East West Mainline interchanges

[William3000]

I would be very interested to gain other people’s opinions on the proposed East West Rail Mainline’s interchanges with other mainlines it crosses. From east to west, it is proposed to interchange with the West Anglia Mainline at Cambridge; the East Coast Mainline at St Neots South; the Midland Mainline at Bedford; the West Coast Mainline at Bletchley; no interchange with the Chiltern Mainline at Bicester; and the North/South Cross Country route at Oxford. I appreciate there are also proposal to continue it along existing lines to Norwich and Ipswich, and to Swindon and Bristol.

It seems to me that in order to get the biggest benefits out of this line, the interchange options are fundamental. Bearing this in mind I don’t see too many issues at Cambridge as all scheduled trains stop there so interchange options will inevitably be good.

St Neots South will presumable see all Thameslink/Great Northern services stop there in addition to St Neots which is two trains per hour but it seems unlikely that faster LNER services will stop there given some already do at Stevenage and Peterborough. But is there a case for some additional LNER trains to serve it, particularly given it may be the quickest route north up the East Coast Mainline from population centres at Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge? It seems unlikely but is there scope? I note that some of the consultation documents mentioned services to Leeds and Edinburgh so is there a thought that some LNEE services may stop?

The next interchange westwards is Bedford. Bedford appears to have lost several of its longer distance services to Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield in recent years but is there scope for some additional services to stop?

I think Bletchley is interesting. Bletchley was once the major west coast Mainline stop in the area until the construction of Milton Keynes Central. For me this is potentially the most important interchange of all and the one with the greatest potential as it would provide the quickest links from Bedford and Cambridge to Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester. Clearly long distance trains can’t stop at Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central but it would appear to me that there may be a case for Bletchley to once again become the main interchange for the area. There is a lot of economic growth around there and the Milton Keynes Dons stadium is close by. But equally not stopping the inter city trains at Milton Keynes Central would be unpopular for the businesses in that area. I’d be interested to see an analysis of the pros and cons of each. I understand that some of the trains from Oxford will run on to MKC but not sure it’s possible from the Cambridge direction without reversing bays at Bletchley or a north facing curve.

Next is Bicester where there is no proposed interchange. Bicester Village station, clearly has to be located where it is but I wonder whether closing Bicester North and building a replacement Bicester Interchange where the two lines cross would provide sufficient benefits to justify what would be very expensive. It seems to me that of all the lines this is probably the one that could make do with no interchange as I imagine flows of passengers wishing to change would be limited - the only thing that may justify it could be improving rail links from the Midlands to Bicester village.

Finally Oxford I think is similar to Cambridge - the issue here is really platform capacity but as all scheduled trains stop at Oxford, interchange opportunities will be good.

so in summary:

Cambridge: interchange opportunities good
St Neots South: interchange opportunities likely only with Thameslink/GN services so of some but limited benefit but some scope for LNER services to stop but seems unlikely long distance passengers would want to slow their service but maybe scope for some to omit Stevenage and stop at St Neots South instead?
Bedford: interchange facilities good and maybe scope for some additional long distance trains to stop
Bletchley v MKC: which should be the inter city stop? Pros and cons of both but to me Bletchley makes more sense but equally I can’t see it happening
Bicester: limited passenger flows so probably unlikely that interchange will be provided
Oxford: good opportunities

I’d be really interested to hear others’ views.

 

[Bald Rick]

Simple answer is that the route being built now has the prime objective of linking Oxford and the Milton Keynes area, and potentially Oxford to Cambridge. Interchange plays a relatively small part of any benefits for long distance traffic, particularly in a post HS2 world (which you missed off your list, not that there will be an interchange station there). I can’t see long distance trains calling at ‘St Neots South’. - adding 5 minutes into ECML journeys for the sake of a handful of interchangers. And definitely not Bletchley. Bedford is a possibility, especially post HS2 EM leg.

 

[DarloRich]

Long distance trains are not going to stop at Bletchley over Milton Keynes.

 

[William3000]

I agree with much of that but I can’t see how HS2 changes much because HS2 doesn’t have a station between London and Birmingham so most of these areas aren’t going to benefit from it.
I suspect you’re right -interchange will be a relatively small factor but a significant one for small numbers. I’m based in the Cambridge area and I could see myself using EWR to go to Northampton, Luton, Birmingham etc which would require changes. If oaths allow after HS2 is built I could see a case for a Cambridge to Birmingham service via Bletchley and MK. It currently takes about 2hrs 40 and I reckon via Bletchley it would be about 1hr 30

Long distance trains are not going to stop at Bletchley over Milton Keynes.

I agree that you’re likely to be right but what do you think the pros are of stopping at MKC as opposed to Bletchley? I think Luton Airport Parkway now has more long distance services than Luton.

 

[Bald Rick]

I agree with much of that but I can’t see how HS2 changes much because HS2 doesn’t have a station between London and Birmingham so most of these areas aren’t going to benefit from it.
I suspect you’re right -interchange will be a relatively small factor but a significant one for small numbers. I’m based in the Cambridge area and I could see myself using EWR to go to Northampton, Luton, Birmingham etc which would require changes. If oaths allow after HS2 is built I could see a case for a Cambridge to Birmingham service via Bletchley and MK. It currently takes about 2hrs 40 and I reckon via Bletchley it would be about 1hr 30

For a start, post HS2 all long distance trains will call at MK, providing better connections there. (Some EWR trains from Oxford will go to MK).

There won’t be the tracks for a Cambridge to MK (or beyond) service. Even if there were, and there were paths (there won’t be), Cambridge to Birmingham via EWR would still be getting on for 2h.

I agree that you’re likely to be right but what do you think the pros are of stopping at MKC as opposed to Bletchley? I think Luton Airport Parkway now has more long distance services than Luton.

All cons and no pros!

Luton airport Parkway has the same number of long distance services as Luton in the standard hour - none.

 

[William3000]

I get all that but it seems to me that there could be quite a market from the Bedford/St Neots/Cambridge/East Anglia area to the Midlands via this line. I guess the Bletchley trains go to Birmingham anyway. I say this as somebody who travels from Cambridge to Manchester frequently and often drive to Milton Keynes because the direct train via Nottingham takes over 4 hours.

But if Bletchley became the Milton Keynes area rail head what would be the cons? Milton Keynes is a very low density car-based town spread over a large area. It just seems to me that there is a case to focus on the interchange at Bletchley rather than Milton Keynes Central. The only negative I see is that there are a few businesses around Central station that may have increased journey times.

 

[Watershed]

There won’t be the tracks for a Cambridge to MK (or beyond) service. Even if there were, and there were paths (there won’t be), Cambridge to Birmingham via EWR would still be getting on for 2h.

You could surely reverse at Bletchley. Or are there no crossovers being built to allow such a move? Rather an omission if so!

Cambridge to Birmingham is currently 2'38" on the direct XC service, so even if you had a Cambridge to MK service and had to change there onto a "semifast" WCML service, that would still likely be quicker.

 

[Magdalia]

Cambridge to Birmingham via EWR would still be getting on for 2h.

That's a massive improvement on the current 2h45m!

I've always thought that connectivity between HS2 and EWR is a massive missed opportunity. Most other countries would build a big station where the lines crossed, with a big airport next to it. For those old enough to remember, the original recommendation of the Roskill Commission on London's Third Airport was Cublington, not far from where HS2 and EWR cross. That way Heathrow and Birmingham Airports could both be closed.

 

[Falcon1200]

There will be an interchange at Bicester Village between East/West Rail and Chiltern heading south, just not for going north, although an interchange for such traffic is available at Oxford but with additional journey time. There is a direct bus between Bicester North and the Village, but I can't say I've ever seen it especially busy, whereas hordes alight at Bicester Village from the London trains !

Was part of the plan not to run trains off East/West Rail to Milton Keynes, either from Oxford or Aylesbury (the link to which must be built) ? Capacity on the WCML would be an issue but HS2 will eventually solve this.

 

[tspaul26]

the East Coast Mainline at St Neots South

This is not decided yet.

St Neots South will presumable see all Thameslink/Great Northern services stop there in addition to St Neots which is two trains per hour but it seems unlikely that faster LNER services will stop there given some already do at Stevenage and Peterborough. But is there a case for some additional LNER trains to serve it

Not necessarily. There might be none.

I note that some of the consultation documents mentioned services to Leeds and Edinburgh so is there a thought that some LNEE services may stop?

it is being looked at to see if there is a legal mechanism to allow for this, but no more than that.

The next interchange westwards is Bedford. Bedford appears to have lost several of its longer distance services to Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield in recent years but is there scope for some additional services to stop?

I believe Bedford Borough Council certainly hopes it will facilitate the return of more longer distance services along the Midland Main Line at the station.

The opposition group from the parishes north of Bedford doesn’t want services to pass through the town centre station at all, of course.

I think Bletchley is interesting. Bletchley was once the major west coast Mainline stop in the area until the construction of Milton Keynes Central. For me this is potentially the most important interchange of all and the one with the greatest potential as it would provide the quickest links from Bedford and Cambridge to Birmingham, Liverpool, and Manchester.

As above in respect of LNER services.

I understand that some of the trains from Oxford will run on to MKC

Potentially up to two per hour in each direction, although pathing on the West Coast Main Line is an issue that must be overcome first.

not sure it’s possible from the Cambridge direction without reversing bays at Bletchley or a north facing curve

Correct.

I wonder whether closing Bicester North and building a replacement Bicester Interchange where the two lines cross would provide sufficient benefits to justify what would be very expensive.

Unlikely.

Finally Oxford I think is similar to Cambridge - the issue here is really platform capacity

Expansion of the station is under consideration, although nothing is confirmed yet.

 

[William3000]

Looking at the East West consultation pages some of the new or expanded stations look huge.

Cambridge: 10 or potentially 11 platforms (up from 8)
Cambridge South: 4 platforms
Cambourne: presumably 2 platforms
St Neots South/Tempsford: 4 or 6 platforms? Depends whether there are platforms on ECML fast lines
Bedford: 9 platforms (up from 5)
Bletchley: 9 platforms (up from 6)
Bicester Village: 2 platforms
Oxford: 6 platforms (up from 4)

 

[jfowkes]

I've always thought that connectivity between HS2 and EWR is a massive missed opportunity. Most other countries would build a big station where the lines crossed, with a big airport next to it. For those old enough to remember, the original recommendation of the Roskill Commission on London's Third Airport was Cublington, not far from where HS2 and EWR cross. That way Heathrow and Birmingham Airports could both be closed.

Which journeys would it serve though, that couldn't already be handled by traveling to the HS2 Birmingham or London stations? Almost all EWR stations have good connections to Birmingham and/or London.

And then there's the question of HS2 platforms and pathing. Clearly you're not going to stop 16tph at an EWR interchange, so you need platforms on loops. That means leaving gaps in the service pattern so that departing trains can accelerate into them.

 

[William3000]

I don’t think there needs to be an HS2 interchange as long as the West Coast Mainline interchange is good but to miss both seems like a missed opportunity

 

[Nottingham59]

I would be very interested to gain other people’s opinions on the proposed East West Rail Mainline’s interchanges with other mainlines it crosses.

I think your question highlights the real problem with East-West rail. It doesn't really go between major population centres, and the intersections with the main radial lines are not at the places where long-distance trains will be stopping. A bit like Litchfield Trent Valley or Nuneaton - of some use for local journeys but not a great contribution to the main network.

Originally there was talk of trains on EWR running from everywhere to everywhere else, but as far as I can see, the traffic forecasts don't really add up. And so far they don't seem to have addressed the issue of stoppers and level crossing on the Marston Vale line, which will severely limit the number of high-speed expresses which can use EWR.

 

[tspaul26]

so far they don't seem to have addressed the issue of stoppers

I expect they will suffer the same fate as Norton Bridge eventually.

and level crossing on the Marston Vale line

Mass closure seems likely.

 

[mr_jrt]

Maybe it's just me as a former Londoner blinkered by having grown up with the tube, but I don't see the big deal with having to hop on a train for one short hop between MK and Bletchley, as long as the service is frequent enough. Of course, that applies equally well for both sets of passengers (potential interchangers and current MK Central users). I just suspect you well end up with more interchangers than you expect once the journey planners have the routings in them and the service has had some time to bed in.

 

[Watershed]

Maybe it's just me as a former Londoner blinkered by having grown up with the tube, but I don't see the big deal with having to hop on a train for one short hop between MK and Bletchley, as long as the service is frequent enough. Of course, that applies equally well for both sets of passengers (potential interchangers and current MK Central users). I just suspect you well end up with more interchangers than you expect once the journey planners have the routings in them and the service has had some time to bed in.

As soon as you add an interchange you make the journey less attractive. And you've got to consider the overall door to door journey, as well as the available alternatives.

Your average journey in London might involve one or two changes from door to door. Whereas few people live (or are going to) places within walking distance of either MK or Cambridge stations, so that "one change" journey is actually more like a three change journey if you take the bus to/from the station at each end for example.

Given that there is - comparitively - much less congestion outside London, the car is and remains an attractive option.

 

[nw1]

That's a massive improvement on the current 2h45m!

I've always thought that connectivity between HS2 and EWR is a massive missed opportunity. Most other countries would build a big station where the lines crossed, with a big airport next to it. For those old enough to remember, the original recommendation of the Roskill Commission on London's Third Airport was Cublington, not far from where HS2 and EWR cross. That way Heathrow and Birmingham Airports could both be closed.

Except it would be an pain to get to for those of us within reasonably close reach of Heathrow, and Birmingham, who do not want to have to trek all the way up (or down) to deepest Buckinghamshire to catch a flight!

Seriously though, I am very surprised they aren't considering an HS2 interchange in this area. For one thing it would allow Oxford (and potentially Reading and south Hampshire) passengers to interchange onto a fast service north, rather than trundling northwards on the XC. Would be particularly valuable in this respect if some EWR services originated from Reading (or Paddington, you could perhaps save a path by combining a Paddington-Oxford with a Reading-EWR). Perhaps one of the two XC services north from Reading could even be diverted onto EWR: if there was an EWR interchange then the importance of the existing XC route would dwindle and one tph north of Oxford would probably be all that is required.

These sorts of rural HSL stations are commonplace in France, so not without precedent.

 

[JamesT]

Seriously though, I am very surprised they aren't considering an HS2 interchange in this area. For one thing it would allow Oxford (and potentially Reading and south Hampshire) passengers to interchange onto a fast service north, rather than trundling northwards on the XC. Would be particularly valuable in this respect if some EWR services originated from Reading (or Paddington, you could perhaps save a path by combining a Paddington-Oxford with a Reading-EWR). Perhaps one of the two XC services north from Reading could even be diverted onto EWR: if there was an EWR interchange then the importance of the existing XC route would dwindle and one tph north of Oxford would probably be all that is required.

These sorts of rural HSL stations are commonplace in France, so not without precedent.

Are there going to be many places where that’s going to be quicker? For Reading and South surely Old Oak Common is going to be faster. You describe the XC to Birmingham as a ‘trundle’, but the line to Banbury is 110mph which is faster than EWR is planning. I suspect there wouldn’t be much in journey times and the XC is also providing access to Leamington Spa and Coventry etc.

 

[Nottingham59]

I am very surprised they aren't considering an HS2 interchange in this area

But they are. It's called Old Oak Common.

Maybe it's just me as a former Londoner blinkered by having grown up with the tube, but I don't see the big deal with having to hop on a train for one short hop between MK and Bletchley, as long as the service is frequent enough.

But it won't be frequent enough. And if you have to change again at MK to go any further north, that's two interchanges. Which is as many as you would have going via London.

 

[Bald Rick]

These sorts of rural HSL stations are commonplace in France, so not without precedent.

Indeed, and hardly anyone uses them.

As has been said many times before, a stop on HS2 anywhere between Euston and Birmingham Interchange needs all trains to stop, or alternatively fewer trains in the system. The former will cost 7-8 minutes on the journey time (quite significant in the scheme of things), the latter means a reduction in capacity. Both will make the business case for HS2 worse -and considerably so.

 

[swt_passenger]

Except it would be an pain to get to for those of us within reasonably close reach of Heathrow, and Birmingham, who do not want to have to trek all the way up (or down) to deepest Buckinghamshire to catch a flight!

Seriously though, I am very surprised they aren't considering an HS2 interchange in this area. For one thing it would allow Oxford (and potentially Reading and south Hampshire) passengers to interchange onto a fast service north, rather than trundling northwards on the XC. Would be particularly valuable in this respect if some EWR services originated from Reading (or Paddington, you could perhaps save a path by combining a Paddington-Oxford with a Reading-EWR). Perhaps one of the two XC services north from Reading could even be diverted onto EWR: if there was an EWR interchange then the importance of the existing XC route would dwindle and one tph north of Oxford would probably be all that is required.

These sorts of rural HSL stations are commonplace in France, so not without precedent.

I’m surprised you’re surprised. Having been a member 9 years, how many previous explanations that EWR/HS2 won‘t happen have there been by now?

Diverting either of the existing pair of XC Reading - Birminghams has never seriously been proposed, however at one stage a third cross country service from Reading to the north west via Bletchley and the Trent Valley was given an airing. But it’s history now, because long distance paths on EWR were abandoned before the TWA inquiry.

 

[nw1]

I’m surprised you’re surprised. Having been a member 9 years, how many previous explanations that EWR/HS2 won‘t happen have there been by now?

Sorry, yes I think I remember the explanation given by @Bald Rick on a previous thread now. Apologies!

 

[William3000]

Maybe it's just me as a former Londoner blinkered by having grown up with the tube, but I don't see the big deal with having to hop on a train for one short hop between MK and Bletchley, as long as the service is frequent enough. Of course, that applies equally well for both sets of passengers (potential interchangers and current MK Central users). I just suspect you well end up with more interchangers than you expect once the journey planners have the routings in them and the service has had some time to bed in.

Yes but if you’re going from say Whittlesford Parkway to Manchester: it’s a change at Cambridge; another change at Bletchley; another change at MKC

 

[zwk500]

Yes but if you’re going from say Whittlesford Parkway to Manchester: it’s a change at Cambridge; another change at Bletchley; another change at MKC

Is that really a key flow that we should be setting up infrastructure and service patterns around?

As has been said, the purpose of EWR is to connect 3 key centres of employment to areas where major housing development is planned. It's not about facilitating anywhere-to-everywhere seamless public transport journeys. The interchange at Bletchley for MKC is unfortunate, but a necessary compromise to get the connectivity from one side of MK to the other. However, the flows that EWR is designed to serve are unlikely to be wanting to travel north of MKC.

 

[William3000]

Is that really a key flow that we should be setting up infrastructure and service patterns around?

As has been said, the purpose of EWR is to connect 3 key centres of employment to areas where major housing development is planned. It's not about facilitating anywhere-to-everywhere seamless public transport journeys. The interchange at Bletchley for MKC is unfortunate, but a necessary compromise to get the connectivity from one side of MK to the other. However, the flows that EWR is designed to serve are unlikely to be wanting to travel north of MKC.

Not at all - it was illustrative, but I’m still yet to hear a coherent argument as to why Milton Keynes Central should be the main long distance rail head instead of Bletchley. Milton Keynes is a poly centric town and Bletchley would serve the area just as well but simultaneously provide much better connections. If you make Bletchley the main interchange rather than Milton Keynes Central you eliminate one unnecessary interchange from every journey.

Is that really a key flow that we should be setting up infrastructure and service patterns around?

As has been said, the purpose of EWR is to connect 3 key centres of employment to areas where major housing development is planned. It's not about facilitating anywhere-to-everywhere seamless public transport journeys. The interchange at Bletchley for MKC is unfortunate, but a necessary compromise to get the connectivity from one side of MK to the other. However, the flows that EWR is designed to serve are unlikely to be wanting to travel north of MKC.

Just makes sense to make the interchange station on the major junction of two main Lines

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes but if you’re going from say Whittlesford Parkway to Manchester: it’s a change at Cambridge; another change at Bletchley; another change at MKC

Or, more simply, a change at Cambridge and then Ely.

Not at all - it was illustrative, but I’m still yet to hear a coherent argument as to why Milton Keynes Central should be the main long distance rail head instead of Bletchley.

Because a MKC is the centre of MK. Hence the “C”

 

[zwk500]

Not at all - it was illustrative, but I’m still yet to hear a coherent argument as to why Milton Keynes Central should be the main long distance rail head instead of Bletchley. Milton Keynes is a poly centric town and Bletchley would serve the area just as well but simultaneously provide much better connections. If you make Bletchley the main interchange rather than Milton Keynes Central you eliminate one unnecessary interchange from every journey.

MKC central is adjacent to the main bus interchange, the main employment area, the main shopping area and one of the main entertainment areas. It also has the infrastructure to allow trains to recess on either Fast or Slow lines without interfering with other traffic. Bletchley is, with respect to @Bletchleyite, a suburban station for people travelling to London or MKC. There are many fewer employers in the area, the Stadium hosts a handful of events a year and Bletchley town centre does not attract visitors from beyond the immediate environs.

Just makes sense to make the interchange station on the major junction of two main Lines

EWR isn't a 'main' line comparable to the WCML, its a regional connection comparable to Birmingham-Nuneaton-Leicester. Yes, if you were starting with a blank canvas you'd route EWR via MKC, but you can't do that now so the compromise is that people from Bedford direction have to change at Bletchley, which is no worse than the existing situation.

 

[GatwickDepress]

Not at all - it was illustrative, but I’m still yet to hear a coherent argument as to why Milton Keynes Central should be the main long distance rail head instead of Bletchley. Milton Keynes is a poly centric town and Bletchley would serve the area just as well but simultaneously provide much better connections. If you make Bletchley the main interchange rather than Milton Keynes Central you eliminate one unnecessary interchange from every journey.

Milton Keynes Central is where people want to go. It has the offices, the shops, and the transport connections. Bletchley, in comparison, has Stadium:MK, the National Museum of Computing, and one of Buckinghamshire's dodgiest bus stations.

Commuters would not be happy at having to get off their Avanti trains just to rush over the footbridge for a train to Milton Keynes, all for the sake of a handful of people a day who would make use of a direct InterCity connection at Bletchley.

 

[Bald Rick]

Just makes sense to make the interchange station on the major junction of two main Lines

It *always* makes sense to make the station where most trains call at the location where most people will use it. In this case, that is MKC.