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

[Martin23230]

MK's population is about half Sheffield's but it will be similar within 30 years or so...

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

Where do you get these numbers from? Milton Keynes Strategy to 2050 was published last year, p11 gives estimates of around 335,000 for 2031 and around 410,000 people in 2050. That is an impressive growth, but still over one hundred thousand below even Sheffield's current population (584,853 according to the latest ONS figures - they give 269,457 for Milton Keynes so currently about half is right). And it's not like Sheffield is going to stand still, Sheffield's latest Local Plan is currently being drafted, so it's a little harder to find any numbers, but the "Issues and Options Document" gives a population estimate of 637,000 by 2038.

So roughly MK is set to gain ~5-6k a year, while Sheffield is going to gain ~3k. Based on those estimates it'll be well over 100 years until Milton Keynes eclipses Sheffield, a little outside of EWR's timeframe!

You're probably thinking of the previous estimates, Plan:MK in 2019 was the source of the controversial 500,000+ population target by 2050. Clearly that has been revised down, this blog post goes into some detail. Even then Sheffield would probably be looking at ~670,000 by 2050.

 

[Aictos]

The other possibility is to greatly increase the frequency of other services between MK and Bletchley giving a turn up and go connection with just a few minutes wait.

This is obviously not practicable now but post HS2 the remaining "intercities" will be things like semifast services to Coventry and Birmingham and I would expect the fast line paths freed up by HS2 to be partly filled by an increase in Northampton fast outer suburbans, for example one every 15 minutes clockface heading south from Northampton calling at MK and Watford.

If all such trains called at both Bletchley and MK as well as stopping servuces to London, then job done.

It would also stop people heading from say
Cambridge to Coventry or Bedford to Birmingham having to change at both Bletchley AND Milton Keynes which is a mode killer, especially if the train north from MK is only hourly.

Bletchley might even be suitably renamed as Milton Keynes Junction, but that is getting into wild speculation.......

Why would people travelling Bedford to Birmingham need to change twice?

It's a simple ONE change at Bletchley, there's no requirement to change at Milton Keynes as well.

As I understand it, I’m not sure that @Bletchleyite was suggesting that every Oxford to Cambridge train call at Milton Keynes Central, but that the Cambridge to Bletchley services be extended?

If so, this would give 2tph to Oxford and 2tph to Cambridge, on top of the 2tph Oxford to Cambridge (not via Milton Keynes).

I suppose the question then is whether there is sufficient line and platform capacity to run 4tph between Bletchley and Milton Keynes Central instead of just the 2tph currently proposed.

Does anyone on the forum know maybe?

Extending the Cambridge to Bletchley services to Milton Keynes will be difficult because 1. You need a East to North curve at Bletchley and 2. There's only so many trains you can fit on the slows between Bletchley and Milton Keynes.

Instead of extending the Cambridge to Bletchley service, why not have the Cambridge services miss Milton Keynes with a connection available at Bletchley and instead extend the Aylesbury to Bletchley service to Milton Keynes instead if need be.

4tph Oxford to Cambridge (2 fast and 2 slow)
3tph Aylesbury to Bletchley

The Aylesbury services would origin from Marylebone.

This way no new major infrastructure works is needed between Bletchley and Milton Keynes with Bletchley performing a similar role to Tamworth.

There is no need to make things complicated.

The other possibility is to greatly increase the frequency of other services between MK and Bletchley giving a turn up and go connection with just a few minutes wait.

This is obviously not practicable now but post HS2 the remaining "intercities" will be things like semifast services to Coventry and Birmingham and I would expect the fast line paths freed up by HS2 to be partly filled by an increase in Northampton fast outer suburbans, for example one every 15 minutes clockface heading south from Northampton calling at MK and Watford.

If all such trains called at both Bletchley and MK as well as stopping servuces to London, then job done.

It would also stop people heading from say
Cambridge to Coventry or Bedford to Birmingham having to change at both Bletchley AND Milton Keynes which is a mode killer, especially if the train north from MK is only hourly.

Bletchley might even be suitably renamed as Milton Keynes Junction, but that is getting into wild speculation.......

Why would people travelling Bedford to Birmingham or Coventry to Cambridge need to change twice?

It's a simple ONE change at Bletchley, there's no requirement to change at Milton Keynes as well.

 

[Ianno87]

It's a simple ONE change at Bletchley, there's no requirement to change at Milton Keynes as well.

One change if you don't mind going on LNR via Northampton. Which isn't that much of a hardship.

Two changes if you want a faster Avanti service to Birmingham (although given how the current connections work out seldom make that advantageous anyway, especially usually for a more expensive fare).

 

[21C101]

One change if you don't mind going on LNR via Northampton. Which isn't that much of a hardship.

Two changes if you want a faster Avanti service to Birmingham (although given how the current connections work out seldom make that advantageous anyway, especially usually for a more expensive fare).

Not to mention if you want to go to Manchester etc.

Where do you get these numbers from? Milton Keynes Strategy to 2050 was published last year, p11 gives estimates of around 335,000 for 2031 and around 410,000 people in 2050. That is an impressive growth, but still over one hundred thousand below even Sheffield's current population (584,853 according to the latest ONS figures - they give 269,457 for Milton Keynes so currently about half is right). And it's not like Sheffield is going to stand still, Sheffield's latest Local Plan is currently being drafted, so it's a little harder to find any numbers, but the "Issues and Options Document" gives a population estimate of 637,000 by 2038.

So roughly MK is set to gain ~5-6k a year, while Sheffield is going to gain ~3k. Based on those estimates it'll be well over 100 years until Milton Keynes eclipses Sheffield, a little outside of EWR's timeframe!

You're probably thinking of the previous estimates, Plan:MK in 2019 was the source of the controversial 500,000+ population target by 2050. Clearly that has been revised down, this blog post goes into some detail. Even then Sheffield would probably be looking at ~670,000 by 2050.

I guess it will depend on whether the council or National Infrastructure Commission get their way. From the council report:

"In 2017, a National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) study of the Arc suggested that Milton Keynes could be reestablished as “a development location of national significance, through the intensification and expansion of the town to a population of at least 500,000”.

According to some sources the population had already hit 315,000 a year ago and just the current projects under construction will take that to about 350,000.

Milton Keynes aims to accommodate population growth in spatial strategy

Affordable homes, more green spaces and the creation of 120,000 jobs are just a few of the priorities set out in the Milton Keynes Strategy for 2050, which the council has published for consultation.

www.theplanner.co.uk

 

[tspaul26]

Extending the Cambridge to Bletchley services to Milton Keynes will be difficult because 1. You need a East to North curve at Bletchley and 2. There's only so many trains you can fit on the slows between Bletchley and Milton Keynes.

Instead of extending the Cambridge to Bletchley service, why not have the Cambridge services miss Milton Keynes with a connection available at Bletchley and instead extend the Aylesbury to Bletchley service to Milton Keynes instead if need be.

4tph Oxford to Cambridge (2 fast and 2 slow)
3tph Aylesbury to Bletchley

The Aylesbury services would origin from Marylebone.

This way no new major infrastructure works is needed between Bletchley and Milton Keynes with Bletchley performing a similar role to Tamworth.

There is no need to make things complicated.

The current plans are:

Stage 1: 2tph Oxford to Milton Keynes (trains 1 and 2)

Stage 2: 2tph Oxford to Bedford (trains 3 and 4)

Stage 3: 2tph Bletchley to Cambridge (trains 5 and 6)
Trains 3 and 4 get extended through to Cambridge

Aylesbury to Milton Keynes is being looked at separately, but would provisionally be 1tph at Stage X.5

 

[Aictos]

The current plans are:

Stage 1: 2tph Oxford to Milton Keynes (trains 1 and 2)

Stage 2: 2tph Oxford to Bedford (trains 3 and 4)

Stage 3: 2tph Bletchley to Cambridge (trains 5 and 6)
Trains 3 and 4 get extended through to Cambridge

Aylesbury to Milton Keynes is being looked at separately, but would provisionally be 1tph at Stage X.5

So no need for the Cambridge to Oxford service to call at Milton Keynes as some posters insist on having when Milton Keynes is served by the Oxford to Milton Keynes service instead then.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So no need for the Cambridge to Oxford service to call at Milton Keynes as some posters insist on having when Milton Keynes is served by the Oxford to Milton Keynes service instead then.

How does that give the Bedford-Cambridge side a direct service to MKC?

 

[mwmbwls]

Can somebody clarify who will be responsible for the reconstruction of the existing larger stations? Are they currently managed by Network Rail or the TOCs? Will any extension to Cowley be treated as an extension of the EWR programme?

 

[The Planner]

Can somebody clarify who will be responsible for the reconstruction of the existing larger stations? Are they currently managed by Network Rail or the TOCs? Will any extension to Cowley be treated as an extension of the EWR programme?

EWR will be responsible for it, it is their project. Very much doubt EWR will take on Cowley (which it doesn't really go to either)

 

[Aictos]

How does that give the Bedford-Cambridge side a direct service to MKC?

They don't, as explained in the post I replied to it clearly stated that the service that Milton Keynes would see is 2tph to Oxford with any other destinations requiring a change at Bletchley which isn't as bad as you're constantly making out.

I understand that Milton Keynes is a large population centre but that doesn't mean that the proposed service needs to see direct Cambridge to Milton Keynes services not when you have at Bletchley currently:

2tph Oxford to Milton Keynes once built
2tph London to Birmingham via Northampton
1/2tph London to Milton Keynes

That's plenty of trains.

 

[30907]

How does that give the Bedford-Cambridge side a direct service to MKC?

It doesn't, but by then you've got something like 7tph from Bletchley to MKC which ought to offer enough connections.

I think I've come round to your idea of a Bletchley avoider - I would run 2tph offpeak Oxford-MKC-nonstop-Bedford-Cambridge (nonstop running reduces the time penalty to 5min), plus a half hourly Marston Vale. That seems a more realistic service provision for years ahead. However, you've now got 9tph plus freights on the WCML slows, which is getting very tight....

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think I've come round to your idea of a Bletchley avoider - I would run 2tph offpeak Oxford-MKC-nonstop-Bedford-Cambridge (nonstop running reduces the time penalty to 5min), plus a half hourly Marston Vale. That seems a more realistic service provision for years ahead. However, you've now got 9tph plus freights on the WCML slows, which is getting very tight....

So building an east-north chord, I guess (I very much propose this, indeed I'd propose it even without EWR as Bedford-MKC would be much, much more use than Bedford-Bletchley)? Very little point not opening the doors at Bletchley if you are going to reverse there

 

[Ianno87]

It doesn't, but by then you've got something like 7tph from Bletchley to MKC which ought to offer enough connections.

I think I've come round to your idea of a Bletchley avoider - I would run 2tph offpeak Oxford-MKC-nonstop-Bedford-Cambridge (nonstop running reduces the time penalty to 5min), plus a half hourly Marston Vale. That seems a more realistic service provision for years ahead. However, you've now got 9tph plus freights on the WCML slows, which is getting very tight....

So building an east-north chord, I guess (I very much propose this, indeed I'd propose it even without EWR as Bedford-MKC would be much, much more use than Bedford-Bletchley)? Very little point not opening the doors at Bletchley if you are going to reverse there

The problem with an E-N chord is justifying the cost and land take, when there's a reasonably significant risk there isn't capacity on the Slows to accommodate the services it would enable anyway.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem with an E-N chord is justifying the cost and land take, when there's a reasonably significant risk there isn't capacity on the Slows to accommodate the services it would enable anyway.

As the timetable post HS2 is completely in the air, if the paths are justified, create them by not running something else or shifting it onto the fasts. Now is the time to make those decisions before the WCML timetable post-HS2 is "locked in".

I'd agree the paths don't exist pre-HS2 (which I suspect is why the extension of the current Marston Vale service hasn't happened despite MKC P2A nominally being intended initially for that purpose), but the route all the way to Cambridge won't be running for long before HS2 phase 1 is fully in place.

 

[Ianno87]

As the timetable post HS2 is completely in the air, if the paths are justified, create them by not running something else or shifting it onto the fasts. Now is the time to make those decisions.

I'd agree the paths don't exist pre-HS2 (which I suspect is why the extension of the current Marston Vale service hasn't happened despite MKC P2A nominally being intended initially for that purpose), but the route all the way to Cambridge won't be running for long before HS2 phase 1 is fully in place.

Although I explained the other day that "just put more stuff on the Fasts" isn't necessarily that straightforward, even in the post-HS2 world. It's not correct to be constraining what the post-HS2 WCML can do now and ruling out future choices, when there's a reasonable EWR mitigation available in terminating at Bletchley from the Cambridge direction, without any infrastructure cost at all.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Although I explained the other day that "just put more stuff on the Fasts" isn't necessarily that straightforward, even in the post-HS2 world. It's not correct to be constraining what the post-HS2 WCML can do now and ruling out future choices, when there's a reasonable EWR mitigation available in terminating at Bletchley from the Cambridge direction, without any infrastructure cost at all.

It's not a "reasonable mitigation". It significantly reduces the utility and desirability of EWR, which is sold as "Oxford-Cambridge", but in reality Milton Keynes is a key part (possibly the most important part) of the reason for its existence in the first place, and the employment and leisure facilities in CMK a key destination, as well as the superior connections available at MKC. The whole thing would be a bit like binning off Birmingham Curzon St from HS2 and just serving Interchange, or the wholly ludicrous idea of never taking HS2 past OOC.

Milton Keynes already has the population of Oxford and Cambridge put together, near enough. By the time this opens it might well have the population of all the other settlements on the route added up.

Without Milton Keynes there would basically be no point in EWR as a whole (though an additional Cambridge suburban line might have had a purpose). That's basically why it closed the first time!

 

[Ianno87]

It's not a "reasonable mitigation". It significantly reduces the utility and desirability of EWR

Depends whether that reduction is in proportion to the cost of providing the infrastructure necessary, when passengers have a relatively easy connection at Bletchley. EWR probably stands on its own two feet (in terms of benefits vs costs) without going to MKC itself. EWR, as a minimum, should not preclude going to MKC in future, but without loading cost/consents risk onto the scheme today.


Imagine you're at the TWAO enquiry for the E-N chord:

"I see you want to acquire this property for this new chord. What services do you want to run with that?"
"2 trains per hour between Cambridge and Milton Keynes, m'lud"
"Is there capacity to accommodate those trains between Bletchley and Milton Keynes?"
"Not sure. Only if we risk constraining the capacity and benefits released by HS2."

Won't have much of a leg to stand on.

Without Milton Keynes there would basically be no point in EWR. That's basically why it closed the first time!

And it indeed serves Milton Keynes; the southern part of the borough and the development areas to teh south.

 

[21C101]

I wonder what models there are showing demand from Oxford/Bicester/Winslow to Milton Keynes, versus demand from Cambridge/Camborne/St Neots & Conections/Bedford/RidgmontWoburn Sands to Milton Keynes.

If that is where the greater potential traffic flow is, then if there are only two paths to MK the Oxford to MK trains should be turned round at Bletchley High Level and the Cambridge Bletchley services reverse at Bletchley and go onto MK, for which all the infrastructure necessary has already been provided.

Or does operating convenience count more?

Personally I suspect that far more would use it between Cambridge/Camborne/St Neots & Conections/Bedford/RidgmontWoburn Sands to Milton Keynes than would travel to any of those places to Oxford, Bicester and Winslow. Also that those heading west will continue to go via London rather than catch what few intercities call at Didcot, even if you could get directly from Cambridge to Didcot without a change at Oxford.

I do agree with @Bletchleyite that EWR is best viewed as three railway lines from Oxford, Cambridge and Aylesbury (and stations to High Wycombe) to Milton Keynes, I can't see a great deal of people travelling between Cambridge and Oxford or Aylesbury.

 

[The Planner]

I wonder what models there are showing demand from Oxford/Bicester/Winslow to Milton Keynes, versus demand from Cambridge/Camborne/St Neots & Conections/Bedford/RidgmontWoburn Sands to Milton Keynes.

If that is where the greater potential traffic flow is, then if there are only two paths to MK the Oxford to MK trains should be turned round at Bletchley High Level and the Cambridge Bletchley services reverse at Bletchley and go onto MK, for which all the infrastructure necessary has already been provided.

Or does operating convenience count more?

Personally I suspect that far more would use it between Cambridge/Camborne/St Neots & Conections/Bedford/RidgmontWoburn Sands to Milton Keynes than would travel to any of those places to Oxford, Bicester and Winslow. Also that those heading west will continue to go via London rather than catch what few intercities call at Didcot, even if you could get directly from Cambridge to Didcot without a change at Oxford.

I do agree with @Bletchleyite that EWR is best viewed as three railway lines from Oxford, Cambridge and Aylesbury (and stations to High Wycombe) to Milton Keynes, I can't see a great deal of people travelling between Cambridge and Oxford or Aylesbury.

The vast majority of the business case for Bicester Bletchley is built on Oxford to MK.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The vast majority of the business case for Bicester Bletchley is built on Oxford to MK.

Interesting, as I think there's far more traffic potential on the other side (as far as Bedford), and I think people get fixated with Bedford-Bletchley being poorly used precisely because it goes to Bletchley and not MKC. MK is going to get big enough, soon enough, for suburban and outersuburban rail to be viable (in a subsidised sense as exists in Northern towns and cities).

 

[Ianno87]

If that is where the greater potential traffic flow is, then if there are only two paths to MK the Oxford to MK trains should be turned round at Bletchley High Level and the Cambridge Bletchley services reverse at Bletchley and go onto MK, for which all the infrastructure necessary has already been provided.

Or does operating convenience count more?

The main hindrance of Oxford-Bletchley (aside from the business case hit of losing Oxford-MK) is the lack of an obvious way to turn back at Bletchley without some (probably) complex engineering.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The main hindrance of Oxford-Bletchley (aside from the business case hit of losing Oxford-MK) is the lack of an obvious way to turn back at Bletchley without some (probably) complex engineering.

The "final" pattern is thus, isn't it?

2 Oxford-Cambridge
2 Bletchley-Cambridge
1 Oxford-MK
1 Aylesbury-MK

I suppose you could just bin Oxford-MK entirely in that case in favour of one of the Bletchley-Cambridges becoming MK-Cambridge, the 2 through trains would provide connections?

If it was possible to tweak things around a bit more so the Aylesbury-MK ran just behind one of the Oxford-Cambridges (and vice versa) each way, then you could make the connections same-platform, which can't be done between the Cambridges and MKC services.

(Yes, pathing, but again post-HS2 is up in the air so now is the time to talk about it)

 

[Aureol Colin]

If EWR can justify dedicated tracks from Bedford north, two extra tracks and an east-north curve at Bletchley to Milton Keynes Central makes sense too. Also redoubling Cambridge to Newmarket.

I'll get my coat

 

[BrianW]

It seems hard to imagine £millions being spent on upgrading/ (re) providing a 'service' without some assessment of demand to/from/ when/ how often ... and maybe options? A bit like Ordsall Chord and Castlefield?
Would there be room/ would it be worth creating an additional track Bletchley-MK; less for a tram; or 'pods' .... or maybe in airspace like a cable car ... or Wuppertal ... or Monorail? (MK leads the way?)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Would there be room/ would it be worth creating an additional track Bletchley-MK; less for a tram; or 'pods' .... or maybe in airspace like a cable car ... or Wuppertal ... or Monorail? (MK leads the way?)

Other than having to dig out the embankment in places and do some bridge work, there are already 6 tracks between Bletchley station and just short of the Watling St bridge and, barring taking a corner off a car park there is room for another 2 tracks all the way to MKC, as well as at least one, probably two additional platforms at MKC with only loss of car parking. I don't know if it was reserved deliberately for that purpose, but you can see from Google Maps (and I know the route very well) that the space is there.

It's perhaps a bit costly though!

The existing Up Bletchley and Down Bletchley are barely used, only I think for looping freights, though I know of (and travelled on) one case (possibly once ever) of a LM to Euston being diverted onto the Up Bletchley and calling at P6 due to a points failure.

 

[Aictos]

It doesn't, but by then you've got something like 7tph from Bletchley to MKC which ought to offer enough connections.

But even though having 7tph or near enough is close to a turn up and go service, it won't be enough connections....

The point is there's no need to make the line by between MK and Bletchley excessively busy with surplus services but that is what's being pushed here.

 

[Ianno87]

If EWR can justify dedicated tracks from Bedford north, two extra tracks and an east-north curve at Bletchley to Milton Keynes Central makes sense too.

The difference is in Bedford that is for the benefit of the entire EWR service, and as part of where a new alignment has to be built anyway to achieve this. In MK it's for a relatively marginal extension of some services a short distance from Bletchley to MK. Scope vs. benefits.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The difference is in Bedford that is for the benefit of the entire EWR service, and as part of where a new alignment has to be built anyway to achieve this. In MK it's for a relatively marginal extension of some services a short distance from Bletchley to MK. Scope vs. benefits.

Serving MKC is not marginal, it's crucial. The fact that it was built proves that it is needed to serve it. The original plan for MK was just to have Wolverton and Bletchley, and it failed miserably.

I maintain that there is basically no viable business case for EWR without properly serving MK, which means serving MKC. If MK didn't exist, we'd be spending millions on a country branch line, basically.

This in regional connectivity terms is to me far, far more important than having a "metro style" London-MK slow line service, which really smacks of the "short trains at excessive frequencies" thing. Remember that a fairly large part of the purpose of the south WCML post-HS2 is MK. Again if it wasn't for MK, it'd still have 2 8-car trains an hour to Northampton like it did in the 80s and that'd be it.

 

[21C101]

Serving MKC is not marginal, it's crucial. The fact that it was built proves that it is needed to serve it. The original plan for MK was just to have Wolverton and Bletchley, and it failed miserably.

I maintain that there is basically no viable business case for EWR without properly serving MK, which means serving MKC. If MK didn't exist, we'd be spending millions on a country branch line, basically.

This in regional connectivity terms is to me far, far more important than having a "metro style" London-MK slow line service, which really smacks of the "short trains at excessive frequencies" thing. Remember that a fairly large part of the purpose of the south WCML post-HS2 is MK. Again if it wasn't for MK, it'd still have 2 8-car trains an hour to Northampton like it did in the 80s and that'd be it.

Perhaps we should send cross country services direct from Basingstoke to Oxford (via the direct curve) and have them call at Reading West instead of wasting the thick end of 15 minutes reversing at Reading?

After all the population of Reading is only 162,000, little over half that of MK, and it isn't much of an inconvenince to change at Reading West if you are going to Reading.....

Can't understand why no one has ever thought of that before. They could have descoped the Reading rebuild a fair bit and saved a fortune if they had thought of it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Perhaps we should send cross country services direct from Basingstoke to Oxford (via the direct curve) and have them call at Reading West instead of wasting the thick end of 15 minutes reversing at Reading?

After all the population of Reading is only 162,000, little over half that of MK, and it isn't much of an inconvenince to change at Reading West if you are going to Reading.....

Can't understand why no one has ever thought of that before. They could have descoped the Reading rebuild a fair bit and saved a fortune if they had thought of it.

That's actually a really good example.