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

[zwk500]

Most people in Bedford won't use the railway unless it was free. On the other end of the scale you have 95% of the Bedfordian population using roads that bridge the railway every day.

These two bits are rubbish. Theres a reason thameslink (expensive) terminates as dar north as Bedford.

On a side note, the political forcing of our high street being one way, with widen footpaths has done nothing for Bedford.

I haven't been to Bedford for some time but did used to go regularly and it was dying then. Pedestrianisation will be better for the high Street than nothing though, because how many people park directly outside the shops they want rather than in a car park tucked round a back street and then walking into the town centre anyway?

 

[Magdalia]

I think you're underplaying the benefits of east-west rail here,

I'm sure this is the first time that I have been accused of that!

Particular the hospital access is really important, and not quite captured in the (important) financial case for the project

I agree this is really important, and it matters to the people of Bedford. Addenbrookes is already a regional centre for trauma injuries, and Papworth is world renowned for heart and lung treatment. By the time East West Rail arrives, we should also have the Eastern Region children's hospital and a specialist cancer hospital on the Biomedical Campus. East West Rail doesn't just matter for patients and their families and friends. It also matters because all those hospitals can't function without staff, and those staff need somewhere to live and a way of getting to and from work. Most hospital workers don't do WFH!

 

[richieb1971]

I'm not against EWR. Just don't see why going into the mainline station is more compulsory at Bedford than at St Neots. Someone is controlling the outcome based on each stations merits. You will argue the merits of Bedford having a mainline connection at Bedford but use the opposing argument at St Neots or Sandy.

If Bedford Midland increases it's capture area to 3.5 million passengers a year eventually it's not big enough. I just hope that we get an amazing "Reading" like station out of it. Like I said we have one hospital, reduced schools and 40 percent more housing than most areas. Eventually the station will be a bottleneck of the town.

The 3 bridges were Ford end road, the bridge at St John's and Bromham Road. The new bridge at brewers point could be a 4th if you're exiting the town. This is the bridge where EWR arcs off the mainline.

You guys keep quoting Thames link and EMR rail. You think EWR will meet those numbers? 2m of those passengers are going to London, 300k a year going north sounds about right.

 

[Trainbike46]

I'm not against EWR. Just don't see why going into the mainline station is more compulsory at Bedford than at St Neots. Someone is controlling the outcome based on each stations merits. You will argue the merits of Bedford having a mainline connection at Bedford but use the opposing argument at St Neots or Sandy.

If Bedford Midland increases it's capture area to 3.5 million passengers a year eventually it's not big enough. I just hope that we get an amazing "Reading" like station out of it. Like I said we have one hospital, reduced schools and 40 percent more housing than most areas. Eventually the station will be a bottleneck of the town.

The 3 bridges were Ford end road, the bridge at St John's and Bromham Road. The new bridge at brewers point could be a 4th if you're exiting the town. This is the bridge where EWR arcs off the mainline.

Bedford isn't St. neots or Sandy. Their different situation, and that is why different needs apply.

For someone who isn't opposed to a railway, you seem rather intent on arguing against said railway!

You keep bringing up that Bedford lacks hospital capacity; That's a fair concern, and I've heard from inside sources that the Bedford hospital is need of government investment, but improving connections to regional specialist hospitals surely makes that situation better, not worse. Beyond that, the railway isn't responsible for running hospitals (or schools for that matter), and the solution to insufficient hospital or school capacity is to expand it, not to oppose a railway that eases access to specialist hospitals nearby

 

[zwk500]

I'm not against EWR. Just don't see why going into the mainline station is more compulsory at Bedford than at St Neots. Someone is controlling the outcome based on each stations merits. You will argue the merits of Bedford having a mainline connection at Bedford but use the opposing argument at St Neots or Sandy.

Bedford is not a pure dormitory town though, it does have some employment and inbound travel on it's own account (very little in comparison to MK/Oxford/Cambridge, but still some). Nobody is going to St Neots unless they live there, or are related to somebody who does.

You guys keep quoting Thames link and EMR rail. You think EWR will meet those numbers? 2m of those passengers are going to London, 300k a year going north sounds about right.

No of course EWR won't meet those numbers, but that's why Thameslink trains are 4 times as long as EWR trains. However the Marston Vale is scheduled for a vast amount of housing and Bedford stands to gain far more if the Town Centre station is easily accessible to them than if they skip it out entirely.

 

[richieb1971]

Bedford isn't St. neots or Sandy. Their different situation, and that is why different needs apply.

For someone who isn't opposed to a railway, you seem rather intent on arguing against said railway!

You keep bringing up that Bedford lacks hospital capacity; That's a fair concern, and I've heard from inside sources that the Bedford hospital is need of government investment, but improving connections to regional specialist hospitals surely makes that situation better, not worse. Beyond that, the railway isn't responsible for running hospitals (or schools for that matter), and the solution to insufficient hospital or school capacity is to expand it, not to oppose a railway that eases access to specialist hospitals nearby

Yes, it may seem like someone who wants a EWR railway and will champion it all day long does seem to have objections to its current route.

My only objection is how it goes through or passes through Bedford (I live near Barkers lane so it would have to use the original route to have any proximity to myself). I have no concern with the rest of it although I feel the rest of it could be straighter and have an east north curve somewhere on it. But I don't want to argue about outside of Bedford so much because its not my local area. I see that Wixams wants a station, is getting a station, has more room for a station, but the argument has stood that Bedford will greatly benefit from being an exchange station at the expense of much construction. As a Bedfordian we have been lied to before and it angers me I gave examples in my last post. I don't see why this argument that Bedford getting EWR pass right through it will benefit Bedford as a whole.

I don't like that Poets is being destroyed, I don't necessarily see reason for 6 tracks unless the current 4 have increased capacity anytime soon. There are 300% more trains going south on 4 tracks then there are north.. put a few EWR trains going north and suddenly there isn't capacity or its too complicated. But I will assume and hope that those championing 6 tracks know what they are talking about even though the numbers don't add up to me. Then you have the hilly north east side which is the preferred route. As Richard Fuller stated only 10% of a certain section touches the ground, the rest of it was on viaducts.

Where are the 12 car trains that carry 2.3 million passengers going to park (I really should say "Stable") when 2 of the tracks are taken for EWR? If you take something away, resource must be given somewhere else right?

So much about the route, but no details yet.. I'm perhaps premature and maybe damage control details will provide themselves in due time.

The more something makes sense, the less objection you're going to get. The less sense it all makes......

 

[Sonik]

Yes, because although the bigger picture is that we get EWR in place, there is not a good reason to knock down 3 bridges, redevelop a whole station and build 6 tracks north of Bedford to create footfall in Bedford Town centre. Which is currently a ghost town of bookies, 1 or 2 pubs, Specsavers and a CEX. There just isn't anything exclusive to Bedford that stands out. Not to mention Bedfordians with cars are not that keen to go into the town centre. My friend used to run the oldest shop in town and he closed it because there just wasn't the footfall. On EWR you have Oxford (I went there a few weeks ago for the first time, very nice), Cambridge (very nice), Milton Keynes (very nice), Bicester Village (Very nice)... Bedford (not so nice). The majority of Bedfordians aren't even in the loop because they have zero interest in railways. When the works begin that will wake them up. What most Bedfordians want is a road system that flows which it doesn't very well. We don't have a ring road and the bridges that cross the railway are trunk routes that everyone uses regularly.

The truth is the main reason for passing EWR through the existing station is to provide direct interchange with EMR and Thameslink services, which is an absolutely valid and desirable goal.

But of course interchange benefits transiting passengers and is of little use to local residents, so it's being pitched locally as providing better access to the town. This is not a lie but it is rather incidental.

 

[edwin_m]

The truth is the main reason for passing EWR through the existing station is to provide direct interchange with EMR and Thameslink services, which is an absolutely valid and desirable goal.

But of course interchange benefits transiting passengers and is of little use to local residents, so it's being pitched locally as providing better access to the town. This is not a lie but it is rather incidental.

An out of town station would be easy enough for Bedford residents with access to cars to use, but fewer people heading to the centre of Bedford would use it - interchange to a one-stop journey on Thameslink isn't too attractive, and having to find a taxi or take a long walk would be even less so. Giving somewhere an out-of-town station tends to contribute to urban decline.

 

[William3000]

At least Norwich and Ipswich stations are close to their football grounds. Cambridge Utd really is a hike for those arriving by train (although not as bad as Oxford)

Cambridge Utd is actually, since the completion of the Chisholm Trail considerably closer to Cambridge North than Cambridge (Central).

 

[70014IronDuke]

Hmm, sometimes I think some people have deflector shields against common sense. Most people in Bedford won't use the railway unless it was free. For those that do, they can get almost all the benefits from a parkway station near Wixams. On the other end of the scale you have 95% of the Bedfordian population using roads that bridge the railway every day. ...

Where on earth do you get that figure from? It's 30 years since I was last in Bedford, but the vast majority of Bedfordians (including your good self) live east of the MML, and I would suggest more like two-thirds of those don't cross it in a week.

I suspect a higher percentage of those living west of the MML would cross the line regularly to reach jobs, work, schools and even the station. Perhaps up to 50%? But that is of a smaller population.

 

[Roast Veg]

While it is unfortunate that Bedford is just a little too close to the gravity of Cambridge, suggestions that the town itself is doomed to nothing but soulless housing seems needlessly defeatist.

MPs protecting NIMBYs is a predictable case of political point scoring. The government and EWR should look to identify what small deal they can cut with the relevant parties to stick to the six tracking plan, rather than allow it to be scoped out as a result.

 

[andythebrave]

I like Bedford.

I don't like Milton Keynes.

There, said it.

As I see it a good case has been made for 6 tracks north from Bedford. The amount of demolishing required seems reasonable.

Missing out the main station would be ludicrous.

Including it may mean reinstatement of a decent northbound service on the Midland mainline too. Which would be nice.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I like Bedford.

I don't like Milton Keynes.

There, said it.

I don't think a like or dislike of either place is really relevant. The situation is that going via MKC would involve either a double reversal or an entirely new line to Bedford, whereas going via Bedford is basically the default anyway.

In any case there will be direct Oxford-MKC services (and Aylesbury-MKC if that ever happens). It's too hard to predict regarding Cambridge services this far ahead.

 

[2192]

...On a side note, the political forcing of our high street being one way, with widen footpaths has done nothing for Bedford. Most of the pubs and shops have closed now since that happened....

Shops and pubs are closing everywhere, replaced by the internet and cheap booze in supermarkets and corner shops. I don't blame East West Rail for shops closing here in Derby.

 

[andythebrave]

I don't think a like or dislike of either place is really relevant. The situation is that going via MKC would involve either a double reversal or an entirely new line to Bedford, whereas going via Bedford is basically the default anyway.

In any case there will be direct Oxford-MKC services (and Aylesbury-MKC if that ever happens). It's too hard to predict regarding Cambridge services this far ahead.

I was referring to previous posts that variously put Bedford in a poor light and described Milton Keynes as nice.

 

[RT4038]

On a side note, the political forcing of our high street being one way, with widen footpaths has done nothing for Bedford. Most of the pubs and shops have closed now since that happened. The bypass that was promised ended up being a housing estate with a road running through it, its not even dual carriageway. The Riverside north shopping precinct is a shadow of what it was when opened and the promised bridge in that area didn't look anything like it was supposed to cut costs. Not everything that is promised comes true.

Good gracious - Bedford High Street became one way in about 1967 - surely you are not blaming that political decision on the state of the shops now?
Out of town supermarkets (Tesco, Sainsbury, Morrisons etc) / shopping centres, and the internet deliveries from out of town warehouses have principally caused that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I was referring to previous posts that variously put Bedford in a poor light and described Milton Keynes as nice.

That's largely a matter of opinion, but I would say that anyone who thinks the shopping area of Bedford is anything other than an utter dive is probably more than a little blinkered - it's dirty and run down with many boarded up shops and unsavoury characters lurking around. It's much more like central Bletchley (which is also an utter dive) but with a few bigger brand shops than it is like CMK which, if you like shopping, is a very pleasant place to shop by most accounts. Yes, Maccy D's attracts a bit of low level ASB (it does everywhere - I can barely think of a rougher-feeling place than the McDs at Kings Cross used to be, or the one in Liverpool just outside Central station, or the king of ASB-magnets, the one just up from Manchester Oxford Road) but apart from that security is well-managed.

There are plenty of very nice areas of Bedford, e.g. down by the river, but there are plenty of very nice areas of MK as well, e.g. Loughton, Willen (and the lake), Oakgrove, Caldecotte etc. And both have their sink estates too.

Where is EWR relevant to this? Well, it's likely to have a regenerative effect - Bedford would become an attractive place to commute to Cambridge from as well as to London...

 

[edwin_m]

As I see it a good case has been made for 6 tracks north from Bedford. The amount of demolishing required seems reasonable.

The report commissioned by the council makes a good case not to do this.
https://www.bedford.gov.uk/your-council/have-your-say/consultations/east-west-rail-consultation (follow link to "Technical Review of Options" - can't link this directly for some reason)/

This note supports the conclusion that Network Rail came to in their East West Rail Central Section Phase 2f Report, of which we have seen a draft dated 29th March 2019. This states that “The aspiration to run 6 tph passenger services and 1 tph freight train on the Slow Lines to the north of Bedford Midland station for [EWR] could be accommodated.” Page 42. On page 43 it states that “With regards to the MML north of Bedford Midland station, the analysis concludes that there is available capacity on the Slow lines for the proposed service specification.”

 

[CdBrux]

Now let's look at the contribution of Mohammad Yasin, MP for Bedford. What he says is:



I read that as support for East West Rail, but opposition to 6 tracks north of Bedford, and the demolition of homes.

i.e he wants to support the project but not the consequences deemed necessary. So looking both ways....

 

[Redbus74]

I know one of the original plans was to go south of bedford around the wixhams area and have a station there but it would be mad to spend so much on a railway and miss one of the biggest towns on the route. Ok it wont be used so much for people going to Bedford but surely lots of travel opportunities for the residents of the town thats the point ?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know one of the original plans was to go south of bedford around the wixhams area and have a station there but it would be mad to spend so much on a railway and miss one of the biggest towns on the route. Ok it wont be used so much for people going to Bedford but surely lots of travel opportunities for the residents of the town thats the point ?

It's not just about Bedford itself (though in part it is), it's also about quality interchange with Thameslink and EMR.

And EMR may well not want to stop at Wixams any more than Avanti are(n't) suddenly going to start putting Bletchley stops in the Manchesters.

 

[richieb1971]

I said MKC was nice because its a commercial epicenter (compared to Bedford). In my family, my wifes side come from a city and like the hustle and bustle of being surrounded by restaurants and nice shops. Bedford is becoming a depressing cesspit with small pockets of wonder that is left.
I work in Northampton which is west of Bedford and I live on the East. I already had the experience of a closed bridge due to the electrification project.

Bedford is not a commercial success despite the programs and projects to jump start it again (mostly due to online shopping I get that). I just feel that victorian streets, 1970's multi storey parking that hardly fit a modern day vehicle (if you park near a pillar you cannot even open your door), high bicycle and motorcycle theft (we are in the top 10 of stolen bicycles I believe) and the hoodlums and homeless hanging around Riverside north are not going to change due to EWR. I was extremely surprised 3 weeks ago I went to Oxford it looked amazing, the place overran with people, shops bustling with business (its also beautiful). Then I went to Leicester that same weekend to see family and they also showed me the same thing. My wife said "Do we have to go back to Bedford hon?".

As for housing, you would think the rest of the country had nowhere else to build them. Bedford is absolutely booming in house building. Wixams is getting bigger, Bromham area is having an extension of house building etc. People in this thread stating Stewartby brick works are pencilled in for more housing on top of the already 100s, 1000's of homes built there (Wixams will have quite a big capture area by population as far as Kempston). Convenience of an interchange comes at the expense of everyone going through the bottleneck of victorian streets as the station is surrounded by congestion as it is. Bedford station numbers will grow and grow as all these people buying these £400k+ homes mostly don't work here. All my friends work outside of Bedford as I do myself, but none catch the train unless they have London business. Also from history, I Can tell you Bedford has suffered for being on the MML, not benefitted from it. The MML was nicknamed the Cinderella line for a long period. Thameslink changed that somewhat.

Most commuters are going to London, and nobody has said where the car park capacity is going to be or where the Thameslink 12 car trains are going to stable when EWR eats up those 2 lines.

I see most of you are unswayed. I am willing to take the bad tasting medicine but EWR needs this new Bedford station and to somehow fix problems that to me it seems will make worse.

 

[edwin_m]

Most commuters are going to London, and nobody has said where the car park capacity is going to be or where the Thameslink 12 car trains are going to stable when EWR eats up those 2 lines.

Do Thameslink trains ever stable (or just turn back, not the same thing) on the Slow lines to the north? If so this indicates that those tracks are not heavily used by other trains, and extra station platforms or an extra siding or two somewhere to the north might be enough to allow EWR through without the need to provide two extra tracks on the critical section.

I'm not saying this is definitely so, but I do think EWR hasn't provided enough justification for their solution and have left themselves open to criticism.

 

[richieb1971]

Do Thameslink trains ever stable (or just turn back, not the same thing) on the Slow lines to the north? If so this indicates that those tracks are not heavily used by other trains, and extra station platforms or an extra siding or two somewhere to the north might be enough to allow EWR through without the need to provide two extra tracks on the critical section.

I'm not saying this is definitely so, but I do think EWR hasn't provided enough justification for their solution and have left themselves open to criticism.

3 platforms are used to park and reverse on another service only.

If the 12 car trains are not needed they traverse to the river bridge on the branch line, then the driver walks to the other end and rides them slowly into Jowitt sidings of which there are 4. 2 of which are allocated to EWR as through straight lines. No Thameslink train has ever gone north of Bedford on a service or a reversal.

 

[Nottingham59]

Slow lines to the north? If so this indicates that those tracks are not heavily used by other trains,

There is almost no traffic on the MML slows to the north of Bedford north junction. In the past hour (1730-1830 Tuesday), there has been one train (0M72) that has used the slows and three freight paths that were not used.

The issue for EWR is that they were given a constraint that they must not reduce the capacity of the MML, regardless of the fact that that capacity is not fully used

 

[12LDA28C]

As for housing, you would think the rest of the country had nowhere else to build them. Bedford is absolutely booming in house building.

Bedford is by no means alone in this respect. Plenty of towns in the south east are expanding exponentially with new developments being planned and delivered one after the other.

 

[richieb1971]

There is almost no traffic on the MML slows to the north of Bedford north junction. In the past hour (1730-1830 Tuesday), there has been one train (0M72) that has used the slows and three freight paths that were not used.

The issue for EWR is that they were given a constraint that they must not reduce the capacity of the MML, regardless of the fact that that capacity is not fully used

Wow, someone said it at last. This makes sense. I've always said that north of Bedford there is small fraction of use on the slows compared to the south. Sometimes you can spend half a day at Bedford without seeing anything on the up slow. The only caveat to this is the southbound EMR traffic which traverses to the slows at Bedford north to reach a platform and from my experience this is usually platform 2 or 3, not often using P1. Which leaves the up slow almost unused for many hours of the day. So separating the lines is only goal here.

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I was extremely surprised 3 weeks ago I went to Oxford it looked amazing, the place overran with people, shops bustling with business (its also beautiful).

You’ll be able to get there easily by train when EWR is done…!

It also has much more draconian traffic restrictions than Bedford (though still not draconian enough).

But then it’s probably the number one place in Britain for bike theft…

 

[59CosG95]

Wow, someone said it at last. This makes sense. I've always said that north of Bedford there is small fraction of use on the slows compared to the south. Sometimes you can spend half a day at Bedford without seeing anything on the up slow. The only caveat to this is the southbound EMR traffic which traverses to the slows at Bedford north to reach a platform and from my experience this is usually platform 2 or 3, not often using P1. Which leaves the up slow almost unused for many hours of the day. So separating the lines is only goal here.

Let us for the sake of argument say that Thameslink services get extended to Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby (perhaps with additional stations such as the proposed Rushden Parkway in the mix). While such extensions are unlikely, their business case would dwindle further still if the Slows were used for that short part north of Bedford, because if something were to sit down over Bedford North on the Slows, disruption would be felt as far away as Trent Jn, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge.

Even if the Thameslinks didn't extend north, a blockage on the Slows where EWR would use them would cause freight to be routed onto the Fasts, delaying intercity & Connect services as well as the Thameslinks that do use the Fasts further south. EWR would also be disrupted.
However, if a train sat down on the 6-track formation, only the track pair affected would be disrupted.

 

[richieb1971]

Let us for the sake of argument say that Thameslink services get extended to Wellingborough, Kettering and Corby (perhaps with additional stations such as the proposed Rushden Parkway in the mix). While such extensions are unlikely, their business case would dwindle further still if the Slows were used for that short part north of Bedford, because if something were to sit down over Bedford North on the Slows, disruption would be felt as far away as Trent Jn, Brighton, Oxford and Cambridge.

Even if the Thameslinks didn't extend north, a blockage on the Slows where EWR would use them would cause freight to be routed onto the Fasts, delaying intercity & Connect services as well as the Thameslinks that do use the Fasts further south. EWR would also be disrupted.
However, if a train sat down on the 6-track formation, only the track pair affected would be disrupted.

Yeah I understand this. Bear in mind about 15% of traffic goes onto what will become EWR from the north. Namely the Toton Toyota train and the Peak Forest Bletchley to name but 2 of the workings.