• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!

Should East West Rail (EWR) plans be more rational and proportional?

Status
Not open for further replies.

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
Not true. Bletchley *is* part of Milton Keynes. Bradford is an entirely separate city from Leeds.



*Hyperbole alert again*

Because neither town is bypassed, and if anything Bedford is in greater need of town centre regeneration generated by a new railway passing through than Milton Keynes does.




Those figures aren't true. You've made them up.




Good thing that it's not a motorway being proposed then.





Two option are proposed, the actual solution might be a blend of the two to balance local and strategic needs. Locals might actually benefit from a train service that actually becomes more useful than the present one, even if they have further to reach the station. Usage of the current train service suggests that its current form doesn't serve local needs particularly well anyway.




*Hyperbole*
Leeds/Bradford - Bletchley/MK. You are being legalistic. Bletchley is not in Milton Keynes other than legally. It is a separate town and the services to MK from it are not clockface (unlike the every 15 minute Thameslinks to Bedford) with gaps of up to half an hour in every hour between trains

90 homes. Been stated on the forums by several people. Appears to originate from a poster local to the area on the infrastructure thread quoting local social media. (I have amended my posts to state ~90 homes impacted as the detailed breakdown in the technical report is 28 demolished, 25 further at risk of demolition and 44 lose land, total 97 homes impacted)

Usage of the current Marston Vale line local service is known to suffer from suppressed demand due to it terminating at Bletchley and not running through to MK. That is why BBRUA have been campaigning so long for extension and frustratingly, despite the bay platform for the service at MK and reversible signalling arrangement at Bletchley now being provided in recent years, putting the infrastructure in place, the extension has not yet materialsed.

To the protestors it will make little difference if it is a motorway or railway. Especially as it will be diesel operated. And there are plenty, less green minded, who will oppose a railway far more vociferoualy than a road.

It may surprise you that I want to see East West Rail reach Cambridge. However , I fear this plan will see to it tha it never does.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,628
90 houses. Been stated on the forums by several people. Appears to originate from a poster local to the area on the infrastructure thread quoting local social media.

The six-track eastern option would require (as a reasonable worst case scenario) the demolition of 28 residential properties. These comprise 21 houses as a number of them are flats rather than single dwellings.

Table 8.2 on page 294 of the Technical Report gives a summary for all of the options examined:
Technical Report
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
Wixams has no station at the moment.

You have also not answered my earlier question: where would you place a split level Wixams interchange?



The six-track eastern option would require (as a reasonable worst case scenario) the demolition of 28 residential properties. These comprise 21 houses as a number of them are flats rather than single dwellings.

As to blight, these properties are already in the vicinity of the existing Midland Mainline.


It’s not a mile extra walk: it’s about seven or eight minutes or so, but with a much more frequent service.

Improving pedestrian and cycle links - plus the scope to deliver station parking - is also under consideration as part and parcel of any relocation.
If you look up the earlier consultatons which included a split level stations as an option, you will see the area they proposed to place it. As to Wixams not existing yet, neither does a nine platform station at Bedford exist yet.

Ridgmont. Along the track it is far less than a mile. Walking it on roads is about a mile round two sides of a triangle and an absolutely vile walk requiring crossing several main roads including on and off slip roads of M1 Junction 13.

I'm sure the existing properties being near the midland main line will be of great comfort to those losing their houses or chunks of their garden and those near it who will be right on top of it if this happens.

As I said above, I am in favour of a new railway to Cambridge (strongly in favour), these proposals will galvanise huge opposition (currently limited to nimbies fretting about night time goods trains) making this railway less rather than more likely to happen.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,243
Bletchley is in Milton Keynes in the same way that Bradford is in Leeds.

WIxams is part of Bedford Borough with frequent Thameslink services to Bedford on the Midland Main line, and a split level Tamworth type station there woupd be nearer Bedford than Bletchley is to Milton Keynes Central.

So why are you happy for Milton Keynes with a population of getting on for half a million to by bypassed while it is essential for Bedford with little more than a tenth of the population to have EWR routed through it at a cost of hundreds of milions of pounds and the sort if destruction normally associated with an urban motorway?

90 houses might not seem much to you but for every house destroyed ten more will be blighted.

The A12 link road in Wanstead, east London "only" took 263 houses but the protests were epic and no government (outside Scotland) has dared build an urban motorway since.

Then to cap it they propose the biggest set of station closures since about 1970 with five of the Marston Vale line stations proposed to be closed and one of the others moved a mile away forcing its passengers to walk a mile including over an M1 intersection to get to Brogborough and the Amazon Warehouse.

If the Railway Conversion League had infiltrated East West Rail to undermine the project I don't think they could have done a better job

Re your first sentence that is rubbish. Bradford has a standalone council. Bletchley has a town council but falls within Milton Keynes council. Just because Bletchley predates MK it doesn't mean that it can't now be a component part. That happens regularly in new towns (l originate from a place which now has exactly that status in Telford).
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Re your first sentence that is rubbish. Bradford has a standalone council. Bletchley has a town council but falls within Milton Keynes council. Just because Bletchley predates MK it doesn't mean that it can't now be a component part. That happens regularly in new towns (l originate from a place which now has exactly that status in Telford).

Plus the obvious and unarguable geographical fact that Bletchley is located much, much closer to Central Milton Keynes (and within MK as a whole) than Bradford is to Leeds
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
The six-track eastern option would require (as a reasonable worst case scenario) the demolition of 28 residential properties. These comprise 21 houses as a number of them are flats rather than single dwellings.

Table 8.2 on page 294 of the Technical Report gives a summary for all of the options examined:
Technical Report
The local social media is likeiy including "at risk" of debolition and the properties suffering land loss rather than outright demolition, which everyone can argue over but isn't wholly unreasonable. Extract showing table attached.
 

Attachments

  • 20210403_110655.jpg
    20210403_110655.jpg
    65.9 KB · Views: 21

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
As I said above, I am in favour of a new railway to Cambridge (strongly in favour), these proposals will galvanise huge opposition (currently limited to nimbies fretting about night time goods trains) making this railway less rather than more likely to happen.

Same happened with HS1 in Kent - nobody wanted it near them. Now councils like Maidstone are regretting their historic stances big time.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,628
If you look up the earlier consultatons which included a split level stations as an option, you will see the area they proposed to place it. As to Wixams not existing yet, neither does a nine platform station at Bedford exist yet.
You said previously that Wixams “is” (present tense) a place with frequent Thameslink services:

WIxams is part of Bedford Borough with frequent Thameslink services to Bedford on the Midland Main line, and a split level Tamworth type station there woupd be nearer Bedford than Bletchley is to Milton Keynes Central.

As to earlier consultations, to which are you referring?

Regardless of that, development in the area has changed significantly over the past few years so I would ask you - again - where you would locate a split level Wixams interchange.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
Plus the obvious and unarguable geographical fact that Bletchley is located much, much closer to Central Milton Keynes (and within MK as a whole) than Bradford is to Leeds
Bletchley is four miles from Milton Keynes, Bradford is 8 from Leeds.


Civic structures are irrelevant, it is the inconvenience caused by changing that is relevant.

A comparable example in terms of civic structure and distance would be terminating trains from Sheffield at Stockport as there are plenty of connecting trains from there into Piccadilly.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,628
The local social media is likeiy including "at risk" of debolition and the properties suffering land loss rather than outright demolition, which everyone can argue over but isn't wholly unreasonable. Extract showing table attached.
So we can all agree that 90 houses will not in fact require to be demolished, then.

I assume that you will not be repeating this misleading number in future posts?
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Bletchley is four miles from Milton Keynes, Bradford is 8 from Leeds.

The road networks are also very different. From Bletchley you can be in pretty much any other part of Milton Keynes within about 15 minutes, means that it is very effective as a "railhead" for the whole town, by drop off or taxi.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
So we can all agree that 90 houses will not in fact require to be demolished, then.

I assume that you will not be repeating this misleading number in future posts?
I based it on reports here that I took in good faith and will shortly be editing the original post to 90 houses demolished, losing land or at risk of being demolished.

The road networks are also very different. From Bletchley you can be in pretty much any other part of Milton Keynes within about 15 minutes, means that it is very effective as a "railhead" for the whole town, by drop off or taxi.
That used to be the case. Not in peak hours anymore alas (at least outside of Covid Pandemics). Around Bletchley is quite bad at times especially where the retail parks are, partly because it is an existing town so hasn't got the housing/road segregation of the grid roads elsewhere.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,628
I based it on reports here that I took in good faith and will shortly be editing the original post to 90 houses demolished, losing land or at risk of being demolished.
Do be sure to mention that 14 of the properties for which partial land acquisition may be needed are on the western side of the existing line and would only be affected if a retaining wall to strengthen Bromham Road is required (it might not be).
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
Do be sure to mention that 14 of the properties for which partial land acquisition may be needed are on the western side of the existing line and would only be affected if a retaining wall to strengthen Bromham Road is required (it might not be).
That is more than catered for by the figure of 90, as the worst case option impacts 134 homes.

So thats 134 families whos lives are currently on hold and unable to sell their properties. Possibly for years, not to mention tbe many more who are just outside the impact zone but will be similarly blighted.

Unsurprisingly, this has gone down like a lead balloon in Bedford.

Edit typos from 144 to 134

 
Last edited:

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,628
That is more than catered for by the figure of 90, as the worst case option impacts 144 homes.

So thats 144 families whos lives are currently on hold and unable to sell their properties. Possibly for years, not to mention tbe many more who are just outside the impact zone but will be similarly blighted.
144? Where has this number come from?
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,628
Look at the table and work it out for yourself.
Three issues with that:
  1. The table relates to the six track western option, which is not the emerging preferred option being proposed.
  2. None of the columns in the table sum to 144.
  3. Variation A sums to 134, but the preceding text makes clear that:
these variations have not been pursued

Partly because the variations perform worse than the emerging preferred option (six track eastern) in this regard.

I based it on reports here that I took in good faith and will shortly be editing the original post to 90 houses demolished, losing land or at risk of being demolished.
Will you be editing your other misleading posts in this thread as well?
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
Three issues with that:
  1. The table relates to the six track western option, which is not the emerging preferred option being proposed.
  2. None of the columns in the table sum to 144.
  3. Variation A sums to 134, but the preceding text makes clear that:


Partly because the variations perform worse than the emerging preferred option (six track eastern) in this regard.


Will you be editing your other misleading posts in this thread as well?
No because they are not misleading.

I added context to a figure I had used in good faith that I had got from others in this forum and my reward is to have the boot put into me. No wonder people here stick to their positions until they are blue in the face.
 

tspaul26

Established Member
Joined
9 Jun 2016
Messages
1,628
No because they are not misleading.

I added context to a figure I had used in good faith that I had got from others in this forum and my reward is to have the boot put into me. No wonder people here stick to their positions until they are blue in the face.

Hem-hem:

if as is reported 90 properties will be destroyed to do it

About £200 million and 90 families houses demolished is another matter entirely.

90 houses might not seem much to you but for every house destroyed ten more will be blighted.

I should also point out that a number of the partial land acquisitions relate to parking spaces. I’m not sure that this really constitutes ‘destruction’ of a house, at least in any meaningful sense.
 

Railwaysceptic

Established Member
Joined
6 Nov 2017
Messages
1,433
The A12 extension in East London in the 80s, a very much scaled down version of a fragment of the ringways that resulted in the loss of a similar number of houses, caused absolute uproar with years of trench warfare with the protestors which blew the construction budget out of the water.
The A12 link road in Wanstead, east London "only" took 263 houses but the protests were epic and no government (outside Scotland) has dared build an urban motorway since.
The A12 extension had nothing to do with the inner London ringway project which had been abandoned years previously. The protesters were not local people. They were the usual ragbag of career protesters who squatted in houses that had been purchased as part of the scheme. Many of these squatters had motor vehicles on which no road tax disc was displayed. The A12 extension has been great success and it's hard to find any resident of Wanstead, Leyton or Leytonstone who regrets the scheme.

The reason there has been no further large improvement to trunk roads in London is that a Mayor was foisted on London and an anti-motor car organisation named Transport for London took control of the trunk routes. If that had not happened, the A406 would by now have been substantially upgraded.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
No because they are not misleading.

Hem-hem:







I should also point out that a number of the partial land acquisitions relate to parking spaces. I’m not sure that this really constitutes ‘destruction’ of a house, at least in any meaningful sense.
Oh well, so thats all right then I'm sure losing your parking space and a chunk of your garden is fine.

Table 8.2 also shows, for the six track eastern option 97 properties either to be demolished, at risk of being demolished or losing land.

While those losing gardens and having adjacent houses they are attached to demolished or neighbours houses replaced with a wall might not be having their houses destroyed in terms of full demolition they can be reasonably said to be having them destroyed,

in the sense of quiet peaceful enjoyment of their home.

A good number of houses will be also be compulsorily purchased in association with the Bedford station devrlopment and other work elsewhere on the Marston Vale line, which would not be happening if a more proportional scheme was implemented.

So I will stick with ~90 thanks.

The A12 extension had nothing to do with the inner London ringway project which had been abandoned years previously. The protesters were not local people. They were the usual ragbag of career protesters who squatted in houses that had been purchased as part of the scheme. Many of these squatters had motor vehicles on which no road tax disc was displayed. The A12 extension has been great success and it's hard to find any resident of Wanstead, Leyton or Leytonstone who regrets the scheme.

The reason there has been no further large improvement to trunk roads in London is that a Mayor was foisted on London and an anti-motor car organisation named Transport for London took control of the trunk routes. If that had not happened, the A406 would by now have been substantially upgraded.
The A12 was a scaled down extension of the M11 which was to be built as part of the ringways to connect it to the Ringway 1 North Cross Route which wasn't built and Ringway 1 East Cross Route (A102(M)) which had been.

All the other London Trunk Road improvement proposals of the 80s and earlier (WEIR, completion of grade separated North Circular, A40 Gypsy Lane etc), had been canned by in Major administration or incoming Labour government in 1997 before the GLA was set up, Livingstone actually revived one in modified form, the A23 Coulsdon Bypass.
 
Last edited:

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
6,243
Bletchley is four miles from Milton Keynes, Bradford is 8 from Leeds.


Civic structures are irrelevant, it is the inconvenience caused by changing that is relevant.

A comparable example in terms of civic structure and distance would be terminating trains from Sheffield at Stockport as there are plenty of connecting trains from there into Piccadilly.
Bletchley is part of the same conurbation as Milton Keynes, there is no physical divide. Stockport is approx 7 miles as the crow flies from Manchester albeit admittedly the same is true about being part of the same conurbation.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Bletchley is part of the same conurbation as Milton Keynes, there is no physical divide. Stockport is approx 7 miles as the crow flies from Manchester albeit admittedly the same is true about being part of the same conurbation.

Also, terminating trains at Stockport makes no operational sense when the infrastructure is there, serving a city as big as Manchester.

On EWR, each train that diverts to MK is a train that cannot run directly East-West. Sufficient infrastructure is not available to take these trains into MK (other than a couple from Oxford), when most of the same benefits can be achieved with a change of train at Bletchley.

You *could* build some infrastructure to get extra trains into MK, but the marginal benefits for each extra train would be relatively low against the cost of this infrastructure, given that you can still run trains avoiding MKC and still get most of the benefits.

Oh well, so thats all right then I'm sure losing your parking space and a chunk of your garden is fine.

"Losing" = "Fairly financially compensated for consequent loss of value of house".
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,420
Location
Brighton
Oh well, so thats all right then I'm sure losing your parking space and a chunk of your garden is fine.

Table 8.2 also shows, for the six track eastern option 97 properties either to be demolished, at risk of being demolished or losing land.

While those losing gardens and having adjacent houses they are attached to demolished or neighbours houses replaced with a wall might not be having their houses destroyed in terms of full demolition they can be reasonably said to be having them destroyed,

in the sense of quiet peaceful enjoyment of their home.

A good number of houses will be also be compulsorily purchased in association with the Bedford station devrlopment and other work elsewhere on the Marston Vale line, which would not be happening if a more proportional scheme was implemented.

So I will stick with ~90 thanks.
Your hyperbole really isn't doing you any favours, you know that, right?

I was hoping someone else would do it, but let's look at the detail diagram the consultation provides, shall we?
1617451883155.png
Doesn't look too bad to me for a project with massive national importance? The at-risk figure really is the top-end worst case scenario. Take 1-14 Granet Close for example, they might lose a thin stip of their gardens for a new retaining wall for Bromham Road. You surely cannot in good conscience lump them into the same headline figure as Spenser Road even numbers 10-2, likewise, losing a strip off the end of your garden is really no big deal. They will be compensated, it's not like the diggers will just turn up one day and rip it away at gunpoint.

Likewise, the entirety of Chesterton Mews is very unlikely to require total demolition, there's just the caveat that pending structural investigation they might have to come down if they are dependant on the actual 3 that will have to come down. Worst case, the project buys the whole lot, pulls them down, then builds replacement flats afterwards, so any major loss would be temporary.

Just feels like you're deliberately trying to mislead, which really isn't cool.
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
Your hyperbole really isn't doing you any favours, you know that, right?

I was hoping someone else would do it, but let's look at the detail diagram the consultation provides, shall we?
View attachment 93720
Doesn't look too bad to me for a project with massive national importance? The at-risk figure really is the top-end worst case scenario. Take 1-14 Granet Close for example, they might lose a thin stip of their gardens for a new retaining wall for Bromham Road. You surely cannot in good conscience lump them into the same headline figure as Spenser Road even numbers 10-2, likewise, losing a strip off the end of your garden is really no big deal. They will be compensated, it's not like the diggers will just turn up one day and rip it away at gunpoint.

Likewise, the entirety of Chesterton Mews is very unlikely to require total demolition, there's just the caveat that pending structural investigation they might have to come down if they are dependant on the actual 3 that will have to come down. Worst case, the project buys the whole lot, pulls them down, then builds replacement flats afterwards, so any major loss would be temporary.

Just feels like you're deliberately trying to mislead, which really isn't cool.
If I had made comments like "hundreds" then I woud agree.

The 90 figure was from a poster on the infraatructure forum that I used in good faith.

I amended the figure in the top post from 90 demolished to ~90 demolished, at risk of demolition or land taken, after another poster challenged the figures

The actual figures in table 8.2 of the technical document are

28 demolished
25 at risk of demolition
44 lose land
Total 97

So I think as amended it is reasonable. It is a significant number.

I'm actually very much in favour of East West Rail but fear these porposals will kill the project by being over the top.

The proposed closure of five Marston Vale stations alone (the highest number of stations, light rail conversions excepted since the closure of the Minehead branch) will cause a lot of support to turn to opposition, without upsetting Bedford too. Unfortunately, once galvanised, opposition dosen't tend to fade away when the plans are changed, so the damage is done.

(on a personal basis I am quite angry and appalled about the Marston Vale Station proposals, far more so than the six tracking, which I suspect won't happen in the end. Both though have the potential to galvanise oppositon from the previous handful of nimbies moaning about night time goods trains to something serious that (together with the cost of these grandes proposals, could derail the whole thing)

The only reason East West Rail is possible is because of the decades of campaigning by local people to save the Bedford Bletchley line (it was a very close run thing) and then get it extended to Bedford Midland and, in this century modernised and resignalled. Their reward it seems is now to have their local railway pretty well ruined so that a seemingly unfeasible number of trains (four an hour) can zoom from Cambridge to Bletchley).
 
Last edited:

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
878
It's fairly inevitable that if you put a new or enlarged railway through an urban area there will be some loss of housing and commercial properties. That's unfortunate but it shouldn't stop schemes from happening. The people involved just need to be properly consulted and compensated. if you live next to a railway line then there is always the possibility that it will be widened at some point in the future.

Even the "worst case" numbers for Bedford don't look that bad. Just imagine the number of homes and businesses affected if EWR was going directly through Milton Keynes.
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,420
Location
Brighton
I amended the figure in the top post from 90 demolished to ~90 demolished, at risk of demolition or land taken, after another poster challenged the figures

The actual figures in table 8.2 of the technical document are

28 demolished
25 at risk of demolition
44 lose land
Total 97

So I think as amended it is reasonable. It is a significant number.
So if you were going to change it, why not be accurate? It's just as easy to state "up to 28 demolished, 25 at risk of demolition and 44 with land taken". It just feels like you're trying to mislead people into thinking 90 homes will be demolished by only giving a single figure. It's very disingenuous.

The proposed closure of five Marston Vale stations alone (the highest number of stations, light rail conversions excepted since the closure of the Minehead branch will cause a lot of support to turn to opposition, without upsetting Bedford too.
...and again, that's possibly not even correct yet it's being stated as a fact (as I replied to that post, the Northampton and MH railway didn't finally close until 1981, and had more stations). The original post proposed it as an unknown, yet here the ammunition is again being loaded into the propaganda weaponry. They're not even removing all the stations, they're proposing to relocate them, which whilst it has a lot of concerns that need to be addressed properly (which is why they're consulting!), isn't even in the same ballpark as actual closures. Someone in Lidlington isn't going to have to drive to Bletchley or Bedford to catch the train!
 

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
So if you were going to change it, why not be accurate? It's just as easy to state "up to 28 demolished, 25 at risk of demolition and 44 with land taken". It just feels like you're trying to mislead people into thinking 90 homes will be demolished by only giving a single figure. It's very disingenuous.


...and again, that's possibly not even correct yet it's being stated as a fact (as I replied to that post, the Northampton and MH railway didn't finally close until 1981, and had more stations). The original post proposed it as an unknown, yet here the ammunition is again being loaded into the propaganda weaponry. They're not even removing all the stations, they're proposing to relocate them, which whilst it has a lot of concerns that need to be addressed properly (which is why they're consulting!), isn't even in the same ballpark as actual closures. Someone in Lidlington isn't going to have to drive to Bletchley or Bedford to catch the train!
You can't make a "headline" statement too wordy as it becomes unreadable. As you have asked nicely though I have added "see note at bottom and put the exact figures there" No one has moaned about me saying ~90 when it is 97 though!



The stations on the Market Harborough to Northampton line shut decades before the line shut.

There are ten stations between Bedford and Bletchley, the proposal in one of the two options is to shut five of them. Kempston Hardwick, Millbrook, Apsley Guise, Bow Brickhill and Fenny Stratford.

Three of those (Stewartby (Wixams new town), Millbrook (Marston Moretaine and Bow Brickhill) are having huge numbers of houses built within walking distance.

The other five, which are definitely to be retained, are to be relocated a short distance except Bedford St Johns (seems a neutral effect), and Ridgmont which will be relocated to the other side of the M1 intersection and no longer be within walking distance of the Amazon Warehouse trading estate and Brogborough (its source of passengers).

As an up to now long time supporter of reopening Oxford to Cambridge I'm really saddened that they have come up with this.
 
Last edited:

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,570
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
Presumably because MK is a “branch” with most EWR trains going directly East-West at Bletchley, whereas Bedford is on the EWR “main line”.

Which as I have said before is silly. It'll be a settlement of 400-500,000 people within 30 years or so, by far the largest settlement and employment centre on the whole route.

It does. Bletchley is part of Milton Keynes with frequent connections to reach MKC.

I wouldn't call it frequent. There are 4tph off peak (two LNR slow, one fast and the Southern) but they are very bunched, it is no Merseyrail. It is also a bad park and ride as it is not directly connected to the grid system and so is quite slow to reach from the rest of MK. The reason why EWR should serve MKC directly is the same reason MKC was built in the first place - a parkway at one end of the town is simply not going to work any more than say Upholland does for Skem.

Missing out MKC almost makes it not worth bothering at all. In my view the case for an east to north chord and any additional tracks necessary (post HS2) is huge. It would also make the Marston Vale local service (with the new stations and retaining Bow Brickhill as Tilbrook for Caldecotte) an important commuter route into MK from what by then will be a very built up area indeed. The first bit of MK's Merseyrail? Carry the tracks on past the Cows to Wolverton and you have a potential later Newport Pagnell tram train route?

And now is the time to build it, as it is only blocked by run down industrial property and unused land, not yet houses. Just like Manc Picc 15/16 is basically "now or never".

FWIW given the commuter potential, if there are only 2 paths I'd connect Bedford to MKC hourly in preference to Oxford.
 
Last edited:

21C101

Established Member
Joined
19 Jul 2014
Messages
2,557
It's fairly inevitable that if you put a new or enlarged railway through an urban area there will be some loss of housing and commercial properties. That's unfortunate but it shouldn't stop schemes from happening. The people involved just need to be properly consulted and compensated. if you live next to a railway line then there is always the possibility that it will be widened at some point in the future.

Even the "worst case" numbers for Bedford don't look that bad. Just imagine the number of homes and businesses affected if EWR was going directly through Milton Keynes.
As Bletchlyeyite pointed out above, the number of homes affected by six tracking Bletchley to MK would be zero, with few businesses impacted. The same would apply for a direct curve from Fenny Stratford towards MK.

To my mind this is where the money on six tracking should be spent with all trains from Cambridge/Bedford going direct to Milton Keynes, reversing there and going onto Oxford or Marylebone via Aylesbury.

MK is roughly the same size as Sheffield and growing fast. No one seriously suggests that Nottingham to Liverpool trains should take the Dore curve and bypass Sheffield, with Sheffield passengers changing at Dronfield or Chesterfield.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top