East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

[Andyjs247]

If there is a serious intention to run through services from the west beyond Cambridge to Norwich and Ipswich (and it seems a big 'if'), ideally you'd approach Cambridge from the south to avoid reversal. Granted it is not such a problem with MU stock but freight would have to run round. The old route via Sandy did approach from the south but is obstructed by a busway and radio telescopes so some new build would be necessary. Or you could link in to the existing Hitchin-Royston-Cambridge route which would be longer.

In an ideal world with £££££ to spend I would have new build from the MML north of Bedford, a link with the ECML at St Neots (W-N & S-E connections) then via Cambourne to Cambridge roughly following the A428 then M11 south. The final section is not so obvious but maybe the approach to Cambridge could be tunnelled to avoid taking a long detour?

Not going to happen though...

 

[mr_jrt]

I've long wondered about the aspiration to reach Ipswich. Would reaching Stansted not generate more traffic?

 

[Abpj17]

There are a few pretty fundamental points missed:
1) The economic benefits are at its strongest when you add in connectivity to Luton Airport (and a town of that population size)
2) Few will ever use the route for the full Oxford to Cambridge route - it will always be quicker via London, but those not pressed for time might prefer the more scenic route without the need for changing in London. Changing in London isn't a great experience.
3) Some of the biggest benefits come from the E-W connections between major towns which are currently vary from ok to awful via public transport - rending it difficult for commuters, including school, college and university students. In comparison, for example, there is lots of traffic seen up and down the Bed Pan line with e.g. v. common to see airport works and kids going to the popular independent schools in St Albans and Bedford. The major connections would be e.g. Oxford to MK; MK to Bedford/Luton; Bedford/Luton to Stevenage/Hitchin/Letchworth.

 

[70014IronDuke]

There are a few pretty fundamental points missed:
1) The economic benefits are at its strongest when you add in connectivity to Luton Airport (and a town of that population size)
2) Few will ever use the route for the full Oxford to Cambridge route - it will always be quicker via London, but those not pressed for time might prefer the more scenic route without the need for changing in London. Changing in London isn't a great experience.
...

I don't think any serious advocate of the route imagined anything but a minority of future passengers on a completed E-W Rail would be Oxford - Cambridge. It is, as you say, a massive combination of towns that could be linked up, from Reading to MK, or MK to Cambridge, or Bedford to Norwich etc - using connections, of course.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Luton-Bedford-St Neots-Peterborough-Doncaster involves as many changes as the existing service Luton-Bedford-Leicester-Sheffield-Doncaster and is no more direct. I don't see the benefit.

I tend to agree. If you are going Luton or Bedford - Doncaster (or any station to the north on the ECML) I think the present service, up the MML and then across, suffices. Not idea, of course, but doable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A little historical diversion I hope will interest people...

Back in 1846, the Eastern Counties Railway planned a railway line from Cambridge to Bedford via Shepreth, Biggleswade and Cardington, partly as a ploy to keep their rivals out of the region. They ran out of cash before they could start, but when the GN wanted to extend from Royston to Cambridge, an arrangement was come to where the ECR built their proposed line as far as Shepreth, and the GN joined up to it from Royston. I went and got the drawings from the County Archives in Cambridge and photographed them. The route was planned by Robert Stephenson & Co, and features gentle gradients, a short tunnel, and more than a few level crossings - including the notorious one at Foxton!

This was at the same time as the ECML was being planned - it appears on their drawings as "parliamentary line of London-to-York railway" and they show both a flyover and a series of flat junctions with the ECML.

I was curious to see how much of Stephenson's route would usable today. It's pretty easy to trace on modern imagery, and the key present-day obstacles are:

- Bassingbourn Barracks
- the town of Biggleswade, which has expanded considerably
- the Bedford bypass

Interestingly, the ECR's planned route into Bedford was built by the Midland Railway as part of their Bedford-Hitchin line (their original route to London) and so mostly still exists.

EDIT: here's a Google Maps link showing (roughly) the line of the route.

It's a shame this wasn't built, rather than the Potton/Sandy route. Biggleswade was a much bigger place than Sandy, and it had a school (stratton) that would have made it a commuter destination in the 60s - nobody commuted to Sandy. That, and the fact that it involved more shared costs with other services, might have helped the line survive.

As a further point to ponder, in terms of how difficult it is to do the eastern bit of any proposed link up, imagine you are a planner alive in 1962 and can see the problems faced in 2012. In other words, you need an east-west route to be kept alive - which one would you keep?

Oxford-Cambridge? Fine at the western end and up to Bedford, but not very fast and no big towns between Bedford and Cambridge.

Further north, you have the mirror image of this, ie

Banbury? - Northampton-Peterborough - Cambridge? not bad on the Northampton - Peterboro for speed I imagine (I never used it east of Irthlingboro').
But, no common MML line station, no easy link to Peterborough North (needs reversal) and, east of Northampton, the line was a tertiary route to Banbury.

Kettering - Thrapston-Huntingdon - Cambridge. Lightly laid, reversal at Huntingdon. How do you go west from Kettering?

Futher south, you had Leighton Buzzard to Luton and Hatfield. Again, not ideal.

so even pre Beeching, there was no obvious route to develop - even if Beeching did choose Oxford-Cambridge originally.

 

[a good off]

A little historical diversion I hope will interest people...

Back in 1846, the Eastern Counties Railway planned a railway line from Cambridge to Bedford via Shepreth, Biggleswade and Cardington, partly as a ploy to keep their rivals out of the region. They ran out of cash before they could start, but when the GN wanted to extend from Royston to Cambridge, an arrangement was come to where the ECR built their proposed line as far as Shepreth, and the GN joined up to it from Royston. I went and got the drawings from the County Archives in Cambridge and photographed them. The route was planned by Robert Stephenson & Co, and features gentle gradients, a short tunnel, and more than a few level crossings - including the notorious one at Foxton!

This was at the same time as the ECML was being planned - it appears on their drawings as "parliamentary line of London-to-York railway" and they show both a flyover and a series of flat junctions with the ECML.

I was curious to see how much of Stephenson's route would usable today. It's pretty easy to trace on modern imagery, and the key present-day obstacles are:

- Bassingbourn Barracks
- the town of Biggleswade, which has expanded considerably
- the Bedford bypass

Interestingly, the ECR's planned route into Bedford was built by the Midland Railway as part of their Bedford-Hitchin line (their original route to London) and so mostly still exists.

EDIT: here's a Google Maps link showing (roughly) the line of the route.

Thanks Mike, really interesting. With a bit of tweaking, most of that route is still available through open farm land now.

 

[richieb1971]

Thanks Mike, really interesting. With a bit of tweaking, most of that route is still available through open farm land now.

Its almost the same as the Arlesey idea I had yesterday. And Arlesey is smaller and can accommodate the line. And to me is BY FAR the best solution to this problem.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Yes, but I'm not advocating a Tamworth-style solution. I'm advocating a more Nuneaton-like solution where all platforms are parallel but the EWR route still does remain operationally separate from the ECML. The justification for that would be that it would then be feasible to run services between the two lines in future.

This seems quite effective to me as you thus skirt the northern Sandy estates that have been built over the old route. Bearing in mind what others have written about the Cambridge station being not very handy for the science centres, do you have an approach route to Cambridge in mind?

That pretty much matches my thoughts on the EWR central section, from the old St Johns the route to the outskirts of Sandy looks looks fairly clear. Once on the outskirts of Sandy HowardGWR's diversion to the north of the town over the ECML before curving south* to run parallel with the ECML to two new platforms to the East of Sandy station. The line would then be a largely new route across Cambridgeshire (possibly with an intermediate station at Potton if the line is close enough) to then join with the existing line to the North of Foxton (bypassing the level crossing) and use the existing approaches into Cambridge.

*Not sure of tight radius of the curve needed to go over the ECML and then run south would be or how it would affect the speed

 

[RT4038]

As a further point to ponder, in terms of how difficult it is to do the eastern bit of any proposed link up, imagine you are a planner alive in 1962 and can see the problems faced in 2012. In other words, you need an east-west route to be kept alive - which one would you keep?

Oxford-Cambridge? Fine at the western end and up to Bedford, but not very fast and no big towns between Bedford and Cambridge.

Further north, you have the mirror image of this, ie

Banbury? - Northampton-Peterborough - Cambridge? not bad on the Northampton - Peterboro for speed I imagine (I never used it east of Irthlingboro').
But, no common MML line station, no easy link to Peterborough North (needs reversal) and, east of Northampton, the line was a tertiary route to Banbury.

Kettering - Thrapston-Huntingdon - Cambridge. Lightly laid, reversal at Huntingdon. How do you go west from Kettering?

Futher south, you had Leighton Buzzard to Luton and Hatfield. Again, not ideal.

so even pre Beeching, there was no obvious route to develop - even if Beeching did choose Oxford-Cambridge originally.

This is quite an interesting thought, particularly for all those who blame people in the 1960s for not having the foresight to anticipate possible requirements in 2016! The Oxford-Cambridge line is indeed the only contender (the conclusion the maligned Dr Beeching came to), but this line only had proper interchange with 2 of the 5 main lines that it crossed, and both of those (Bletchley and Sandy) are at unhelpful places for modern demographics [ Sandy is still a small town only blessed with a local train service, and Bletchley has been usurped by Milton Keynes Central as far as useful connecting services go.] Bedford and Bicester both had separate stations - Midland Road station could be used as a connecting station with considerable time penalty in Bedford, but Bicester would have been problematic. As for the Great Central line, this was slated for closure anyway.
These issues still dog any kind of Bedford-Cambridge link, as the cost would be huge and the resulting service not really catering for modern day requirements. New build Cambridge-Huntingdon-Bedford Midland-Milton Keynes Central (approached from the north) then EW route to Oxford Didcot and Reading. Not likely in my lifetime though.

I do not think a reversal was required at Huntingdon for Kettering-Cambridge trains.

Banbury-Towcester-Blisworth and Kettering-Huntingdon had both already been closed by 1962

 

[daodao]

A new short (1 mile) link from the Bedford-Bletchley line near Millbrook to the MML north of Ampthill would enable direct services from Luton/Luton Airport to Bletchley/Oxford and is likely to have a far better BCR than re-opening from Bedford to Cambridge.

 

[mr_jrt]

A new short (1 mile) link from the Bedford-Bletchley line near Millbrook to the MML north of Ampthill would enable direct services from Luton/Luton Airport to Bletchley/Oxford and is likely to have a far better BCR than re-opening from Bedford to Cambridge.

...because the MML's Thameslink section is of course renowned for it's spare capacity. A parallel line would solve this, but then you're on shakey ground as you'd just be duplicating what is already there. Had Leighton-Luton still been available I'd argue that would solve your demand problem nicely as you could then operate services from Steeple Claydon to Luton Airport with only minimal parallel running form Bletchley to Leighton and Luton to LAP...and arguably with such a line LAP might not even be needed if interchange at Luton could be sufficiently improved. The logical progression there would be to push over to Stevenage and thence onward to Hertford, and perhaps eventually reach Stansted from the south...but that doesn't really solve this issue of Bedford now, does it?

 

[Blamethrower]

Hmmm. You might be on to something there. Keep at it, and who knows, a Nobel Prize for Innovation in Civil Engineering could come your way.



To quote your own words: Sorry, but do you know the area at all?
I lived in the area in the 60s and cycled up and down many of the roads in the area that, in your words, need "only mild earthworks".

See also Richieb1971's post for confirmation.



I bow to your better knowledge. I have not been on the road east of St Neots since the mid-60s, but I seem to remember - somewhere near the US War Cemetery - it was quite hilly. Perhaps that is the exception.



Of course it 'could' connect with Bedford Midland, with a reversal, no question. Time penalty there, however.
And yes, the former route to Sandy would need a thorough rebuild (it was double track to Goldington, actually, about 1 - 1.25 miles east of St Johns, plus loops a the two stations en route to Sandy).

I do not know how much of the old trackbed is available, but it would be massively cheaper than cutting a new line from north of Bedford to St Neots, that is for sure.



It would be a way of accessing the GN main line (and hence Peterboro') and Cambridge (and hence East Anglia) , which is surely E-W is supposed to serve, wouldn't it?

I agree with you that, in an ideal world, going north of Bedford to St Neots ect would be a better route - but there is the little problem of money. I also agree that heading south-east 17 miles to Hitchin (or thereabouts) makes a mockery of the E-W concept. But there is a trackbed there, and ultimately, that is the way it may have to go on cost grounds.
If, that is, there is ever an extension east of Bedford.

The fact is, getting E-W rail east of Bedford is not easy. And even if the entire former route from Bedford to Cambridge were intact, it was not an ideal permanent way.

As a low-cast stop gap (at least in investment, not operational terms) I can see a south-east cord being built at Manton, and trains being routed via Corby.

But we know what happens to low-cost stop gaps - just look at Marylebone station. :roll:

You appear to deliberately miss my point for the sake of posturing. There is no technical reason why EWR cannot skirt the north of Bedford and then follow the A428/A421 expressway.

Getting the railway to Cambridge is really easy, anyone who says any different is a luddite or lives somewhere in between.

You're basically not contributing to the discussion by saying "no money, it'll never happen", because by doing that you're trying to close down the debate, the mark of a beaten man.

You agree that the best route is through Bedford via Sandy, St Neots actually makes much more sense. In order to make better connections and make a less significant impact on the countryside, you could combine it with road building and carriageway sharing.

This way, savings CAN be made and connections/journey times will not be adversely affected by reversal here or a reversal there. You seem to advocate the typical british "do the minimum and then make do and amend ad infinitum".

If you're going to do it, which they are, then why not do it properly?

Really so hard to grasp?

 

[richieb1971]

PERSONALLY I believe the ewr is short sighted only making two options viable.

 

[NotATrainspott]

This seems quite effective to me as you thus skirt the northern Sandy estates that have been built over the old route. Bearing in mind what others have written about the Cambridge station being not very handy for the science centres, do you have an approach route to Cambridge in mind?

I think that it would be better to focus on making the existing Cambridge station a better hub, and then provide some better rapid transit from the station to the locations where people want to go. Also, the new Science Park station could be served by EWR services which approach from the south.

 

[A0wen]

PERSONALLY I believe the ewr is short sighted only making two options viable.

It's not "EWR" who have only made 2 options viable.

EWR have a budget, timescale and scope to consider. What they've done is what any good project / programme does, which is carry out some high level analysis to get the options down to the ones which are most likely to be successful.

The reason they will have discounted other options is because at a high-level they don't meet the requirements of the project.

Given to do the in-depth analysis is likely to cost a significant sum - I'd expect it to be at least £ 100k, then it makes alot of sense to only go to that level with one or two options rather than 5 or 6, most of which won't be viable.

 

[HowardGWR]

I think that it would be better to focus on making the existing Cambridge station a better hub, and then provide some better rapid transit from the station to the locations where people want to go. Also, the new Science Park station could be served by EWR services which approach from the south.

Just a question on the Bedford stop. Do the buses emanate from or at least call by the present Bedford Station? On GE, it appears that many do, in which case it would appear to be better if the E-W line goes north of Bedford as a straight through service, with no reversal. I agree with your comments on Cambridge. It is not in the least important that inter-city or inter-urban services stop near Marks and Spencer. Such trips are for local buses or trams.

I think if such latter services get in the way of high speed inter-urban services and freight, they are better abandoned. I have that feeling about the Bletchley to Bedford section, but perhaps they can fit in.

 

[MikePJ]

I think that it would be better to focus on making the existing Cambridge station a better hub, and then provide some better rapid transit from the station to the locations where people want to go. Also, the new Science Park station could be served by EWR services which approach from the south.

I live in Cambridge, about ten minutes' walk from the (main) railway station. The area around the station is being massively rebuilt in order to provide a lot of new offices, shops, apartments and two hotels. The redevelopment has also included new arrangements for buses (although you have to walk a bit further to reach them from the station door than you used to). It's about a 20 minute walk from the main station to the city centre, or a 20 minute bus ride (the traffic is awful, and the bus priority options are pretty limited, though being discussed).

Consequently, Microsoft Research moved to the first building that opened on the new development in Station Road because their previous location in West Cambridge (next to the university Computer Lab) was too far from a railway station.

Cambridge North station will serve the cluster of 1980s/90s offices around the original Cambridge Science Park, and will make things loads easier for people who live and work up there. It's expected that it will reduce the number of people driving to the existing station, as it will be much more convenient.

The East West Rail studies announced last year include looking at the feasibility of another new station to serve Addenbrooke's hospital and the new "biomedical campus", not least because AstraZeneca are going to be employing thousands of people there shortly on a site right next to the railway line. The complications with the Addenbrooke's station are a) that it ideally needs four-tracking between Cambridge Station and Shepreth Branch Junction (where the GN and GE routes divide) so as to make enough route capacity for trains to stop and b) that there's no space to provide car parking for people from the villages south of Cambridge who'd be tempted to drive in in order to get a fast train to London. The hospital area already has a massive problem with parking and there's concern that the station might actually make it worse rather than better. The Addenbrooke's station is in the local plan, and the County Council are now allegedly working with NR to see if it could open earlier, initially without the four-tracking but serving only a limited number of trains until the four-tracking can be arranged.

 

[Andyjs247]

Just a question on the Bedford stop. Do the buses emanate from or at least call by the present Bedford Station? On GE, it appears that many do, in which case it would appear to be better if the E-W line goes north of Bedford as a straight through service, with no reversal. I agree with your comments on Cambridge. It is not in the least important that inter-city or inter-urban services stop near Marks and Spencer. Such trips are for local buses or trams.

No the X5 doesn't actually call at Midland station. Bedford Midland is approximately 10 minutes walk to/from Bedford Bus Station or only 5 minutes to/from the stop at Bromham Road/Chaucer Road, according to the timetable.

The X5 stops near to Bicester North & St Neots stations (it stops on Buckingham Road less than 5 minutes walk away in the case of Bicester). And it stops at Milton Keynes Central station.

 

[HowardGWR]

No the X5 doesn't actually call at Midland station. Bedford Midland is approximately 10 minutes walk to/from Bedford Bus Station or only 5 minutes to/from the stop at Bromham Road/Chaucer Road, according to the timetable.

The X5 stops near to Bicester North & St Neots stations (it stops on Buckingham Road less than 5 minutes walk away in the case of Bicester). And it stops at Milton Keynes Central station.

Why is this X5 relevant (it sounds like a longer distance service)? GE shewed many local services stopping at or near the station (6, 20, 25, 40, 41, 50).

Do these not take people to either the centre or outlying suburbs?

Edit -it seems you may have misunderstood what I was on about?

 

[MikePJ]

The quickest way from Cambridge to the Thames Valley will always be via London. For journeys to the Midlands and North, Peterborough, Leicester, Nuneaton (to a limited extent) and Birmingham New Street are more useful destinations and better changing points to fast trains than Sandy, Bedford (the old route didn't go via the Midland station) and Bletchley, if one prefers not to go via London.

Can I just pick up on various people saying that the "quickest way from Cambridge to the Thames Valley/Oxford will always be via London"? I'm not sure this is the case:

The "direct" road from Cambridge to Oxford (via St Neots, Bedford and MK) is 85 miles. It's a car journey of at least two hours, and often longer with the traffic. The rail journey (via London, taking the H&C from King's Cross to Paddington) takes around 2.5 hours according to national rail, though if you're lucky and can move quickly sometimes you can shave a bit off by making a quick connection in London.

The Atkins study for EWR in 2014 suggested (see table, page 108) a 60 minute journey time from Cambridge to Oxford by train. That seems slightly optimistic to me (with a 100mph or 125mph line and only making one or two stops, you might just manage it), but even a 90 minute journey time would be much quicker than via London.

Going to Reading (centre of another big technology cluster) from Cambridge is about evens - 2 hours via London, likely to be similar via EWR (Atkins reckon an hour and 20 minutes - again, perhaps a bit optimistic), but the hassle factor of not needing a change of train (plus the likelihood of a cheaper "not via London" fare) means that I suspect it would still be popular. When I travel on business to the Reading/Basingstoke area I tend to drive, despite the awfulness of the M25, just because the train route is expensive and quite a faff.

The inner Thames Valley and Heathrow will be rather easier to reach from Cambridge and environs once Thameslink and Crossrail open, since a single change at Farringdon will suffice.

From a personal perspective, we moved from Cambridge to Oxford in 2011 when my partner was offered a job there. I had to give up a job I loved in Cambridge because it wasn't a sane commute by any mode of transport, despite it being only 85 miles. Even if we'd moved to Milton Keynes it still would have been over an hour's commute each way by road for both of us. As it happens, his old job poached him back again last year, and we've moved back to Cambridge again (and I was able to rejoin my previous firm). But I've travelled between the two places rather a lot in the last few years!

People who are not local to the Cambridge area might not appreciate that the A14 road (which connects East Anglia with the Midlands, linking up with the A1, M1 and M6) is completely overwhelmed with demand because there are such limited choices of road or rail route. The Cambridge-Peterborough-Leicester-Birmingham train is circuitous and not particularly quick (though more freight should soon start going by rail that way to take some of the load off the A14) and so a good fast link to the WCML at Milton Keynes (in 60 minutes or less) would make travelling by train to the West Midlands and North-West England a lot more straightforward. My most recent rail trip to Manchester ended up being Cambridge-Stevenage-Leeds-Manchester, return via London. Going via MK would probably have taken at least an hour off each journey.

 

[jimm]

Why is this X5 relevant (it sounds like a longer distance service)? GE shewed many local services stopping at or near the station (6, 20, 25, 40, 41, 50).

Do these not take people to either the centre or outlying suburbs?

Edit -it seems you may have misunderstood what I was on about?

The X5 is the Stagecoach express coach route that links Oxford and Cambridge via Bicester, Milton Keynes and Bedford. In Bicester, MK, Bedford and St Neots it stops at locations close to (in MK actually at) railway stations.

https://www.stagecoachbus.com/promos-and-offers/east/stagecoach-x5

 

[work-traveller]

PERSONALLY I believe the ewr is short sighted only making two options viable.

If by 'ewr' you mean the consortium of local authorities - then possibly so. Everything east of Bedford has nothing/little to do with Network Rail until the DfT issues a remit to them in - oooh - quite a few years from now I'd suggest.

 

[HowardGWR]

The X5 is the Stagecoach express coach route that links Oxford and Cambridge via Bicester, Milton Keynes and Bedford. In Bicester, MK, Bedford and St Neots it stops at locations close to (in MK actually at) railway stations.

https://www.stagecoachbus.com/promos-and-offers/east/stagecoach-x5

Yes, then indeed I was misunderstood. I didn't know there was already a bus that did what the EWR will duplicate.

I was referring to the fact that i don't think it is important whether the EWR stations are central (people usually mean the shopping centre by that) but if there are good frequent shuttles to office, science areas, etc, from the stations, then the points made by MikePJ are highly relevant.

For instance, at Bletchley, if one has good buses into all parts of MK, then I don't see the need for EWR trains from Oxford to Cambridge to go up to MK station itself and reverse, because you would probably have to get a bus, taxi or M and G, from there anyway, so you might as well detrain at Bletchley, allowing the EWR train to shove onwards. A 75 minute timing should be possible, surely?

 

[The Planner]

Milton Keynes is where the cash is. It will go there. The biggest elephant in the room is Bletchley Bedford and the level crossings.

 

[MikePJ]

Milton Keynes is where the cash is. It will go there.

Not to mention the onward connections to WCML destinations - I can't see it being particularly attractive to change at Bletchley (via a longish walk from high level to low level platforms) to a local train for a one stop journey to MK in order to then connect onwards to an intercity service. The odds of getting fast trains to stop at both Bletchley and MK are pretty poor, I'd have thought.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Not to mention the onward connections to WCML destinations - I can't see it being particularly attractive to change at Bletchley (via a longish walk from high level to low level platforms) to a local train for a one stop journey to MK in order to then connect onwards to an intercity service. The odds of getting fast trains to stop at both Bletchley and MK are pretty poor, I'd have thought.

you have posted before I could

I think for passengers from Aylesbury, MK would be the preferred stop for exactly this reason.

However, from Oxford I suspect far fewer will be changing into Inter-city trains, and there would be more of a case for at least some trains to run directly on to Bedford (or wherever it eventually goes in the east). The Planner is probably right though, they will all end up going to MK and, if necessary, reversing.

 

[swt_passenger]

you have posted before I could

I think for passengers from Aylesbury, MK would be the preferred stop for exactly this reason.

However, from Oxford I suspect far fewer will be changing into Inter-city trains, and there would be more of a case for at least some trains to run directly on to Bedford (or wherever it eventually goes in the east). The Planner is probably right though, they will all end up going to MK and, if necessary, reversing.

If we stick to the current published service patterns, (ignoring the leg beyond Bedford that is yet to be given the DfT's go ahead), then that is basically what they intend. Aylesbury to Milton Keynes as an extension of hourly Marylebone services, and 2 tph from Oxford, one of which terminates at Milton Keynes and the other runs directly to Bedford from Bletchley.

The lack of any direct service between Bedford and Milton Keynes has been discussed in this thread a few times before, and although an early proposal reversal at Milton Keynes is not part of their current published plans as of August 2015:

http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/train-services/

 

[The Planner]

I will have to dig out the spec, not everything will go to MK but there is a lot of stuff being looked at infrastructure wise between MK and Bletchley.

 

[MarkRedon]

If by 'ewr' you mean the consortium of local authorities - then possibly so. Everything east of Bedford has nothing/little to do with Network Rail until the DfT issues a remit to them in - oooh - quite a few years from now I'd suggest.

But Network Rail is heavily involved in planning the Central Section in conjunction with the EWR consortium. A year ago, Graham Botham, Principal Strategic Planner with Network Rail appeared in the video available at http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/route-selection/. A feature in Rail magazine available via the EWR website at http://www.eastwestrail.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/RAIL-Issue-779.pdf highlights the close cooperation between Network Rail and the EWR Consortium. Looking back, you can see the whole careful process by which a wide range of options has been whittled down firstly to 7 and then to 2. (Aside: except that the original scoping study did not include Stansted or Luton airports as separate destinations.) You are quite correct that the Bedford to Cambridge Central section has yet to appear in a high-level output specification HLOS and therefore does not figure in detail Network Rail route plans. Perhaps the next HLOS will remedy this; its contents are a political decision by government and are not yet visible to us mortals. But it is quite wrong to characterise the current plans as being only the whim of local authorities. This scheme has only got as far as it has because the Department for Transport and Network Rail are heavily involved in furthering it. The Planner has pointed to the very serious difficulties associated with the number and significance of level crossings on the existing route between Bletchley and Bedford across rather flat country. And the resourcing difficulties associated with any new railway construction, particularly signalling and electrification, are well-known to members of this forum. It may be some while before we can get a train from Cambridge to Oxford, but at least this vision is not just the province of crayonistas (mea culpa!) and council planners.

 

[route:oxford]

However, from Oxford I suspect far fewer will be changing into Inter-city trains

I suspect the opposite - I think there will be a fairly considerable flow of passengers embracing the route to the WCML.

For example, for individuals travelling to Manchester from Oxford. They will have the choice of the direct train which currently takes around 2h56m. Alternatively, they will be able to take the train to MK and pick up a service which takes 1h40m. As long as the service from Oxford to Milton Keynes takes less than 1h15m (I'm sure it'll be closer to 30 minutes) and is a good connection - then it'll also be the route promoted on the on-line planners.

It will also probably allow a pre-9am arrival in Manchester!

Likewise, travelling to Scotland?

Well, it's all slow services Northbound at the moment, but there are late evening services from Glasgow to Milton Keynes which are either on or marginally over 4 hours.

This means that I could potentially leave our Glasgow office at 17:20, walk along to Central and be in MK for 21:48. Back at OXP by say 22:25 depending on service frequency at that time of night. By the time you factor in the low priority status of domestic flights into Heathrow, wait for the coach and the M25 traffic - it will be quite competitive.

 

[The Planner]

You wouldn't have to change if the idea that is still kicking about to add a XC type train along E-W that uses the WCML to Manchester comes off.