility?
Lidlington - I don't see much of an issue with the proposed move - I suspect the people who live in the houses facing onto the present platform would be happy with that not being there to give them better privacy, provided the road from the village to the new station has a Redway standard (2m minimum width, quality red tarmac surface) foot- and cycle path added. Perhaps this could be along the railway itself as it would only require a small purchase of farmland to do it. Relocated to Marston Crossing with a decent car park and a Redway standard path to Marston Moretaine this would basically render Millbrook completely unnecessary.
Stewartby/Kempston Hardwick - on balance I think the merged station (Wootton Broadmead level crossing I think) might be a good place to have it at the heart of a new eco-village, perhaps? It would mean no station serving the Millennium Park but if there's an attractive landscaped cycle and footpath facility from the merged station to Stewartby lake people might well find that acceptable, given that the main purpose of going there is a walk.
Bedford - I would go for the idea they propose of creating a new Midland station on the depot site, slightly closer to the main bit of the town centre than the present one (though slightly further from the bus station). This could allow St John's to be dispensed with (as it would be less than 500m away) and, with the time saved, could allow retention of Bow Brickhill instead. Could the Council be perhaps brought on board to look at making it part of a major redevelopment of that end of Bedford town centre, which can be a little rough - perhaps consider relocating the bus station and main car park too and redeveloping the old site?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
So all trains between Bedford and Bletchley would stop 5 times? Seems an awful lot. And frustrating for long distance journeys (and times) in the longer future. For now, it's probably ok and may be a welcome change - but you'd want to overlay actual fasts in future.
The proposal is for 4tph, of which two would stop at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont (the ones from Oxford), and the other two would originate from Bletchley (ideally MKC post-HS2 in my view) and call at all (remaining) stations. I'd suggest a read of the consultation document I linked, it is very detailed on their proposals.
I think the best thing they could do is double the line through Fenny and also double it towards Bow Brickhill.
So therefore trains could flow more quickly and easily and woudn't have to slow down to go on to the single line at Fenny then slow down again to rejoin the double line before Bow Brickhill.
If they don't change the current set up at all, I can see it being quite a big bottleneck.
If they did the doubling in those areas plus the one I've heard about they are doing at Bedford St Johns it'd make the line double throughout enabling higher speeds and more trains to flow more easily. Also enables quicker journey times and less emissions while the line is still used by diesel only.
I think the best thing they could do is double the line through Fenny and also double it towards Bow Brickhill.
So therefore trains could flow more quickly and easily and woudn't have to slow down to go on to the single line at Fenny then slow down again to rejoin the double line before Bow Brickhill.
If they don't change the current set up at all, I can see it being quite a big bottleneck.
If they did the doubling in those areas plus the one I've heard about they are doing at Bedford St Johns it'd make the line double throughout enabling higher speeds and more trains to flow more easily. Also enables quicker journey times and less emissions while the line is still used by diesel only.
Having skimmed the document, double track is proposed with new bridges over the main roads.
I missed specific detail on the proposed closures at Fenny S/Bow B.
Having skimmed the document, double track is proposed with new bridges over the main roads.
I missed specific detail on the proposed closures at Fenny S/Bow B.
Fenny is quoted as being quite close to Bletchley, which it is, and the new entrance on the bus station side will take about half a mile off the distance. I suspect the closure of the Simpson Road level crossing will cause more murmuring locally than the station. It's also under 500m from stops served by MK's most frequent bus services.
Bow Brickhill appears to be largely ignored in the consultation, I think it's suggested that Woburn Sands is moved a little closer, which it is, but that misses the point over the station's potential. But my view is that it could be saved if the proposal to move Bedford Midland is carried out as St John's could then close, which would mean it was still 5.
The proposal is for 4tph, of which two would stop at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont (the ones from Oxford), and the other two would originate from Bletchley (ideally MKC post-HS2 in my view) and call at all (remaining) stations. I'd suggest a read of the consultation document I linked, it is very detailed on their proposals.
I since read it, thanks. Agreed on MKC, especially given another platform which might be able to handle reversals on those Bletchley starters. Then MKC would have 2tph each way, which seems right. Not sure what might be needed between Bletchley and MKC in terms of capacity (and MKC in platforming).
It seems solid. Somewhat modest overall on frequencies - with no mentions of the Reading, Norwich, Corby and Northampton which pop up now and then, let alone anything long distance north or west. Good to focus on the cores (and rebuild the main inflection stations) - but I'd hope in time there might be scope for more.
Nothing on Cowley either. Separate ask perhaps (mentioned for Marylebone services, I recall) - but still a potential solve to the Oxford turnbacks issue.
Thought you'd not like it, but it might well be cheaper to provide a free e-scooter[1] to everyone who presently uses it to go to Bletchley on than keep it open on EWR?
My approach to this would be "if the line was completely new, where would you put stations?" without being constrained in thinking by where they happen to be today. I'd go for:
1) "Milton Keynes East", as a sort of railhead for that side of Milton Keynes, picking up the catchment of Bow Brickhill and Woburn Sands
2) Ridgmont. Serves a centre of employment and park and ride opportunity off the M1/A421
3) Somewhere around Stewarton/Kempston Hardwick to tie in with a housing development
4) Bedford St John's, to serve that part of Bedford Town Centre.
My approach to this would be "if the line was completely new, where would you put stations?" without being constrained in thinking by where they happen to be today. I'd go for:
1) "Milton Keynes East", as a sort of railhead for that side of Milton Keynes, picking up the catchment of Bow Brickhill and Woburn Sands
Of course, in a world of integrated transport this would be more useful because you could integrate it and its fares with local electric bus services, connecting the locality to it properly. That remains but a dream
I just don't think Bedford is big enough to justify it. It'd be like having a "Milton Keynes North-Central" to serve Rooksley retail park. Or indeed having both Deansgate and Oxford Road in Manchester, which nobody would do if it was a new build, you'd have one station with 200m platforms basically joining the two.
So an "Old Farm Park for Browns Wood"? Might work, but you'd need a lot of roadbuilding to make it decently accessible. With the new estates you might well get that as planning gain, though, and you could make it a "local centre" with shops, a primary school etc surrounding it, making it a bit of a local hub. If it remained a local stopping route only I would certainly be calling for such a station in addition to the existing ones.
I still think Woburn Sands is big enough (unlike the other settlements along there) to justify a station itself, though. Probably the only settlement along there that really is (Ridgmont is more of a destination). It's also going to get bigger - the locals may not like it but it's in MK unitary area so ripe for expansion. Very likely that the gap between it and Wavendon village will be filled in within 20 years or so which would have it in quite a prime location.
Having skimmed the document, double track is proposed with new bridges over the main roads.
I missed specific detail on the proposed closures at Fenny S/Bow B.
Not read the documents, but Id imagine that re-doubling bits and moving/closing/new stations would likely trigger the demise of Marston Vale signaling centre.
Thought you'd not like it, but it might well be cheaper to provide a free e-scooter[1] to everyone who presently uses it to go to Bletchley on than keep it open on EWR?
The last plans i saw for the simpson road crossing invovled demolishing half the street to build a bridge!
As for the train service the answer is to provide one that is reliable. The failures of the 230's have destroyed several years ( perhaps a decade) of gradual improvement in user numbers.
Ps local community already up in arms about the ideas. Very unhappy! Letters already being drafted to be sent to our local useless tory boy mp
That's been dropped in favour of, er, just shutting it, and providing a connection to the H10 for lorry access, with cars going via one of the residential streets who no doubt won't approve, and pedestrians via the canal.
I suspect this is going to go down like several more, larger buckets of sick with the locals of Fenny and Simpson than even completely closing the entire railway would.
As for the train service the answer is to provide one that is reliable. The failures of the 230's have destroyed several years ( perhaps a decade) of gradual improvement in user numbers.
This was always going to arise as an issue- how to fit the existing stopping service in.
I’d be more tempted to electrify and keep everything open (except perhaps Kempston Hardwick - though does that have more housing around it these days?), and allow better accelerating EMUs to serve all the stations. If most demand is to the ends then it might be possible to do something with skip stopping. How much demand is there for journeys which go from one intermediate station to another?
This was always going to arise as an issue- how to fit the existing stopping service in.
I’d be more tempted to electrify and keep everything open (except perhaps Kempston Hardwick - though does that have more housing around it these days?), and allow better accelerating EMUs to serve all the stations. If most demand is to the ends then it might be possible to do something with skip stopping. How much demand is there for journeys which go from one intermediate station to another?
The existing stopping service is one of the two options proposed. It would be fitted in by rebuilding Ridgmont to have two island platforms (presumably, as that would give the best quality of interchange) to allow the stopper to be looped to let the fasts past.
The argument in favour of "5 stations" is that it would provide those stations with 2tph each way (2 to Bletchley, 2 to Cambridge) instead of hourly to Bedford and Bletchley only, and it'd be cheaper (saving a unit/crew diagram and the cost of redoing more stations).
I’d be more tempted to electrify and keep everything open (except perhaps Kempston Hardwick - though does that have more housing around it these days?), and allow better accelerating EMUs to serve all the stations. If most demand is to the ends then it might be possible to do something with skip stopping. How much demand is there for journeys which go from one intermediate station to another?
It certainly needs wiring. I retain the view that it should be opened fully electrified from day one even if that delays it a year or so.
Kempston Hardwick is in the middle of a (brown)field, though that field may well be ripe for development which is a reason not to just close it. I think having looked at a map, even if the existing stopping service is retained, a point somewhere about half way between there and Stewartby would be an ideal centre for an "eco village" centred on the station with local shops etc nearby and good cycle and walking facilities to that point. So I think I probably would "merge" those two regardless.
I am surprised "skip stopping" wasn't proposed. There might be leisure traffic between some pairs (e.g. Woburn Sands to Apsley Guise as a walk, a pint and a train back might not be an entirely unpleasant little wander) but that just requires some thought as to which you pair up on the same train rather than just blindly alternating them.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Remember the other proposal is still to keep the stopper, so it is feasible. It's just not the one they want to do (because it's more expensive for them). It would be looped at Ridgmont.
One thing they don't point out is that retaining the stopper would result in 4 fast services from Bletchley to Cambridge rather than 2 slow and 2 fast, so there is an upside.
Remember the other proposal is still to keep the stopper, so it is feasible. It's just not the one they want to do (because it's more expensive for them). It would be looped at Ridgmont.
One thing they don't point out is that retaining the stopper would result in 4 fast services from Bletchley to Cambridge rather than 2 slow and 2 fast, so there is an upside.
The consequence of looping the stopper is making an already poor end to end journey time even poorer, with it being faster to change at the looping point. I couldn't imagine it being particularly well loaded when it is only really serving minor station demand.
Though I'm not sure "2 fast, 2 slow" would be a fair description - "2 fast, 2 semi-fast" might be more reasonable, a modest journey time trade-off in two trains per hour but saving quite a bit of infrastructure and the ops cost of the stopper.
The consequence of looping the stopper is making an already poor end to end journey time even poorer, with it being faster to change at the looping point.
I believe we call that a proper connectional timetable, don't we? If Ridgmont is built as two island platforms, it would be literally the perfect concept for interchange - cross platform and near enough (for operational reasons) guaranteed connections.
No doubt they'd build it as two sides and an island just to make it hard, though. We just don't get connections in this country.
I believe we call that a proper connectional timetable, don't we? If Ridgmont is built as two island platforms, it would be literally the perfect concept for interchange - cross platform and near enough (for operational reasons) guaranteed connections.
No doubt they'd build it as two sides and an island just to make it hard, though. We just don't get connections in this country.
Point is the stopper, in demand terms, would be an almost pointless train as it would only exist to serve some pretty quiet stations, and requiring some pretty hefty looping infrastructure to do so. Struggles to pass the the "Value for Money" test in my head.
Point is the stopper, in demand terms, would be an almost pointless train as it would only exist to serve some pretty quiet stations, and requiring some pretty hefty looping infrastructure to do so. Struggles to pass the the "Value for Money" test in my head.
I think it would be a good idea to build the loops anyway for resilience. Otherwise there will be nowhere to pass a train past another one all the way from Oxford to at least Bedford.
If Ridgmont is moving anyway, and it's going into a field, it would be the cost of the track, points and signalling only, pretty much.
I think it would be a good idea to build the loops anyway for resilience. Otherwise there will be nowhere to pass a train past another one all the way from Oxford to at least Bedford.
Although if everything is doing give or take the same speed and stopping pattern, not that much value, arguably (even an "all stations" train from Cambridge to Oxford will be relatively fast!).
I recall the proposed layout includes 3 platforms at Bedford to give this capability, with the added benefit of not being in the middle ofrelative-nowhere. Plus there'll be tricks available at Bletchley if necessary (e.g. stick a late running Oxford bound train into the low level at Bletchley to get it back on time)
Depends how much you trust the farmer now to have the same opinion as the farmer in 5+ years time, and what price the farmer may hold you to if he gets wind that a slice of his field is instrumental to your whole plans...
Dear Marston Vale. We are aware that biblical levels of housing are proposed and under construction in the vale. This is partly because you spent decades fighting the Government and British Rail tooth and nail to save the railway line and as a result most of the new housing is going to be near a station.
We therefore think it would be a spiffing wheeze to close most of the stations, including Bow Brickhill, Millbrook (aka Marston Moretaine) and Kempston Hardwick (aka Wixams) where epic amounts of housing are currently being built.
We also think it a good idea to move Ridgmont Station a mile west so that instead of being walking distance from Amazon Warehouse and Brogborough you have to walk a mile and navigate a busy M1 intersection.
Just for good measure we want to close all the level crossings and stop up half of your local roads while building eyesore bridges in places like Woburn Sands.
If you agree with this we might run two an hour to the remaining five stations.
PS please don't tell the Bedford to Bletchley Rail Users Association as we think they might get a bit cross and they have a rather good track record of stopping people closing stations on the line.
I think it would be a good idea to build the loops anyway for resilience. Otherwise there will be nowhere to pass a train past another one all the way from Oxford to at least Bedford.
If Ridgmont is moving anyway, and it's going into a field, it would be the cost of the track, points and signalling only, pretty much.
The report says it would be two island platforms at Ridgmont, yes. That station moving seems to need to happen whatever option is chosen, be it for space for the loops or for the longer platforms needed for everything to stop.
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
