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

[Metrolink]

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.

That’s fair. However, Chesterfield and Dronfield are miles further away than Bletchley is to MK.

The question I’m asking is if their is room for more slows between MKC and Bletchley, with some shuttling between the two stops and maybe an extra 1/2tph extended to London?

 

[Kingston Dan]

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.

Sheffield has a population of 570,000 MK 280,000 - I wouldn't say they were roughly the same.

 

[21C101]

That’s fair. However, Chesterfield and Dronfield are miles further away than Bletchley is to MK.

The question I’m asking is if their is room for more slows between MKC and Bletchley, with some shuttling between the two stops and maybe an extra 1/2tph extended to London?

The answer appears to be no, as despite the signalling being put in place to do it, the Bedford to Bletchley service has not been extended to MK.

HS2 will release some slots, but a comparison between the non intercity service from Northampton and MK to London with the Thameslink service frequency to St Albans, Luton and Bedford shows how quickly suppressed demand to London might fill those up.

I'm not sure it is even certain that the western leg services frpm Oxford will go onto MK from Bletchiey when that phase is done.

They do seem to be taking a sledgehammer to a splinter at Bedford while overlooking a plank at MK.

Sheffield has a population of 570,000 MK 280,000 - I wouldn't say they were roughly the same.

It is growing fast and set to hit 500,000 in the next few years

 

[Aictos]

It is growing fast and set to hit 500,000 in the next few years

Source please for the population increase in numbers provided.

 

[Kingston Dan]

.


It is growing fast and set to hit 500,000 in the next few years

What you said was they were roughly the same size and MK was growing fast - I know MK is growing fast - but how many years will it be before it hits half a million? And what will the population of Sheffield (which is also growing) be by then? Sheffield is also part of a conurbation of more than a million so I don't think the comparison is valid.

Having said all of that - from comments people who know better than I do - there seems no argument not to improve the Bletchley - MK service (and make it part of E-W rail).

 

[Mikey C]

Just on Milton Keynes, would a separate light railway be more useful for MK than just 6 tracking the line between Bletchley and MK Central, seeing that most people aren't specifically going to MK Central station?

I don't know the area well enough to give an exact route, but say a core of MK Central station, central MK, Hospital, Stadium MK, Bletchley station

 

[Bletchleyite]

That’s fair. However, Chesterfield and Dronfield are miles further away than Bletchley is to MK.

It's probably a bit more like, in Sheffield terms, having those trains serve Dore but not Sheffield. Which I think most people would think a little silly. (I know the actual track layout wouldn't allow that, of course).

The question I’m asking is if their is room for more slows between MKC and Bletchley, with some shuttling between the two stops and maybe an extra 1/2tph extended to London?

There aren't as things stand, but post-HS2 there probably will be. But why run shuttles when you could just run through, either with a reverse or a new curve? If the planned service is 4tph on the Bedford side, then 2 of those could run to MKC rather than Bletchley, which would be more than adequate - and if those two were the ones that served the 5 Marston Vale stations, even better. If they then reversed at MKC and headed to Oxford and Aylesbury (as one of each of those is planned) then that would be better still.

But a 5th or even 6th track from Bletchley to MKC would require surprisingly little work. There are already 6 tracks as far as just before the Watling St bridge (the Up/Down Bletchley are hardly used at all) and if you follow the line up there is definitely room for them to continue with just digging out of embankments and bridge work and no properties impinged on until a car park in Winterhill (which only just does).

Running from the Bedford side to MKC has many benefits, far more than Oxford. Clearly the Aylesbury side will have considerable commuting to MKC as well, but Oxford I reckon rather less so. And while the line is presently a backwater, MK will extend and other new villages will crop up around the line, and it'll start looking quite a lot more like the outer reaches of Merseyrail before very long at all, plus a potentially significant P&R site by J13 in the form of the "new" Ridgmont.

 

[tbtc]

Not like this Forum to have a load of hyperbole about Milton Keynes... I know...but EW seems a real curate's egg of a project - being both "gold plated" and "descoped" - six tracking the MML to permit four trains per hour on EW (which has previously had an hourly service provided by a single 153s and a single 150) but also shaving a trivial sum off the budget by not electrifying it - what a mess!

But, as a Midland Mainline passenger, it does seem a little frustrating that Bedford - Leicester (Nottingham/ Derby/ Sheffield) is stuck with the same four trains per hour it's had for over twenty years and electrification promises scaled back to just Kettering... yet this new line on the block comes along and gets all the attention - I feel a bit like an older sibling stuck with no new toys whilst all the focus is given on showering the new baby with all the goodies it wants!

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.

Hi, Sheffield person here... didn't realise that Milton Keynes was already the same size as Sheffield (maybe it'll have overtaken us by the time I finish typing?)... strange comparison though - there are a number of services that go "near" places without actually serving them - e.g. the hourly Edinburgh - Leeds - Birmingham - Bristol - Plymouth services could divert into Sunderland/ Bradford/ Nottingham/ Coventry/ Gloucester etc but we accept that people from these cities change at other stations - nobody suggests that London to Glasgow services should divert through central Manchester/ Liverpool - nobody suggests that London - Cardiff services should divert through central Bristol. Sometimes it's worth diverting into somewhere (e.g. Cardiff - Milford Haven services divert via central Swansea rather than running via the District line) but not always.

Bletchley could be like Tamworth or Retford - both of which function as interchange stations without the need to divert services to give everywhere a direct link to everywhere.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bletchley could be like Tamworth or Retford - both of which function as interchange stations without the need to divert services to give everywhere a direct link to everywhere.

MK's population is about half Sheffield's but it will be similar within 30 years or so. MK doesn't fit the "direct service from everywhere to everywhere" argument - it's not some suburb of Manchester (the place that seems to most suffer that issue), it is the largest (and most growing) regional centre on the line, both residential and business, and thus by a long way the primary traffic objective. The whole thing is a bit like building Northern Powerhouse Rail but having it miss out Manchester city centre and just call at Stockport. For example it has, now, roughly the population of Oxford and Cambridge put together; only Bedford even comes close (about 180K vs 250K) but MK is growing and Bedford isn't to the same extent.

But people just hark back to the romance of the "Varsity Line" and have this quaint image of gowned professors sat at the table seats writing their theses using a fountain pen, and have no concept of the reality of the traffic demands, both current and future.

 

[Ianno87]

MK's population is about half Sheffield's but it will be similar within 30 years or so. MK doesn't fit the "direct service from everywhere to everywhere" argument - it's not some suburb of Manchester (the place that seems to most suffer that issue), it is the largest (and most growing) regional centre on the line, both residential and business, and thus by a long way the primary traffic objective. The whole thing is a bit like building Northern Powerhouse Rail but having it miss out Manchester city centre and just call at Stockport.

Depends what it is important to serve in MK to make it effective. The ironic thing about Milton Keynes' geographic expansion means (in part) more development potentially around the fringes (I.e. where EWR is) than the centre itself. i.e. the line might be well suited to where the new development actually is!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Depends what it is important to serve in MK to make it effective. The ironic thing about Milton Keynes' geographic expansion means (in part) more development potentially around the fringes (I.e. where EWR is) than the centre itself. i.e. the line might be well suited to where the new development actually is!

Certainly there's been more growth around Bletchley, but the primary centre of white collar employment is CMK (and that isn't likely to change, though the number of days a week might), and blue collar employment is more likely to have commuters from the Marston Vale than Oxford and Winslow (because people don't commute long distances to warehouse jobs as the pay isn't enough to cover the season ticket cost). It's also the hub of the bus network, or what's left of it - all remaining timetabled local bus routes serve MKC, and only three or four of them Bletchley.

Bletchley is primarily residential and very much a traffic source rather than sink (except when the footy is on), and that won't change either nor is development planned that would make it change. It's also a poor Parkway because it isn't directly connected to the grid - this is quite visible from the fact that even though LM tried reducing the cost of parking at Bletchley to just £3 per day (MKC is about £8) they didn't draw the commuters in and ended up removing half the double-decking and shifting it to Leighton Buzzard (which, incidentally, may actually be a better Parkway to London from the likes of Newton Leys). In essence this idea was tried once (the original MK masterplan had only Wolverton "MK North" and Bletchley "MK South") but it was soon found to be impractical and MKC was duly built.

 

[Ianno87]

Certainly there's been more growth around Bletchley, but the primary centre of white collar employment is CMK (and that isn't likely to change, though the number of days a week might), and blue collar employment is more likely to have commuters from the Marston Vale than Oxford and Winslow (because people don't commute long distances to warehouse jobs as the pay isn't enough to cover the season ticket cost). It's also the hub of the bus network, or what's left of it - all remaining timetabled local bus routes serve MKC, and only three or four of them Bletchley.

Bletchley is primarily residential and very much a traffic source rather than sink (except when the footy is on), and that won't change either nor is development planned that would make it change. It's also a poor Parkway because it isn't directly connected to the grid - this is quite visible from the fact that even though LM tried reducing the cost of parking at Bletchley to just £3 per day (MKC is about £8) they didn't draw the commuters in and ended up removing half the double-decking and shifting it to Leighton Buzzard (which, incidentally, may actually be a better Parkway to London from the likes of Newton Leys).

A quick Google of "Milton Keynes Expansion map" shows (from the MK Council website) a whole area around Ridgmont, plus the area roughly between Bow Brickhill and Aspley Guise. I.e. exactly where EWR will be going through the middle of. The centre of gravity of the whole borough will shift southwards slightly.

Sounds like awfully joined up transport planning - planning development and transport infrastructure at the same time to complement each other. I think I need a lie down...

 

[Bletchleyite]

A quick Google of "Milton Keynes Expansion map" shows (from the MK Council website) a whole area around Ridgmont, plus the area roughly between Bow Brickhill and Aspley Guise. I.e. exactly where EWR will be going through the middle of. The centre of gravity of the whole borough will shift southwards slightly.

Yes. That is, basically where they are proposing two of the five stations. Indeed, it rather seems that that new Ridgmont may form the centrepiece of a new industrial estate.

However, that is not going to suddenly cause CMK not to be a decently sized traffic sink - and people might want to commute there from other parts of MK via the bus network - which all serves MKC - literally right outside - like you get in Germany.

This all says to me that there absolutely has to be a direct service from MKC towards at least Bedford if not Cambridge, ideally calling at those five stations. Those two Bletchley terminators are ripe for extension.

Sounds like awfully joined up transport planning - planning development and transport infrastructure at the same time to complement each other. I think I need a lie down...

 

[21C101]

Certainly there's been more growth around Bletchley, but the primary centre of white collar employment is CMK (and that isn't likely to change, though the number of days a week might), and blue collar employment is more likely to have commuters from the Marston Vale than Oxford and Winslow (because people don't commute long distances to warehouse jobs as the pay isn't enough to cover the season ticket cost). It's also the hub of the bus network, or what's left of it - all remaining timetabled local bus routes serve MKC, and only three or four of them Bletchley.

Bletchley is primarily residential and very much a traffic source rather than sink (except when the footy is on), and that won't change either nor is development planned that would make it change. It's also a poor Parkway because it isn't directly connected to the grid - this is quite visible from the fact that even though LM tried reducing the cost of parking at Bletchley to just £3 per day (MKC is about £8) they didn't draw the commuters in and ended up removing half the double-decking and shifting it to Leighton Buzzard (which, incidentally, may actually be a better Parkway to London from the likes of Newton Leys).

Careful That population figure you quoted is Bedford Borough which includes all the way up to Sharnbrook.

Bedford itself has only 80,000 population, 106,000 if you include Kempston, Biddenham etc (but don't go there and tell people they live in Bedford!).

MK is already up to 315,000 according to some sources, I imagice that similarly presumably includes Olney etc.

So I was a bit premature saying MK was roughly the size of Sheffield, but it will be soon enough and it dosen't detract from the point that it really ought to be the core focus of EWR planning.

A quick Google of "Milton Keynes Expansion map" shows (from the MK Council website) a whole area around Ridgmont, plus the area roughly between Bow Brickhill and Aspley Guise. I.e. exactly where EWR will be going through the middle of. The centre of gravity of the whole borough will shift southwards slightly.

They are also planning and have started to festoon the Marston Vale with large numbers of houses (tens of thousands) but they are in Central Beds not MK. That is why the A421 expressway from M1 J13 to Bedford was built.

Hence closing places like Kempston Hardwick, located at Wixams, a new town under construction which will have a ~10,000+ population and Millbrook (located at Marston Moretaine), formerly a small village which has seen housing decelpment increase it to ~5,000 with further large developments under construction or planned....is not such good forward planning.

Ditto shutting Bow Brickhill given the housing development you mention in the area.

 

[Nicholas43]

But people just hark back to the romance of the "Varsity Line" and have this quaint image of gowned professors sat at the table seats writing their theses using a fountain pen, and have no concept of the reality of the traffic demands, both current and future.

Hmm. I was at Cambridge in the 1960s and had a girlfriend in Oxford. Nobody called it the 'varsity line'. It was notorious for requiring long waits at Bletchley.
I now live near Oxford and am concerned that the mooted Oxford station east-side rebuilding and more tracks N of Oxford is also gold-plating. Surely 2 tph Oxford to Bletchley to somewhere is enough? Isn't wanting lots of calls at Milton Keynes Central (for the museum of pre-plague shopping?) a bit like wanting trains from Paddington to Plymouth to call at Exeter Central?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't wanting lots of calls at Milton Keynes Central (for the museum of pre-plague shopping?) a bit like wanting trains from Paddington to Plymouth to call at Exeter Central?

Have you actually been to CMK? It sounds to me like you haven't, or if you did you just drove to the shopping centre and went in there.

CMK:

1. Is a major centre of white collar employment, not just retail. But TBH people aren't going to switch wholesale to buying clothing online, as you need to try it on, so I don't see the threat to the shopping centre at all, really, as most shops there are clothes shops. People who will buy clothing online largely already were pre-pandemic.
2. Has Network Rail and Santander based there (with Santander centralising all their office operations there, replacing other locations) plus many other smaller employers. OK, daily commuting might be dead, but I reckon 3-days-a-week will be very common.
3. Is the hub of MK's bus network.
4. Is centrally located.
5. Even post HS2 will still have excellent connections to Manchester, Birmingham and London.
6. Is increasingly residential on top of all that.

Exeter isn't really comparable for a number of reasons. Not least that it isn't anything like the level of business centre CMK is. But also because St David's is under a kilometre from Central, it's a bit more like CMK having a second station down by Rooksley than it is like Bletchley, or like Manchester Oxford Road and Piccadilly.

One thing it is a bit like is if say XC missed out Bristol Temple Meads entirely and served only Parkway. Yes, I know some London services bypass Bristol, but what I'm proposing is having those two Bletchley terminators extend to MKC, not binning off the direct service entirely.

 

[Ianno87]

Hence closing places like Kempston Hardwick, located at Wixams, a new town under construction which will have a ~10,000+ population and Millbrook (located at Marston Moretaine), formerly a small village which has seen housing decelpment increase it to ~5,000 with further large developments under construction or planned....is not such good forward planning.

Ditto shutting Bow Brickhill given the housing development you mention in the area.

The existing stations are, frankly, not fit for purpose to serve such large numbers of housing, so are going to need comprehensive rebuilding anyway. So might as well take the opportunity to re-site them for best overall benefit and between them cover the entire catchment area as best as possible.

One thing it is a bit like is if say XC missed out Bristol Temple Meads entirely and served only Parkway. Yes, I know some London services bypass Bristol, but what I'm proposing is having those two Bletchley terminators extend to MKC, not binning off the direct service entirely.

I think in principle that would be ideal, but I suspect the issue is the amount of infrastructure that would drive (solely for those two trains to extend the short distance to MKC) would be pretty hefty.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The existing stations are, frankly, not fit for purpose to serve such large numbers of housing, so are going to need comprehensive rebuilding anyway. So might as well take the opportunity to re-site them for best overall benefit and between them cover the entire catchment area as best as possible.

I'm inclined to largely agree except that not having any station at all within MK itself (other than Bletchley) is nuts - there might be an argument to relocate Bow Brickhill north into the new housing development, but a station is certainly needed somewhere around there, and I'd say it's a definite priority over having Bedford St Johns as well as Midland, given that they are about 1km apart. Yes, some people do use St John's as it's nearer where they're going, but it's a bit like Deansgate is to Oxford Road in Manchester - yes it's useful, but if it's in the way of doing better things it's not essential at all.

A good idea might be to whack it right in the middle between Old Farm Park and the new housing development and accompany it by a new primary school, small supermarket, some parkland and other community facilities, making that end of MK a bit of a mini-eco-village.

 

[21C101]

Here are the usage figures for the stations in Wikipedia for 2019/20:

Fenny Stratford*: 26,446
Bow Brickhill*: 41,340
Woburn Sands: 46,704
Apsley Guise*: 9,408
Ridgmont: 26,208
Lidlington: 19,628
Millbrook*:12,250
Stewartby:72,748
Kempston Hardwick*: 10,494

Bedford St Johns is claimed to have ~180,000 a year using it. This appears to be an error due to being the same ticket destination as Bedford Midland as in my experience no more than a handful of people a day use it.

There has also been campaigning for Kempston Halt (closed ~1940) to be reopened to serve interchange retail park.

They have little, if any car parking so most passengers walk to/from the station

 

[Bletchleyite]

Bow Brickhill*: 41,340
Woburn Sands: 46,704

This shows up closing Bow Brickhill without replacement (extending Woburn Sands platform ends 100m closer to it doesn't count) as the utter madness it is.

Stewartby:72,748

Wonder why that's so high?

Re St John's it's convenient for schools/colleges so it's quite busy at some times and quiet at others. But schoolkids tend not to be too bothered, so they aren't going to start some massive campaign if it's just binned off, they'll happily just walk the extra couple of hundred metres to/from Midland. For the town centre generally the two stations are just at opposite ends.

 

[Ianno87]

This shows up closing Bow Brickhill without replacement (extending Woburn Sands platform ends 100m closer to it doesn't count) as the utter madness it is.

Though nationally, it is the 2,065th most used station in the country, which (let's face it) is pretty poor. It only looks good when you compare to the other stations on the line!

One station (somehow) picking up the catchment of both it and Woburn Sands would be ideal.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though nationally, it is the 2,065th most used station in the country, which (let's face it) is pretty poor. It only looks good when you compare to the other stations on the line!

One station (somehow) picking up the catchment of both it and Woburn Sands would be ideal.

Problem with that would be that it would either be too far north or too far south. It would be a bit like trying to merge MKC and Wolverton distance wise. I very much take the view that both are needed, and if it's strictly 5 then binning St John's is the answer to being able to keep it.

 

[camflyer]

Just on Milton Keynes, would a separate light railway be more useful for MK than just 6 tracking the line between Bletchley and MK Central, seeing that most people aren't specifically going to MK Central station?

I don't know the area well enough to give an exact route, but say a core of MK Central station, central MK, Hospital, Stadium MK, Bletchley station

I'm a regular visitor to MK and have always thought that it would be an ideal place for an extensive light rail/tram system. It's mostly flat with wide boulevards which could be used and would help reduce the dependency on cars in the area.

 

[21C101]

The existing stations are, frankly, not fit for purpose to serve such large numbers of housing, so are going to need comprehensive rebuilding anyway. So might as well take the opportunity to re-site them for best overall benefit and between them cover the entire catchment area as best as possible.

They are nowhere as decrepit as you think. Many of them were rebuilt just over a decade ago when the line was completely resignalled just over a decade ago (with no additional singling and headways quite close given the hourly service level. This I undersuand was intentional to allow for future use by a rather less grand East West Rail planned at the time) .

All the level crossings were modernised and signalling concentrated on a new signalling centre at Ridgmont.

Stations not rebuilt were spruced up with new shelters, surfaces, CIS displays, helppoints etc.

The only thing they really lack is car parks.

As Bletchleyite says, the moving of stations to compensate for the one next door being shut is tokenism that won't put them near enough the closed station to be any use but may well deter existing passengers at the relocated statons by making the walk too (especially in regards Ridgmont and Stewartby).

Apsley Guise is the only real basket case and is very near Woburn Sands. Bedford St Johns is the lines biggest basket case but would be much better used with a decent service.

@Bletchleyite I suspect the stewartby figures are accurate. The station is well placed for the village which is also growing with brownfield housing on the old brickwork and the station is also used by schoolchildren at Kimberley College.

 

[Nicholas43]

Have you actually been to CMK?

Yes, many times, mostly on the notorious Stagecoach X5 which takes 2 hours from Buckingham to Bedford but it feels like 2 days.
My concern is that MKC - Bletchley - Bedford will take 10 minutes to reverse at Bletchley. Compare Lewes - Hastings, including time for an ice cream in Eastbourne.

 

[Ianno87]

They are nowhere as decrepit as you think. Many of them were rebuilt just over a decade ago when the line was completely resignalled just over a decade ago (with no additional singling and headways quite close given the hourly service level. This I undersuand was intentional to allow for future use by a rather less grand East West Rail planned at the time) .

I'm not saying they are decrepit- they are simply not big enough for how busy they could become.

 

[21C101]

I'm not saying they are decrepit- they are simply not big enough for how busy they could become.

Aside from the lack of car parking, I would say most of them will be fine. I doubt you will see more than 200,000 a year at any of them,
unless a major MK park and ride is built at Ridgmont (which will be as much use as a chocolate teapot if trains don't go to MK Central).

 

[Ianno87]

Aside from the lack of car parking, I would say most of them will be fine.

I'm sure you've got all the demand numbers to 2050, pedestrian flow modelling and FRUIN
/fire evacuation analysis to back that claim up?

"They'll probably be fine" doesn't cut the mustard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'm sure you've got all the demand numbers to 2050, pedestrian flow modelling and FRUIN
/fire evacuation analysis to back that claim up?

"They'll probably be fine" doesn't cut the mustard.

Clearly as retaining all of them and the existing hourly service is proposed as an option by EWR themselves, it's also a viable one (though not the one they prefer).

 

[Ianno87]

Clearly as retaining all of them and the existing hourly service is proposed as an option by EWR themselves, it's also a viable one (though not the one they prefer).

Presumably because the service in that case would be so rubbish at each station, no-one will be using them.