We now have a relatively highly populated region (less so in the western part) with the few reasonable public transport links mostly aimed at London commuters, but travel is now much more diverse and probably generates a fair amount of congestion. It's obviously nowhere near the levels seen in inner London where public transport is the logical choice, but it's also not at the other end of the spectrum where density is so low that roads are uncongested and even if everyone drives that doesn't contribute much to pollution and accidents. So the question is whether, under today's conditions, an improved network of public transport would make enough difference to be worth doing. I say "network" quite deliberately, because a rail route or two probably won't do much unless integrated with bus feeders, and it may be that a properly organized bus network could do the job on its own. Both of these are of course virtually impossible under deregulation.
I agree strongly with you that whilst Northamptonshire might be rural, it is certainly not a sparsely populated place like Mid Wales where I moved afterwards. You also identify characteristics of the mobility situation which from an environmental view seems to combine much of what is worst of rural and urban travel patterns, more so than suburbs where at least most people are heading predictably into one specific town centre. The planner in me thinks the correct term is exurban, although that is not one I recall anyone using when I lived there, presumably it went against the 'squires and spires' identity of rural Northamptonshire.
I regard area as having an extremely high proportion of those who could be described as
hypermobile - the sorts who think nothing of driving hundred miles a day just on commute. Remember that phrase as I'll use it a bit this post. For instance at Towcester I recall a temporary member taken on to bolster the planning team who came in from Worcester a few days a week.
I agree a proper rural bus network is needed, but no matter how nice the busses, in isolation it would really only improve the lot of non-motorists. A laudable goal in itself, but not transformative.
At the time of withdrawal in 1951, the train service between Northampton and Banbury, via Blisworth and Helmdon (26 miles) took about 1hr12m at an average speed of 21.58 mph. The motor bus service, taking a longer route via Silverstone and Brackley (31 miles) took 1h30m at an average speed of 20.66mph. However, as has been pointed out on another post, with the more widespread housing, employment and retail sites, the actual journey time centre to centre is probably less relevant now than it would have been then.
I cannot imagine that those speeds cut the mustard anymore today than they did back in the day. The highway speeds you are competing against would be greater for one thing. I would suggest rail links whose station-station average speed is four times what you mention is needed to make a dent in car commuting by the 'hyper mobile'.
The service provision of the 50s & 60s (i.e. before car ownership became pretty much universal) are an indicator (but by no means an exclusive one) of the public transport travel patterns of today, particularly if viewed in conjunction with the service provision of today. In this 'arc' there is no through public transport today, and in the past it was minimal also. You are right that much has changed in the meantime, almost all car-centric and not easily catered for by public transport. The building of Milton Keynes has probably reduced the number of potential public transport trips between Banbury and Northampton rather than increased it!
There has been no bus service between Northampton and Banbury since 1975. Even in the de-regulated environment I suggest it would be fairly easy for the Local Authorities to establish one, except for the continuing funding of the losses. And these losses would be present whether regulated or deregulated.
I disagree fundamentally that the turn of the 1960's can be taken as an indicator of travel demand today. People's lifestyles would be totally different since it has changed over the intervening period from a rural economy to a one that is hyper-mobile and mainly non-farming.
I am not party to the evidence base that spawned NAR concept, but seem to have become the de-facto defender of such
I speculate that perhaps a suitable geographic comparison to EEH and adjoining areas is with the Netherlands or Switzerland. These too are wealthy, mobile knowledge economy based; furthermore they are polycentric countries (as is high-tech cluster largely within EEH) in which no one city dominates. The way travel is addressed in these places is with a mesh of interlinking rail services allowing point to point journeys. I get the impression that EEH envision a railway mesh made up of horizontals and verticals. The verticals already exist in the form of legacy mainlines but the horizontals are absent, hence the Northern, Central and Southern arcs.