I'm not a nimby in this particular case. Neither route goes through my area. Wixams wants a station, already has a railway going through it so its not much different from now. Route C in the Bedford area doesn't really affect any households where as route E has a massive impact, requires expensive infrastructure. I'm following a logic that is different from others but that didn't make me a nimby.
I used to live in Bedford (and I still call "Wixams" plain "Elstow dump"). I find it remarkable that they have had the guts to decide on a route that properly incorporates BDM, but I am very glad that they did do that instead of ending up with one of the half-arsed southabout options for trying to sweep the problem under the carpet that it looked like we were going to get stuck with, which would have been a pain in the arse to get to from more or less everywhere except the new estate and would have meant an awful lot of possible journeys being hit with the same kind of "go one stop then change again" problem that arises with Bletchley/MK.
I'm now in Worcester and have the same kind of complaint about Worcester Parkway: it's useless as a station for Worcester because it's not
in Worcester but in the middle of a field, it introduces the "go one stop then change again" problem, it is detrimental to the service to Worcester itself, and its existence creates a situation that makes it more unlikely than ever that some of the local difficulties around Worcester and railways will ever be dealt with properly.
A station that purports to serve a town needs to be in the town, not plonked somewhere random outside it because that happens to be easier; the Victorians learnt this pretty quickly and places that still have stations sited in the days before they'd learnt it still feel the deficiency. The town is where the people are so the station needs to be where they can get to it, and the same applies in the reverse direction - the stuff people want to get to is in the town so a station that isn't in the town is no use, a point which the modern delusion that "it's OK because people can drive to it" disregards. And an interchange needs to be a single point, not a function split over two neighbouring points, otherwise it becomes two interchanges with twice, or more, the awkwardness. On both counts BDM is where the EWR station needs to be, and the argument regarding Bletchley/MK is about the same sort of thing.
If you make the argument that Bedford midland must be on the EWR for connectivity you must apply the same logic to Bletchley and apply a timetable where northern routes are accessible from there also. What is the point of having Bedford getting connectivity, Bletchley not getting it, Oxford getting it etc. Most folk would get off at Bletchley for connections surely.
Regarding the last sentence, well, it depends where they want connections to. But yes, indeed I do apply the same logic to both ends of the Marston Vale section. The trouble is that Bletchley/MK is a more awkward instance of the problem than Bedford, for reasons like the sizes/distances involved, capacity on that bit of the WCML, and the existence of the Marston Vale line itself. What really needs to be done is to build the extra trackage required to do the same "in the south, out the north" thing they have now decided on for Bedford, and invert the configuration at Bedford to go "in the north, out the south". But Bedford's only getting what it's getting because there is currently no track going east from it at all, and asking for that kind of arrangement around Bletchley/MK when an onward line does exist even if it's suboptimal isn't going to happen, so basically a crappy bodge is all we ever are likely to get.