How many paths exist between Northampton and MK to get this freight to EWR?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
East West Mainline interchanges
- Thread starter William3000
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Seems to me that "future need" has ended up going out the window, with various kinds of "it will enable..." things turning into "er well actually it won't", and minor things like additional curves at junctions getting stuck in the "not going to happen" bin, as the design gets pared back to something that is an exact match to the very specific proposed needs they have cooked up by anal extraction to look good in the latest report, and anything that might improve flexibility to allow for other uses arising in future or even being planned gets disallowed because it would cost a bit more and they've already wasted enough money fannying on with endless reports while the cost endlessly rises to have had it open already if they'd got on with it in the first place.
What it looks like we're getting is something that doesn't even get as far as restoring what was lost, meets only a very narrow specification for "future need" and no more than that, and is inflexible enough that it will never be able to meet any kind of need which differs too much from that - whether as a future possibility or even that is currently known to exist - without a disproportionate amount of grief building some small extra bit which would not have been a significant extra hassle if it had been done at the same time as the rest of it.
I find the lack of consideration for north-pointing connectivity particularly disappointing. It seems to have ended up with far too many junctions pointing the wrong way for a lot of otherwise possible freight traffic, without any chance of curves to fill in the missing direction, and the discussion in this thread about logical connectivity for passenger services getting the same treatment and nobody seems to care is most depressing. It's a long-standing deficiency of the railway network in this country (and the roads too, to a lesser extent) that it seems to assume that the only place anyone ever wants to go to is London, and you can safely ignore the idea of people wanting to go somewhere else. If you do want to go to London, or to somewhere that's on the way to London, it's pretty straightforward. If you want to go crossways, or make a journey that turns away from London, it's a lot more difficult and a lot slower. It gets difficult even to argue that the non-London-based connectivity should be better, as "nobody bothers trying because it's too much of a pain" gets interpreted as "no demand", and any example of a particular journey for which such improved connectivity would be an advantage tends to get the response that the number of other people wanting to do that exact same journey isn't enough to justify making it easier, which may be true on its own but ignores all the hundreds of other possible journeys that a few people want to do which would share in the improvement.
That some currently awkward journeys are in fact comparably quick if you make a 200km detour into London and out again - which in some cases does actually seem to be true - does not mean that the situation is "fine" and doesn't need addressing. If a more direct route can take roughly the same time as one that goes 200km extra, it means the journey is far too slow either way and the direct route is rubbish. It doesn't make it less rubbish that a much longer route isn't more rubbish; it means they both are, and the situation does need addressing. Not to mention that operators who go in and out of London tend to hammer you much worse on fares than ones which don't.
I had always hoped that EWR would make a significant difference to this problem, and it is most disappointing to find it being described as concentrating only on east-west traffic within its own arc plus whatever bit it can pick up from people in the mostly rather small places that currently don't have a railway wanting to go to London, and actively declining to consider those who want to go the other way or to use it as part of a longer crossways journey. I agree with the various posters who say what a pain it is making crossways or crossways/northwards journeys by the means that currently exist: the journeys I've made that share in some of the routing have always been a grind and a bind, and if there's been a choice of routes both have been awful. I also concur that "change at Bletchley then at MK" and its relatives do suck.
I do admit that it's a difficult problem to deal with the suboptimal alignments at all the points it intersects north-south main lines, and I am thoroughly impressed with the current idea of going north-about Bedford, which I thought was too unlikely to bother thinking about (though not installing an east-to-north curve while they're digging all the rest up is a deficiency). It works much better than any of the ideas which stuck to going south-about would have (some of which were terrible), given the constraint of using the Marston Vale line. I guess that constraint was sort of inevitable, but it's going to be a long-standing problem having that stuck in the middle of it with so many stations, no loops, and all the level crossings which are impossible to remove, and it excludes any decent possibility of dealing with Milton Keynes having been built in the wrong place. Commuting between Bedford and MK will remain unfeasible. I would have preferred to see them revive the old Victorian idea of carrying on from Newport Pagnell to join the Northampton-Bedford line near Olney, then do the zig-zag through Bedford the opposite way and come out along the old Sandy route, which would add MK to the route in the same way they worked Bedford in and avoid the Marston Vale bottleneck.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,934
None of those will have 16 from the start, if ever, they will be lucky to get past 4 or 5 for several years.
The project requirement is to deliver one freight path every two hours in each direction between Oxford and Bletchley.
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 15,934
Which it does by default, its an odd requirement.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Well, Luton Airport Parkway has a bit of an obvious bonus
Turning to Bletchley.
Negatives:
- Poor accessibility by all transport options ( local road network simply not up to the traffic levels? Are there buses that serve the station)
- Poor local transport links/interchanges
- no access to station from town centre/bus station side of the line
- Poor station facilities
- Lower levels of parking
- Not as well placed as MKC for local road network ( MKC adjacent to dual carriage way A5)
- situated right at the south end of the MK area.
- therefore not close to most MK housing areas
- also, therefore, not close to the main MK retail/commercial/business zones
- Bletchley now quite a poor town centre therefore not much commercial opportunity in the area
Pro:
- it is nearer my house than MKC.
- 5 minutes by train from my station thus one less change to worry about
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I'd argue Bletchley town centre has simply relocated, with what is left of the old one just being a fairly poor but larger-than-most "local centre" as most estates have. This isn't the first time that has happened; before the 1930s-1960s overspill developments, Bletchley village centre (wasn't really a town then) was at the crossroads by the Three Trees pub, this is why there were a collection of pubs there (of which only two are left, the Trees as a gastropub type thing and the Swan as the drinker's pub that happens to do Spoons-like food), and Bletchley Park and the railway was on the edge. The present centre is basically a more recent thing (and you can tell by looking at the buildings - there are no genuinely old buildings there at all*, it's all 30s or later).
Of course, while it might make sense to refocus the bus network on serving the bit people want to go to more (the stadium development and surrounding supermarkets etc), it's a bit far from the station for that to directly serve it. Fenny Stratford is nearer but still a fair walk.
As for why MKC, I think @DarloRich has summed it up well. The original intention with MK was that there wouldn't be a central railway station, the existing Wolverton and Bletchley would be renamed "Milton Keynes North" and "Milton Keynes South". But it was rapidly realised that with the centre being a destination in its own right that one would be needed.
(Along similar new-town type lines, there's a lot of talk of a station for Skelmersdale when it of course has one - Upholland - but it's so peripheral that it's an irrelevance to most - Bletchley would be the same)
* Bar I think the Conservative Club, which was probably just some sort of local pub back then. There is some Victorian terraced housing, but that doesn't make it the centre
Of course, while it might make sense to refocus the bus network on serving the bit people want to go to more (the stadium development and surrounding supermarkets etc), it's a bit far from the station for that to directly serve it. Fenny Stratford is nearer but still a fair walk.
As for why MKC, I think @DarloRich has summed it up well. The original intention with MK was that there wouldn't be a central railway station, the existing Wolverton and Bletchley would be renamed "Milton Keynes North" and "Milton Keynes South". But it was rapidly realised that with the centre being a destination in its own right that one would be needed.
(Along similar new-town type lines, there's a lot of talk of a station for Skelmersdale when it of course has one - Upholland - but it's so peripheral that it's an irrelevance to most - Bletchley would be the same)
* Bar I think the Conservative Club, which was probably just some sort of local pub back then. There is some Victorian terraced housing, but that doesn't make it the centre
DarloRich
Veteran Member
8 surely. 6 + 2 on the flyover
Not while I have urine in my body.
Agreed
harsh. I have been in much worse. ( altohugh perhaps not in Bucks)
argh. Kenny pass me zantax.
Passenger wise I am not sure what this gains over a reversal at Blethcley and I am unsure if the freight potential is worth the cost and disruption.
snap
IRC Queensway was pushed through in the mid 60's clearing away many of the older buildings and moving the centre of the town to the current location. Prior to this Bletchley Road/ Queensway was, apparently (according to an elderly neighbour of mine), quite an upmarket residential area although the changes to the town were said to have been really popular and that the high street was quite busy in those days. The development of MK changed that.
Also this all meant that Blethcley & Fenny Stratford become conjoined/subsumed. Fenny, of course, being the older and better settlement
And we STILL haven't got a station entrance facing the blooming town centre/bus station!
ExRes
Established Member
That brings back some (partial) memories, I did a four week course at Bletchley Park as a 16 year old in the early 70s, there was a pub a few minutes walk/stagger from the BP front gates which I had the pleasure of being thrown out of both individually and as a group, I then 'progressed' to a second four week course in Portsmouth .........
DarloRich
Veteran Member
The crossings are far from impossible to remove but many are difficult. More of a concern is the stopping service. Us mere plebs using the Vale don't seem to be worthy of consideration but our reward for putting up with a constantly bad service seems to be, rather than the promised improvement, to be deleted from the network.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
EWR is not being designed for "high speed expresses" and it is likely that none will ever use it. It's a regional line, somewhat akin to the many of those you find all over the North, like for example TPE which despite the name is really a glorified regional express with far fancier, pointer-nosed trains than such a thing would normally get. It's about connectivity, not high speed.
The EWR proposal is to reduce the number of stations to 5, which would mean closure of Fenny Stratford and Bow Brickhill but retention of Bedford St John's, which I think is the wrong way round - there should be a south east MK station with housing development all around it (probably lo, and St John's should close. But other than the issue of those three, and the need for a cycle path to be constructed between Apsley Guise and Woburn Sands as while they're quite close together there is no quick route between them, it is mostly quite a good idea, and can be combined with "eco villages" surrounding each of the "brownfield" stations that are presently in the middle of nowhere and barely used, while giving a bit more line capacity.
The Eight Belles, I suspect, assuming you mean its original gates rather than the current newer ones on Sherwood Drive. Still there, though it's had hard times of late.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
That is one of the proposals and that generated a violently negative response from the local communities, councillors and the MP's involved. The idea of "merged stations" was laughable.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They made a lot of sense in my view in terms of both creating value for the line by way of larger, higher quality stations with better facilities (e.g. parking, decent shelters etc), and allowing them to have a much more frequent (2/3tph rather than 1tph) service as well as saving a couple of units. I don't doubt I'd not be a fan if it meant losing my local station, but Fenny Stratford is very poorly-used indeed.
As one example, closing Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick, and building a replacement on the road that crosses the railway in between the two, surrounded by a decent-sized new brownfield eco-town with the "local centre" with supermarket etc next to the station, would be a good idea with almost no downsides. The only thing that would be served worse by that is the watersports centre on Stewartby Lake presently right next to the station, but I wonder how many use the train to reach that? Probably 0. (If you want to go for a walk or bike ride you can just start it at Millbrook instead)
But nobody likes change. I can recall the vitriolic shouting when the West Coast Route Modernisation reduced the number of Virgin trains stopping at MKC and, coupled with the improved local service and 12-car lengthening, moved the commuters to primarily use local services intended for them. It made absolute sense and worked well right up to COVID compared with the previous situation of them packing out Virgin trains and preventing long distance travellers getting on.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
Fenny would be better used if there was, you know, an actual train service that was reliable! ( or even operating) The numbers along the line were improving until the train service fell apart followed by COVID. I am not sure the number of tickets sold reflected that mind.
As for the rest they can do what they like as long as they keep my station open
Perhaps for the same reason that LNER don't stop all theirs at Peterborough or Avanti stop any of theirs at Northampton ?
And whilst not Thameslink there is now the Corby electrics service which runs 2tph and stops at Bedford / Luton. As an interchange for people coming from Leicester / Nottingham, that's a pretty good option.
Stopping other EMRs at Bedford would have a number of negative effects - firstly it slows down the expresses from S Yorks / East Mids, secondly the number of people who'd boarded such trains that want or need to alight at Bedford is minimal, thirdly the number of passengers north from Bedford to stations beyond Kettering is minimal and lastly it causes over-crowding on the peaks into / out of London. Before the Corby electric service arrived, I used EMR from Wellingborough to London several times a year on business and if you got any of the departures between 5pm and 6pm which called at Luton and Bedford they'd be full and standing on leaving Luton, full to Bedford and then, at best, 2/3rds full leaving Bedford. Now if you've paid a ticket of over a £ 100 to travel into St P from north of Bedford (which had no shortage of other services) it was pretty poor if you couldn't get a seat to Bedford simply because the train was being used by Bedford commuters to save 5-10 minutes.
norbitonflyer
Established Member
Bicester - there will be connections to/from the south (Princes Risborough, Wycombe, etc) at Bicester Village, and to/from the north (Banbury and beyond) at Oxford. As there are no stations on the Chiltern Main line between Bicester and Aynho Junction (where it meets the line from Oxford) it is difficult to see what purpose an interchange station where EWR crosses the Chiltern Main line would serve.
I'm sure I'm having deja vu - and previously when freight from Felixstowe was talked about it was determined that EWR wasn't the solution, in part because Newmarket had gauge restrictions and you'd have to run them through Cambridge, whereas sorting out Ely North junction was a far better solution for those. Or am I imagining this ?
Eh ? No it wasn't.
Take a look at Timetable world from 1963.
Even back then Oxford had services running to Banbury which connected with the Paddington - Birmingham - Birkenhead services (the latter having run via Wycombe) as well as some from Oxford - Wolverhampton (which took 2 hours to get to Wolves).
The service from Oxford to Bletchley was every 2 hours and took an hour just to cover that leg.
From Cambridge - Bletchley was even worse ~ 7 trains, unevenly spaced. There was 1 train which ran "fast" stopping only at Bedford, that took just over an hour to cover Cambridge to Bletchley, the rest took 90+ minutes.
Cambridge passengers would almost certainly have headed up the ECML and changed at Doncaster.
Last edited:
I'm looking at 1965, because I have suitable timetables in book form.
The connection off the 1043 Cambridge-Oxford onto the 1125 from Euston is good, but you're right, most of the other connections at Bletchley are rubbish!
And it is easy to forget the few "once per day" cross country services in that era. Once the Pines was diverted off the S+D it gave a good through train from Oxford to the North West, and Cambridge was only an easy connection at Ely away from the North Country boat train. It was only travellers that needed to travel at a different time that needed to consider other options.
These days, instead of one train a day in comfort, we have lots of trains on those routes but only in a Voyager or a class 158.
Well if you think a draughty, steam heat Mk1 running at 60 mph is a better offer than either a Voyager or 158 running regular, clock face timings at closer to 100mph, then I think you're wearing your sepia tinted glasses.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
And the problem with one train per day is that if it isn't at a time suitable for your needs it might as well be no trains per day.
Nottingham59
Established Member
When I used the term "high speed" I meant 100mph regional expresses, which are much higher speed than what currently serves the Marston Vale line. So I think we agree there.
But the point remains that the original plans for EWR, talks about lots of trains to lots of places. See for instance the GRIP4 Business Case (from 2010, page 19:
https://www.railfuture.org.uk/ox-cam/docs/EWRGRIP4BusinessCaseExecutiveSummaryJuly2010.pdf )
Since 2010, they dropped through services to Reading, and through services to MKC and Aylesbury are now being described as "upgrades".
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Ah. There isn't really anything like that in the current plan either; everything would be stopping at two Marston Vale stations, most likely Woburn Sands and Ridgmont, being the busiest two, plus Winslow on the other side.
100mph units will be used, but they won't have much chance to reach 100mph.
The Chiltern Line itself is probably a decent comparison, and that manages to combine the Wycombe stopper with Birmingham fasts on a double track route.
Well, let's see what the report *actually* said:
"There is also the potential to consider longer distance Cross Country passenger services that could be made direct by running via the western section of EWR. In addition to the potential for new passenger operations, the linkages between the main lines provides many opportunities for developing new freight routes between the Port of Southampton and destinations in the midlands, north west and north east of England and Scotland. A preliminary analysis of potential national passenger and freight rail benefits indicates:
• EWR has the potential to increase flexibility in the routings available to cater for demand increases on Cross Country services;
• EWR could provide opportunities to provide new direct services on the NE to SW axis of movement without having to travel through the West Midlands Conurbation;
• Resilience of the rail network could be enhanced by EWR through its provision of an alternative route for NE-SW axis Cross Country services due to engineering works or unplanned incidents;
• EWR can provide additional capacity to the NE-SW route for passenger and freight services by providing a route which avoids the congested West Midlands conurbation
• EWR could potentially provide engineering access to assist with the construction and maintenance of High Speed 2"
Lots of "coulds" and "potentiallys" - not alot in terms of concrete plans.
And in reality, it's difficult to see what some of the suggested "links" could actually, meaningfully provide e.g. a link onto the ECML - so what would that be useful for ? A Bristol - Lincoln service via Oxford, Bedford and Peterborough - I can't see that being well used. The link onto the MML is another which gets peddled with things like Reading - Nottingham, except it conveniently ignores that Oxford - Nottingham was suggested previously by Regional Railways and never came to pass. And by going along the MML you serve places like Bedford and Kettering at the expense of Coventry or Birmingham - guess which have the greater traffic potential.
Nottingham59
Established Member
I completely agree with you. I was just pointing out that EWR was sold on the potential for all these links, which are now proving to be illusory.
I still stand by my original observation, which is where the phrase "everywhere to everywhere else" came from.
As mentioned by DarloRich (see below), this was only one of two service patterns under consideration and is not a firm proposal.
You are not imagining it, although it hasn’t stopped the two principal NIMBY groups in South Cambridgeshire and Northeast Bedfordshire from trying to scaremonger.
Not necessarily. The whole point of having public consultations is to see what people think about emerging proposals and see if there are any other viable options that deserve consideration - and may well end up being selected as the preferred option at the end of the day.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
Four Ashes? Not heard of this one
details available via the best evening newspaper money can buy
West Midlands Interchange: Huge rail hub approved despite residents' four-year fight
The West Midlands Interchange has been given the go ahead, the Department for Transport has confirmed.
DarloRich
Veteran Member
i think it was 3 initially - or at least 2 + 1 dependent on loops at, perhaps, Forders.
Well, yeah, technically, but the ones that have building around them make it pretty hard to install a bridge either over or under. Lidlington in particular, with the slope of the road as well as the road junctions and buildings, I can't see how you could ever do anything about without some kind of massive and destructive alterations. You really need to move the crossing point entirely but then that splits the place in two.
I wasn't intending to suggest that at all. Having used that service myself a few times I'm all in favour of a considerable improvement. The trouble is that with so many stations so closely spaced it's already beginning to get tricky to find the capacity just for a decent local service, never mind fitting in significant through traffic as well. I was bemoaning the effect of the constraint on EWR to use the existing route in imposing the restriction of this bottleneck section on both EWR services proper and on the Vale local service.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 7,933
Cheers, I thought it might be an error and it should have read Four Oaks.details available via the best evening newspaper money can buy
West Midlands Interchange: Huge rail hub approved despite residents' four-year fight
The West Midlands Interchange has been given the go ahead, the Department for Transport has confirmed.www.expressandstar.com
- Status