East West Rail (EWR) - "5 stations on the Marston Vale"

[21C101]

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.

If they were not trying to run four trains an hour from Cambridge to Bletchley rather than two as originally envisaged then none of this would be needed.

Even London to Birmingham and Manchester dosen't get four trains an hour. Where on earth do they think the demand for this will come from?

 

[Ianno87]

If they were not trying to run four trains an hour from Cambridge to Bletchley rather than two as originally envisaged then none of this would be needed.

Even London to Birmingham and Manchester dosen't get four trains an hour. Where on earth do they think the demand for this will come from?

EWR is more comparable to something like Liverpool-Manchester-Leeds-York than Euston-Manchester. Demand generated by shorter trips where frequency is relatively important.

Suggest taking a look at traffic on the A421/428 to assess where the demand is. Plus to accommodate housing and jobs that don't exist yet. For once we're putting in the transport capacity first, rather than an afterthought. Let's enjoy that.

And where was 2tph "originally envisaged"? Perhaps EWR have done their sums and that 4tph generate substantially more benefits.

 

[21C101]

If this happens I think it wouid be the biggest set of station closures in 48 years since the closure of the Minehead branch in 1973?

(excluding lines converted to light rail where the stations were replaced with light rail stations)

 

[mr_jrt]

Is it really any different though, in the conversion to light rail the previous heavy rail stations tended to close and be replaced with more light rail stations in new locations, effectively, EWR is proposing the opposite.

If you really want to ignore those though, Northampton-Market Harborough? That was in 1981 for the last time, I believe.

 

[21C101]

Is it really any different though, in the conversion to light rail the previous heavy rail stations tended to close and be replaced with more light rail stations in new locations, effectively, EWR is proposing the opposite.

If you really want to ignore those though, Northampton-Market Harborough? That was in 1981 for the last time, I believe.

Almost without exception the replacement light rail stations are in the same place as the existing stations. In the case of Manchester Metrolink they literally are the same stations. In Croydon they were replaced with low platform stations (plus extra stops).

Market Harborough to Northampton shut in 1981 but all the stations had already closed decades before.

The only other one I can think of that killed of five or more stations since Minehead in 1973 is the Paisley Canal line in the 80s which reopened in short order (bar two or three onto Kilmalcom).

Swanage in ~73 did for two stations, Bridport in 75 did for three Alston in 1976 did for four, Clayton West in early 80's two or three, ditto Tun Wells West in 85. Since then closures have been rare other than light rail conversions due to being incenriarily politically unacceptable.

If they hadn't tried this on they might have got away with shutting Apsley Guise and maybe Fenny Stratford. I doubt they will get away with that now as so much opposition will be galvanised by the proposal to shut five stations and the fight will move on to preventing stopping service cuts at the lesser used stations, if and when the extension from Bedford to Cambridge is built.

 

[Non Multi]

Have EWR published a geographic map for their relocated stations proposal?

 

[tspaul26]

Have EWR published a geographic map for their relocated stations proposal?

Here:
Consultation page

Scroll down to the Maps section and there’s a drop-down menu for Bletchley and the Marston Vale Line which should allow you to access both the PDFs and an interactive version.

Please note that there are station relocations in both Concept 1 and Concept 2.

 

[Non Multi]

Here:
Consultation page

Scroll down to the Maps section and there’s a drop-down menu for Bletchley and the Marston Vale Line which should allow you to access both the PDFs and an interactive version.

Please note that there are station relocations in both Concept 1 and Concept 2.

Thanks for your help.

 

[Ianno87]

If they hadn't tried this on they might have got away with shutting Apsley Guise and maybe Fenny Stratford. I doubt they will get away with that now as so much opposition will be galvanised by the proposal to shut five stations and the fight will move on to preventing stopping service cuts at the lesser used stations, if and when the extension from Bedford to Cambridge is built.

They aren't "trying it on", it's merely a consultation proposal at this point to gather feedback. This is, in my view, very open and transparent on the matter, and articulates the benefits of EWR'a proposed solution very clearly.

I suspect the actual solution adopted will be a hybrid of the two, it's merely the "chalk" and "cheese" solutions that are being presented.

I may be wrong, but don't think the strength of feeling will be as strong as you suggest. Perhaps a village campaign or something, but some of these stations really don't serve all that many people at present. To most, the service is basically an irrelevance that they never use. The support for making the service actually useful (rather than a forgotten backwater whose service gets cancelled every time somebody sneezes) might be stronger.

 

[21C101]

They aren't "trying it on", it's merely a consultation proposal at this point to gather feedback. This is, in my view, very open and transparent on the matter, and articulates the benefits of EWR'a proposed solution very clearly.

I suspect the actual solution adopted will be a hybrid of the two, it's merely the "chalk" and "cheese" solutions that are being presented.

I may be wrong, but don't think the strength of feeling will be as strong as you suggest. Perhaps a village campaign or something, but some of these stations really don't serve all that many people at present. To most, the service is basically an irrelevance that they never use. The support for making the service actually useful (rather than a forgotten backwater whose service gets cancelled every time somebody sneezes) might be stronger.

We will have to agree to disagree. There is huge community involvement in that line, volunteers maintain several of the stations and community action groups have a long track record of preventing the rail authorities from first of all shutting it three times (in 1967, the second attempt where the closure date was fixed for 31st December 1972; and another attempt to subsitute buses on part of the line in 1994).

They also stopped BR from shutting lesser used stations and got BR to replace decayed platforms.

Similarly, they ran successful, long running campaigns prevrnting BR insyalling Automatic Half Barrier level crossings to replace full gated crossings, whivh is why so many manual crossings lasted so long and were in the end replaced with a large number of CCTV full barrier level crossings at great expense, despite the roads being minor and unclassified.

They also persuaded Network Southeast to divert the line from the old Bedford St Johns to Bedford Midland, persuaded Rai,track to provide a bay platform at Milton Keynes and persuaded Network to upgrade the connection from Platform 5 at Bletchley towards Milton Keynes to passenger standards when the area was resignalled about 5 years ago.

In terms of how to save a railway line and promote it, they in many ways wrote the rule book long before it was fashionable.

 

[Ianno87]

We will have to agree to disagree. There is huge community involvement in that line, volunteers maintain several of the stations and community action groups have a long track record of preventing the rail authorities from first of all shutting it three times (in 1967, the second attempt where the closure date was fixed for 31st December 1972; and another attempt to subsitute buses on part of the line in 1994).

They also stopped BR from shutting lesser used stations and got BR to replace decayed platforms.

Similarly, they ran successful, long running campaigns prevrnting BR insyalling Automatic Half Barrier level crossings to replace full gated crossings, whivh is why so many manual crossings lasted so long and were in the end replaced with a large number of CCTV full barrier level crossings at great expense, despite the roads being minor and unclassified.

They also persuaded Network Southeast to divert the line from the old Bedford St Johns to Bedford Midland.

In terms of how to save a railway line and promote it they in many ways wrote the rule book long before it was fashionable.

And now there is a chance to really develop the route into a main line with national strategic importance.

Perhaps the way for them to see the consultation is as a golden opportunity to place stations optimally for the communities they serve, an opportunity most such lines will never see. They can "persuade" East West Rail on the cases for the stations and how local needs are taken into account.

I just don't accept that the starting point should be every station remaining in exactly its present location - there's a chance to do it from "blank sheet of paper", and provide something that brings far more users to rail overall than the present service offering.

 

[tspaul26]

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.

The Strategic Urban Extension for southeast Milton Keynes is focussed to the east of Bow Brickhill, between Old Farm Park and Woburn Sands. The relocated Woburn Sands station in Concept 2 would be pretty much in the middle of it.

The relocated Lidlington station in Concept 2 would be roughly a mile from Marston Moretaine. It would be about 5mins extra walk compared to the Millbrook station.

The relocated Stewartby station in Concept 2 is pretty much the same distance from Wixams as the current Kempston Hardwick station and would be broadly in the centre of an area currently being promoted for additional development.

Ridgmont station is proposed for relocation in both Concept 1 and Concept 2. It would be a roughly 15mins walk from the current station using existing roads. Part of the reason for this relocation is because the triangle north of Aspley Guise and west of the A421 has been identified as an area for growth so the new location would be on the ‘right’ side of the M1 to serve that.

A key part of the jigsaw is that any relocations would have to be as part of a wider package of improvements across the local area, such as proper cycleways and footways. There is also the opportunity to make possible provision for car parking which would be much more difficult at the existing sites.

As others have said, the purpose of the consultation is to obtain people’s views on what the priorities should be: (1) retain the hourly all stops branch service and add EWR on top; (2) consolidate the number of stations, but up the frequency at all of them; or (3) something else.

 

[21C101]

And now there is a chance to really develop the route into a main line with national strategic importance.

Perhaps the way for them to see the consultation is as a golden opportunity to place stations optimally for the communities they serve, an opportunity most such lines will never see. They can "persuade" East West Rail on the cases for the stations and how local needs are taken into account.

Proposing to shut five out of the ten stations (in the first option) perhaps isn't the way to get people onside?

This will lose a huge amount of goodwill from people who otherwise would have supported the project wholeheartedly and will see everything they do in future with the memory of that in mind.

I suspect the net effect will be that more limited such "rationalisation" that they might otherwise have been able to push through will now become impossible along with tbem having to either keep the level crossings or fork out for bridges on paths they want to stop up.

 

[Ianno87]

Proposing to shut five out of the ten stations (in the first option) perhaps isn't the way to get people onside?

It's not really "shutting" 5 stations though is it?

It is proving 5 band new, modern stations (with a considerably improved train service), placed to optimise access to new developments and existing communities across the route as a whole, whilst also considering access to any new locations in terms of walking, cycling and car park provision.

Most people would rather travel a bit further to a relocated station if access is easy and a better service is available as a result.

A genuine opportunity to place stations fit for the community for the future.

 

[21C101]

The Strategic Urban Extension for southeast Milton Keynes is focussed to the east of Bow Brickhill, between Old Farm Park and Woburn Sands. The relocated Woburn Sands station in Concept 2 would be pretty much in the middle of it.

The relocated Lidlington station in Concept 2 would be roughly a mile from Marston Moretaine. It would be about 5mins extra walk compared to the Millbrook station.

The relocated Stewartby station in Concept 2 is pretty much the same distance from Wixams as the current Kempston Hardwick station and would be broadly in the centre of an area currently being promoted for additional development.

Ridgmont station is proposed for relocation in both Concept 1 and Concept 2. It would be a roughly 15mins walk from the current station using existing roads. Part of the reason for this relocation is because the triangle north of Aspley Guise and west of the A421 has been identified as an area for growth so the new location would be on the ‘right’ side of the M1 to serve that.

A key part of the jigsaw is that any relocations would have to be as part of a wider package of improvements across the local area, such as proper cycleways and footways. There is also the opportunity to make possible provision for car parking which would be much more difficult at the existing sites.

As others have said, the purpose of the consultation is to obtain people’s views on what the priorities should be: (1) retain the hourly all stops branch service and add EWR on top; (2) consolidate the number of stations, but up the frequency at all of them; or (3) something else.

Similar arguments hace been used before to try and shut those stations, Kempston Hardwick in particular.

Taking Kempston Hardwick as an example. The existing atation is on the direct road that runs under the midland main line into Wixams. Do you really think a new road or footpath will be built across the midland main line from Wixams to the relocated Stewartby station roughly midway between the current Stewsrtby and Kempston Hardwick stations?

There is an off road walk from Marston to Millbrook Station via the country park. The relocated Lidlington Station will be significantly further away with walking along unrestricted roads required. I would also dispute the 5 minutes extra.

The proposed relocation of Woburn Sands is minor, about 100 yards albeit with an entrance at the MK end which will serve the new development. It doaent serve Bow Brickhill Caldecote or Tilbrooke.

You breezily say a 15 minute extra walk for people from the relocated Ridgmont Station to the old one. So workers at Amazon have a 20 minute walk instead of five minutes, both ways, every day and across the M1 Junction interchange to boot. That is considerable hardship.

I assume from your posts that you are an insider. Did nobody discuss this with the BBRUA to gauge what might or might not be acceptable to them and gain greater understanding of existing usage patterns before publishing options? I'm not a member, but I've always found them very responsive.

EWR appear to have just proposed the bighest branch line station closure proposal for decades, stations that people have fought tooth and nail to prevent closing three times already over the last 50 or so yeara. Was this really wise? Did they expect applause?

Fiennes said of Beeching that he had two flaws. An over fondness for maps, and an over fondness for publishing them. (This was in the context of Fiennes despairing that having quietly closed branch lines in the 50s with little fuss the uproar the beeching report caused made the whole thing far more difficult).

It's not really "shutting" 5 stations though is it?

It is proving 5 band new, modern stations (with a considerably improved train service), placed to optimise access to new developments and existing communities across the route as a whole, whilst also considering access to any new locations in terms of walking, cycling and car park provision.

Most people would rather travel a bit further to a relocated station if access is easy and a better service is available as a result.

A genuine opportunity to place stations fit for the community for the future.

There are ten stations. There will be five. That is shutting five stations.

BR tried similar closures in later years such as closing Redruth and Camborne and replacing them with a new station at Carne Brea.

They generally failed to get off the ground for much the same reasons as this proposal likely will (with the possible exception of Aspley Guise), namely that it was convenient to drive to but not convenient to walk to for either community.

 

[tspaul26]

Taking Kempston Hardwick as an example. The existing atation is on the direct road that runs under the midland main line into Wixams. Do you really think a new road or footpath will be built across the midland main line from Wixams to the relocated Stewartby station roughly midway between the current Stewsrtby and Kempston Hardwick stations?

There is no reason why a new crossing of the Midland Mainline would be needed. The existing one can be used.

There is an off road walk from Marston to Millbrook Station via the country park. The relocated Lidlington Station will be significantly further away with walking along unrestricted roads required. I would also dispute the 5 minutes extra.

I’ve done both: it’s about 5mins difference even on the current road and path network i.e. with no improvements at all

The proposed relocation of Woburn Sands is minor, about 100 yards albeit with an entrance at the MK end which will serve the new development. It doaent serve Bow Brickhill Caldecote or Tilbrooke.

Quite a tad more than 100yrds is under consideration as shown on this map: Map showing area of search for potential relocated Woburn Sands station

You breezily say a 15 minute extra walk for people from the relocated Ridgmont Station to the old one. So workers at Amazon have a 20 minute walk instead of five minutes, both ways, every day and across the M1 Junction interchange to boot. That is considerable hardship.

I have a twenty minute walk each way to work, every day and across a major dual carriageway. I have previously also done ‘the commute’ with a twenty minute walk on top of the time actually spent travelling. It is not in my view a “considerable hardship” as you assert.

They generally failed to get off the ground for much the same reasons as this proposal likely will (with the possible exception of Aspley Guise), namely that it was convenient to drive to but not convenient to walk to for either community.

Out of curiosity, what is it about Aspley Guise that makes it different in this regard?

 

[21C101]

There is no reason why a new crossing of the Midland Mainline would be needed. The existing one can be used.


I’ve done both: it’s about 5mins difference even on the current road and path network i.e. with no improvements at all


Quite a tad more than 100yrds is under consideration as shown on this map: Map showing area of search for potential relocated Woburn Sands station


I have a twenty minute walk each way to work, every day and across a major dual carriageway. I have previously also done ‘the commute’ with a twenty minute walk on top of the time actually spent travelling. It is not in my view a “considerable hardship” as you assert

That map is just a blob starting at the milton keynes end of the existing platforms. Unless they are planning twelve car platforms it is quite imprecise as to where the platforms will actually be.

Yes it is possible to omit a new MML bridge from Wixams to the relocated Stewartby but it would be a longer more indirect route

etc. etc.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. In the end it matters not what is discussed here, there are however very well organised and longstanding campaigners behind the Marston Vale line and I will be guided by their views when responding to this consultation.

 

[tspaul26]

That map is just a blob starting at the milton keynes end of the existing platforms. Unless they are planning twelve car platforms it is quite imprecise as to where the platforms will actually be.

Yes it is possible to omit a new MML bridge from Wixams to the relocated Stewartby but it would be a longer more indirect route

etc. etc.

I think we will have to agree to disagree. In the end it matters not what is discussed here, there are however very well organised and longstanding campaigners behind the Marston Vale line and I will be guided by their views when responding to this consultation.

And your views will of course be taken into account, as will those of all other respondents: local authorities, residents, businesses, developers, technical stakeholders...

 

[21C101]

It

And your views will of course be taken into account, as will those of all other respondents: local authorities, residents, businesses, developers, technical stakeholders...

It is them you need to worry about, not me.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ridgmont station is proposed for relocation in both Concept 1 and Concept 2. It would be a roughly 15mins walk from the current station using existing roads.

That it may be, but those roads do not have any pedestrian facility at all, and so using them would be quite dangerous and feel unsafe in a personal safety perspective due to the isolation. At minimum, a well-lit MK Redway standard cycleway needs to be provided between the new site and the old including a new bridge over the M1 including signalised crossings over all other roads, but there will also need to be consideration of the personal safety angle.

Either that or EWR obliged to fund a shuttle bus in perpetuity (or until not needed by some genuinely objective criteria).

It might only be 15 minutes' walk, but it's about the most unpleasant 15 minutes' walk that can be imagined.

 

[tspaul26]

That it may be, but those roads do not have any pedestrian facility at all, and so using them would be quite dangerous and feel unsafe in a personal safety perspective due to the isolation. At minimum, a well-lit MK Redway standard cycleway needs to be provided between the new site and the old including a new bridge over the M1 including signalised crossings over all other roads, but there will also need to be consideration of the personal safety angle.

Either that or EWR obliged to fund a shuttle bus in perpetuity (or until not needed by some genuinely objective criteria).

It might only be 15 minutes' walk, but it's about the most unpleasant 15 minutes' walk that can be imagined.

This hits the nail exactly on the head and I fully agree: any station relocation needs to look at local connectivity in the round at the same time and, crucially, deliver it as well.

 

[mr_jrt]

Seems Ridgemont's relocation is quite the contentious point. Given it appears to need to move regardless of the option chosen (either to provide room for the loops or to provide for the reduction in stations), what do you all propose then?

It can't have come as a surprise, surely?

You can't have looked at the project and thought, "hmm, they're proposing upgrading the current line to a 100/125mph mainline with 2+ tph regional services, I wonder how that will affect the current all-shacks service?" and concluded that it will just be extra on top with nothing else having to change.

 

[21C101]

Seems Ridgemont's relocation is quite the contentious point. Given it appears to need to move regardless of the option chosen (either to provide room for the loops or to provide for the reduction in stations), what do you all propose then?

It can't have come as a surprise, surely?

You can't have looked at the project and thought, "hmm, they're proposing upgrading the current line to a 100/125mph mainline with 2+ tph regional services, I wonder how that will affect the current all-shacks service?" and concluded that it will just be extra on top with nothing else having to change.

Its about the fourth, in some cases fifth, attempt to close those stations. So I doubt it is a surprise, but likewise it shouldn't come as a surprise to EWR if their proposals run into well organised opposition. Without local campaigners saving that line from closure multiple times there would be no east west rail at all.

On a point of order, saying you are relocating Ridgmont is a bit disingenious. They propose to close Ridgmont and replace it by reopening Husborne Crawley Halt which was at that location on the Husborne Crawley Road until about 1940.

 

[Ianno87]

Its about the fourth, in some cases fifth, attempt to close those stations.

The difference this time (which you seem to keep missing) is actually aiming to replace them with something that is better overall. And seeking local engagement on what this should be. Not many lines like the MV get such an opportunity to be embraced.

 

[bramling]

It's not really "shutting" 5 stations though is it?

It is proving 5 band new, modern stations (with a considerably improved train service), placed to optimise access to new developments and existing communities across the route as a whole, whilst also considering access to any new locations in terms of walking, cycling and car park provision.

Most people would rather travel a bit further to a relocated station if access is easy and a better service is available as a result.

A genuine opportunity to place stations fit for the community for the future.

The question is how many of the current stations are well sited for the community.

Some seem to be, others less so.

The current service seems largely geared around people who are within walking distance of their station, and usable for day trips to Bedford or Milton Keynes, with some concentrated commuter and school use perhaps.

It would probably need to be a good sell for people to accept changing the station sites, which in most cases will probably be detrimental for the types of use outlined above, especially if local people form the view that this is happening to their detriment in order to facilitate benefits for others.

I’m not unpersuaded by the argument that a far more frequent (and more reliable) service to a much wider range of destinations is a decent trade-off for the stations being slightly less conveniently placed, but it would certainly need to be sold carefully.

I’d place a wager that we’ll probably end up with all the current stations surviving.

 

[21C101]

The difference this time (which you seem to keep missing) is actually aiming to replace them with something that is better overall. And seeking local engagement on what this should be. Not many lines like the MV get such an opportunity to be embraced.

The point I am trying to make is that it won't be better for the existing users who generally walk to the station. I'm not convinced it will be better overall, unless you see replacing ten stations that people walk to with five that people drive to as better, which is rather backward environmentally.

I would wager that people like the Kimberley College students using Stewartby, Amazon workers at Ridgmont and MK Dons football fans using Fenny Statford won't be using the train at all if this goes ahead.

 

[Ianno87]

The point I am trying to make is that it won't be better for the existing users who generally walk to the station. I'm not convinced it will be better overall, unless you see replacing ten stations that people walk to with five that people drive to as better, which is rather backward environmentally.

It will be if the trains are more frequent. Take Lidlington for example - the whole village is easily walkable to the station, but I'd wager there's a good number of residents who never use the train at all because it is so infrequent/doesn't take them where they want to go.

I would wager that people like the Kimberley College students using Stewartby, Amazon workers at Ridgmont and MK Dons football fans using Fenny Statford won't be using the train at all if this goes ahead.

Perhaps it may become less attractive for those journeys, but suddenly employment in Oxford and Cambridge becomes significantly more accessible (as well as more frequent connections at Bletchley / Bedford for London), so swings & roundabouts.

It is going to be a balance between trying to meet existing users' needs but also making the line appeal to more users than it does today.

 

[21C101]

It will be if the trains are more frequent. Take Lidlington for example - the whole village is easily walkable to the station, but I'd wager there's a good number of residents who never use the train at all because it is so infrequent/doesn't take them where they want to go.



Perhaps it may become less attractive for those journeys, but suddenly employment in Oxford and Cambridge becomes significantly more accessible (as well as more frequent connections at Bletchley / Bedford for London), so swings & roundabouts.

It is going to be a balance between trying to meet existing users' needs but also making the line appeal to more users than it does today.

Leaving aside Bedford St Johns, there are nine Marston Vale Stations. Ridgmont and Woburn Sands will get more trains with both options.

So option 2 amounts to closing five of the nine stations in return for one extra train an hour at two of them. Lidlington and Stewartby. A train with no statutory protection who's calls could be removed at the stroke of a pen at the next timetable change.

Dosen't sound a very good deal to me?

They have already conceded that if both of the Cambridge Bletchleys call at five stations it works and loops are not needed at Ridgmont.

So how about this, stop both at four stations. Bedford Singens, Stewartby, Ridgmont, Woburn Sands.

Stop one also at Fenny Stratford and Bow Brickhill. Stop the other at Lidlington and Millbrook.

Shut Aspley Guise and temporaily keep one additional call an hour at Kempston Hardwick with a legal guarantee that it cannot close unless and until the mainline Wixams station opens.

Job done. All stations saved except the two least used. No separate stopping trains needed. No loops at Ridgmont needed. Stations that merit it get two an hour. Six stops between Bedford and Bletchley on the Cambridge to Bletchleys, just one more than the consultations propose. No need to spend a foturne rebuilding stations in a different location.

Wouldn't it have been better if they had thought about it a bit and come up with this for optuon 2 instead of the biggest branch line station closure proposal for decades?

 

[Ianno87]

Leaving aside Bedford St Johns, there are nine Marston Vale Stations. Ridgmont and Woburn Sands will get more trains with both options.

So option 2 amounts to closing five of the nine stations in return for one extra train an hour at two of them. Lidlington and Stewartby. A train with no statutory protection who's calls could be removed at the stroke of a pen at the next timetable change.

It would be written into the Train Service Requirement for the eventual operator. Literally no different to any other station anywhere else on the network.

Dosen't sound a very good deal to me?

They have already conceded that if both of the Cambridge Bletchleys call at five stations it works and loops are not needed at Ridgmont.

So how about this, stop both at four stations. Bedford Singens, Stewartby, Ridgmont, Woburn Sands.

Stop one also at Fenny Stratford and Bow Brickhill. Stop the other at Lidlington and Millbrook.

Shut Aspley Guise and temporaily keep one additional call an hour at Kempston Hardwick with a legal guarantee that it cannot close unless and until the mainline Wixams station opens.

Job done. All stations saved except the two least used. No separate stopping trains needed. No loops at Ridgmont needed. Stations that merit it get two an hour. Six stops between Bedford and Bletchley on the Cambridge to Bletchleysl just one more than the consultations propose. No need to spend a foturne rebuilding stations in a different location.

Except that stopping more trains (and longer trains) *is* going to trigger rebuilding the stations as, for starters, they are long enough for the proposed East West Rail trains.

So, if rebuilding is necessary, now is the valid time to ask "are the stations in the right place?" before money is spent wrongly. Maybe the answer is yes, maybe the answer is no.

I think it would not be sensible to automatically just rebuild stations exactly as they are today, without at least thinking about it first.

Wouldn't it have been better if they had thought about it a bit and come up with this for optuon 2 instead of the biggest branch line station closure proposal for decades?

It's actually the biggest branch line upgrade proposal for decades. I'd be seizing the opportunity if I lived on the line. Make the line work better for me.

Besides, what makes you think they haven't thought about it, and that the 5 station option being consulted is just almost showing the most purist/extreme option, and the actual intent is to do something between the two? But be proactive to find out what the locals actually want from the railway.

 

[21C101]

Besides, what makes you think they haven't thought about it, and that the 5 station option being consulted is just almost showing the most purist/extreme option, and the actual intent is to do something between the two? But be proactive to find out what the locals actually want from the railway.

Why only have two options then. Especially if one of the two (fairly obviously to me their preferred option) involves multiple station closures and is guaranteed to cause a lot of controversy as a result.

And as stated in previous posts, the idea that service increases or a train a carriage longer will require a rebuild is nonsense, the platforms are not in poor condition or substandard width etc. I'm not convinced that the majority of platforms will need extension let alone a total rebuild.

Train service requirements can also be changed at the stroke of a pen.