Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Some bits of relevance on the Marston Vale from the full report:
Stations
While members of the public showed slightly more support for Concept 1, our statutory consultees preferred Concept 2. We’re continuing to work with local stakeholders to help us identify the best solution for communities along this section of the route, which we’ll present at the statutory consultation.
Marston Vale Line infrastructure
We believe that, through these changes, we would no longer need to lift and relay track over the full length of the MVL but could ensure the suitability of the line through targeted repairs and enhancements. At the 2021 consultation we identified that we’d need to reinstate the second track alongside the section of single-track railway at Fenny Stratford, east of Bletchley, to increase capacity and allow for the additional EWR services. The need for this additional section of track has not changed. We also identified the need for a passing loop in the vicinity of Ridgmont station to allow faster trains to overtake slower stopping services safely. A passing loop would still be required, but in light of the other changes we’re proposing, we’re now doing further work to assess where this should be located. We’ll provide further details at the statutory consultation.
The concept train services illustrated in the document also suggested that Concept 1 (retaining the stations) was still very much under consideration. Which will please @DarloRich
Option 1: Relocating Bedford St Johns to the west, closer to Bedford Hospital between Ampthill Road and Cauldwell Street. ... Option 1 remains our preference.
Tempsford does seem an odd choice, given the report acknowledges that its environmentally trickier, and not a suitable for development. However all alignments considered seem to rule out serving the main St Neots area, and a Tempsford station isn't much further out than St Neots south site would have been.
Tempsford does seem an odd choice, given the report acknowledges that its environmentally trickier, and not a suitable for development. However all alignments considered seem to rule out serving the main St Neots area, and a Tempsford station isn't much further out than St Neots south site would have been.
If they're talking about running the line up the east side of St Neots as the diagram suggests, I was more thinking of a "St Neots East Parkway" type station rather than one on the ECML. St Neots is small and very walkable/cycleable, as such with targetted provision of cycle infrastructure this might even be net-negative on car journeys. And you could develop an "ecovillage" type arrangement around this station.
If people are changing from the ECML Tempsford would be fine, this would purely be about connecting St Neots to Cambridge, for which going south to go north is extremely clumsy and would mean almost nobody would do it. Few will travel *to* St Neots, so its non-town-centre location wouldn't be a significant problem and could even be an advantage.
Yeah it looks like what's likely to come out of the final EWR choices, but it doesn't say these are the choices that are definitely been chosen. For a start there is no report on the impact of Bedford or any of the station plans. Things thst would be in the final report.
On initial inspection, it looks like Marston Vale has in particular been descoped, with only 3tph on the route (2 fast, 1 stopper), with less improvement to line speed. Lower train frequency and lower line speed then enables the retention of level crossings on the route.
Six-tracking north of Bedford seems to remain the preferred option.
Yeah it looks like what's likely to come out of the final EWR choices, but it doesn't say these are the choices that are definitely been chosen. For a start there is no report on the impact of Bedford or any of the station plans. Things thst would be in the final report.
Oxford: no final decision pending further clarity on what (if anything) happens on the Cowley branch re-opening proposals.
Bicester: vehicular bridge/tunnel at the level crossing discounted. Further work being done on other options, including potential pedestrian/cycle underpass at the crossing which wasn’t previously an option under consideration. No decision on whether crossing is to close as yet.
Marston Vale line: no final decisions pending further examination of potential line speed and service pattern. This may allow stations and more level crossings to remain open, but not confirmed and would require an updated safety case to be produced. The service pattern is not decided i.e. it is not necessarily 2tph semi fast with 1tph stopper.
Bedford: Bedford St John’s relocated closer to the hospital. Track re-alignment into Bedford Midland which will be largely replaced with extra platforms. Six tracks on the Midland Mainline north of Bedford Midland station.
North Bedfordshire: the alignment further away from Bedford (with minor tweaks) has been selected.
East Coast Mainline: station near Tempsford with potential for ECML and EWR platforms. Tempsford has greater potential for new development to be delivered compared to St Neots South and it would also be likely to be higher quality development in terms of place-making.
South Cambridgeshire: broadly parallels the route of the new dual carriageway between ECML and a station north of Cambourne. Thence down to the Royston branch near Harston and into Cambridge on the West Anglia Mainline (which will be four-tracked) via Cambridge South station (and potential extension of services to Cambridge North in the future).
Current preference is a grade-separated junction with the two-track Royston line, but four-tracking is under consideration and may enable an at-grade junction instead. At-grade junction between the Royston line and WAML where they meet north of Great Shelford.
Additional stations between Bedford and Cambridge are not in scope, but the design would not preclude them being built in the future if funding and a business case are provided by third party promoters.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Oxford: no final decision pending further clarity on what (if anything) happens on the Cowley branch re-opening proposals.
Bicester: vehicular bridge/tunnel at the level crossing discounted. Further work being done on other options, including potential pedestrian/cycle underpass at the crossing which wasn’t previously an option under consideration. No decision on whether crossing is to close as yet.
Marston Vale line: no final decisions pending further examination of potential line speed and service pattern. This may allow stations and more level crossings to remain open, but not confirmed and would require an updated safety case to be produced. The service pattern is not decided i.e. it is not necessarily 2tph semi fast with 1tph stopper.
Bedford: Bedford St John’s relocated closer to the hospital. Track re-alignment into Bedford Midland which will be largely replaced with extra platforms. Six tracks on the Midland Mainline north of Bedford Midland station.
North Bedfordshire: the alignment further away from Bedford (with minor tweaks) has been selected.
East Coast Mainline: station near Tempsford with potential for ECML and EWR platforms. Tempsford has greater potential for new development to be delivered compared to St Neots South and it would also be likely to be higher quality development in terms of place-making.
South Cambridgeshire: broadly parallels the route of the new dual carriageway between ECML and a station north of Cambourne. Thence down to the Royston branch near Harston and into Cambridge on the West Anglia Mainline (which will be four-tracked) via Cambridge South station (and potential extension of services to Cambridge North in the future).
Current preference is a grade-separated junction with the two-track Royston line, but four-tracking is under consideration and may enable an at-grade junction instead. At-grade junction between the Royston line and WAML where they meet north of Great Shelford.
Additional stations between Bedford and Cambridge are not in scope, but the design would not preclude them being built in the future if funding and a business case are provided by third party promoters.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Bedford Station plans, bridges taken out of service. Bedford Station car parking placement and how big allocation will be. Need diagrams and blueprints. Won't that come out today?
In general terms, it pertains to the form, layout and appearance of the public realm of a settlement or other development. For example, by providing squares, parks, streets and waterfronts that attract people because they are pleasurable or interesting, especially without the need to use a private car.
Overall, the potential development area near Tempsford is more compact, more consolidated and would tend to bring more land within a reasonable walk/cycle of the new station with less of a severance impact from the new dual carriageway. It is also less likely to lead to coalescence with St Neots and Sandy.
There’s other stuff that goes into it as well, but those are the main points as far as place-making is concerned.
Be preferable in place-making terms because it would avoid
the risk of the new settlement coalescing with the built-up area of St Neots.
While the Tempsford location does have a greater interaction
with floodplains, which would restrict the availability of some
areas of land for development, it may well support enhanced
place-making and opportunities to enhance biodiversity through
the creation of a wetland reserve and green spaces within easy
reach of the community.
It basically means opportunities for quality-of-life in housing development over and above just putting up identikit car-centric developments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placemaking.
Bedford Station plans, bridges taken out of service. Bedford Station car parking placement and how big allocation will be. Need diagrams and blueprints. Won't that come out today?
In general terms, it pertains to the form, layout and appearance of the public realm of a settlement or other development. For example, by providing squares, parks, streets and waterfronts that attract people because they are pleasurable or interesting, especially without the need to use a private car.
Overall, the potential development area near Tempsford is more compact, more consolidated and would tend to bring more land within a reasonable walk/cycle of the new station with less of a severance impact from the new dual carriageway. It is also less likely to lead to coalescence with St Neots and Sandy.
There’s other stuff that goes into it as well, but those are the main points as far as place-making is concerned.
It basically means opportunities for quality-of-life in housing development over and above just putting up identikit car-centric developments. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placemaking.
We’re focused on delivering a net zero carbon railway. We’re continuing to evaluate a range of technological solutions for powering our trains and we’ll share more information at the statutory consultation.
It's great that it finally takes the southern approach, allowing provision for a through service to Norwich. However, it seems odd to go near St Neots and not stop there, but it does allow for the route to run in parallel against the A428 road to Cambourne.
The concept train services illustrated in the document also suggested that Concept 1 (retaining the stations) was still very much under consideration. Which will please @DarloRich
I bet the public showed a preference to option 1! The local residents have been very unhappy with the idea that the stations might close. There was real local anger even among people who never use the train about the prospect of stations closing. I was really surprised to see how much latent desire there was for the local service to be there if needed!
By the same token I bet the statutory undertakers liked option 2 - much simpler and easier for them to be rid of people like me and run a nice clean service for people in Oxford and Cambridge to zip about!
Double tracking Fenny Stratford and sticking a loop in along the Vale somewhere will cost bot all in the grand scheme of things. I cant believe this wasn't the agreed approach from day 1
On initial inspection, it looks like Marston Vale has in particular been descoped, with only 3tph on the route (2 fast, 1 stopper), with less improvement to line speed. Lower train frequency and lower line speed then enables the retention of level crossings on the route.
that certainly reduces the cost and the local political problems! Several communities along the line such as Woburn and Lddlington have been very vocal about thier issues with proposed level crossing changes.
The proposals for closing Fenny Stratford, as an example, crossing were simply not realistic or affordable!
I bet the public showed a preference to option 1! The local residents have been very unhappy with the idea that the stations might close. There was real local anger even among people who never use the train about the prospect of stations closing. I was really surprised to see how much latent desire there was for the local service to be there if needed!
This is such a depressing line to read. That the industry has been taken in by the promises of batteries and bionic duckweed as an alternative to OLE for a line like EWR is terrible.
For what it’s worth, I would agree with you on this (and I do have some advantage in terms of having seen the behind the scenes work which has been done on this).
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
eastwestrail.co.uk
