What could a complete rebuild of Bedford look like?

[Zomboid]

Wonder what a Reading style rebuild for Bedford might look, to allow pretty much everything to call. Probably two fast line platforms each direction and then 2 each for Thameslink and EWR? Is there any realistic possibility of there being space for that? I guess the car park could be sacrificed and made multi storey if demand requires. Getting everything under the bridges at either end would be challenging...

It would probably mean that Wixhams wouldn't need calls by fast trains for the theme park - with 4tph on both Thameslink and EWR to Stewartby that particular market will be adequately served.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Wonder what a Reading style rebuild for Bedford might look, to allow pretty much everything to call. Probably two fast line platforms each direction and then 2 each for Thameslink and EWR? Is there any realistic possibility of there being space for that? I guess the car park could be sacrificed and made multi storey if demand requires. Getting everything under the bridges at either end would be challenging...

It would probably mean that Wixhams wouldn't need calls by fast trains for the theme park - with 4tph on both Thameslink and EWR to Stewartby that particular market will be adequately served.

The cheap way to do it would be to build the existing platform out onto the up fast and replace it with a reversing siding or two north of the station for Thameslink services (which could mean the added convenience of most if not all of them off peak using P1 so no need to use the footbridge). TBH I do think MML fasts should call at Bedford for connectivity particularly with the coming of EWR, and this would allow it.

If it'd mean crowding out, put them as pick up only northbound/set down only southbound. Most people would respect that as they do on the WCML, the odd one that didn't wouldn't cause it to be overcrowded.

 

[BranstonJnc]

The cheap way to do it would be to build the existing platform out onto the up fast and replace it with a reversing siding or two north of the station for Thameslink services (which could mean the added convenience of most if not all of them off peak using P1 so no need to use the footbridge). TBH I do think MML fasts should call at Bedford for connectivity particularly with the coming of EWR, and this would allow it.

Have a crossover in at Elstow Road with a modest speed e.g. 30mph to allow some trains to terminate at Flitwick / Wixams and run straight into the depot, when at high peak they are then going out of service, saving a platform every 30 minutes or so.

Use the redundant space on the north side of the Ouse, and put a reversing siding in at the south end, so Thameslink traffic in the 'centre' of the layout can then get out of the way at high peak or other times.

Remodel Bedford South and North junctions to allow some sort of flashing junction / preliminary route indicator high-ish speed crossing at 60mph, so that every single platform (one assumes you need at least six) can be used by Thameslink or EMR and still then get moving again, without a really harsh time penalty during perturbation.

Island platforms for the MML fast lines, Thameslink / MML slow lines, and EWR, but with a desire to only use one EWR platform where possible, so that the other platform can be used to increase Thameslink capacity at high peak. Retain a small bay platform for the EWR stopping hourly service, or for service recovery.

Assuming EWR is going north, demolish Bromham Road bridge and put a new one in that allows five tracks under there.

 

[cle]

Wonder what a Reading style rebuild for Bedford might look, to allow pretty much everything to call. Probably two fast line platforms each direction and then 2 each for Thameslink and EWR? Is there any realistic possibility of there being space for that? I guess the car park could be sacrificed and made multi storey if demand requires. Getting everything under the bridges at either end would be challenging...

It would probably mean that Wixhams wouldn't need calls by fast trains for the theme park - with 4tph on both Thameslink and EWR to Stewartby that particular market will be adequately served.

Something like that has been proposed. I looked and couldn't find the image quickly but from memory it was an additional MML platform, 2-3 EWR platforms (1-2 with a through Slow connection) and possibly 3 Thameslink platforms - in that order.

It was 8-10 platforms total. Not quite the Reading solution, but a huge upgrade.

 

[richieb1971]

Regarding Bedford It seems freight operators haven't chimed in yet. Some freight is experiencing 10 15 minute stops at Kempston south of Bedford heading north and at Clapham north of the station going south it's longer than that sometimes. Wixams isn't going to help that. I would put 5 lines at wixams or nearby to alleviate stuck freight. Bedford shouldn't be designed to budget but to offer expansions abd resilience as well.

Thames link haven't stated where their 2 12 lost car stabling points are being moved to either.

Bedford Station would be helped if Ford end road bridge was redesigned so the station could extend beneath it on the fast lines.

 

[BranstonJnc]

Regarding Bedford It seems freight operators haven't chimed in yet. Some freight is experiencing 10 15 minute stops at Kempston south of Bedford heading north and at Clapham north of the station going south it's longer than that sometimes. Wixams isn't going to help that. I would put 5 lines at wixams or nearby to alleviate stuck freight. Bedford shouldn't be designed to budget but to offer expansions abd resilience as well.

Thames link haven't stated where their 2 12 lost car stabling points are being moved to either.

Bedford Station would be helped if Ford end road bridge was redesigned so the station could extend beneath it on the fast lines.

In theory, if the rebuild provides lots more platforms, and a fair bit more flexibility, then there will be far less issues pathing stuff on the Luton / Wellingborough axis. How this impacts freight via Bedford St Johns, no idea. But, if they are planning to move St Johns in order to allow two tracks, then in theory, it will also improve freight pathing.

 

[richieb1971]

Perhaps not from all over the world, but it would be the only one in Europe, so certainly it'd be aimed at attracting lots of foreign visitors, who would be more likely to use the train than locals.

It's well located for that too from a rail standpoint, with direct trains from Gatwick, St Pancras, Luton, Oxford, Bicester Village, perhaps Cambridge... There may well be a case to stop some trains from East Mids Parkway at some stage, too.

If it's a success it'll be on a different scale to the kind of thing we're used to in this country.

In theory, if the rebuild provides lots more platforms, and a fair bit more flexibility, then there will be far less issues pathing stuff on the Luton / Wellingborough axis. How this impacts freight via Bedford St Johns, no idea. But, if they are planning to move St Johns in order to allow two tracks, then in theory, it will also improve freight pathing.

There is still congestion with freight on the MML exactly where Wixams is. Empties go north in the afternoon and get held up around Kempston. I would hazard a guess that the cement plant having northbound exiting will reverse into Wixams station as well (looking at the map the sidings are a bit shorter than the distance to Wixams). Not sure how long that takes i've not seen it happen with my own eyes. The cement plant only has south facing exit.

The car train from Toton is a good example of a train which gets held up north of Bedford as well.

Its all speculation at this point because Bedford is seen as an afterthought at this stage.

 

[HSTEd]

How much are we proposing to spend on this?

Sure the park is potentially a significant traffic draw, but the sorts of extensive rebuilds of Bedford being proposed in this thread could easily reach ten figures.

I can't see Universal fronting that sort of money and I am not sure how much additional traffic we can really expect?

 

[richieb1971]

How much are we proposing to spend on this?

Sure the park is potentially a significant traffic draw, but the sorts of extensive rebuilds of Bedford being proposed in this thread could easily reach ten figures.

I can't see Universal fronting that sort of money and I am not sure how much additional traffic we can really expect?

The rebuild of Bedford Station has little to with Universal Studios. Its mainly driven through the EWR program of providing an extra 2 platforms, which creates the problem of losing car parking spaces, which means going multi storey because its all boxed in.

We have spoken about building Thameslink sidings north of Bedford but it mostly gets shot down quickly. To me, the best idea is to leave Bedford alone and have it a "through" station rather than a terminus. TL can start trains north of Corby station where there is room for bay sidings. I don't see why EMR need to run those services. Bedford station needs a bit of a face lift though. All depends on if EWR get their 6 tracks north of Bedford or not that decides what exactly comes after that.

As stated earlier, i'd be happy if Ford end road bridge was redesigned so that a up fast platform could be placed south of the current bridge. There is loads of room south of bridge for this.

 

[Magdalia]

The recent East West Rail consultation covered a lot of this ground. The discussion is here:

East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

Is a GSJ actually required at that location though? With the 4-tracking through Shepreth Branch Junction to Cambridge (City/Main) could a flat junction and sensibly timed paired moves not suffice? It's not as if it would be the busiest flat junction in the world, and you can protect the corridor...

www.railforums.co.uk

For those interested, the Technical Report is the go to document for details. I don't know if it can still be found on the East West Rail website (I have a pdf saved, it is a big document).

if they are planning to move St Johns in order to allow two tracks

This is in the plans set out in the last consultation.

Assuming EWR is going north, demolish Bromham Road bridge and put a new one in that allows five tracks under there.

EWR propose 6 tracks here, not 5. It is one of the most controversial aspects of the whole project.

Thames link haven't stated where their 2 12 lost car stabling points are being moved to either.

Changes to Thameslink siding capacity that come as a consequence of East West Rail are in the Technical Report.

Wonder what a Reading style rebuild for Bedford might look, to allow pretty much everything to call.

But that's beyond the scope of East West Rail. The consultation has 2 new EWR platforms on the east side but doesn't say anything on the Midland Main Line platforms.

 

[Zomboid]

that's beyond the scope of East West Rail. The consultation has 2 new EWR platforms on the east side but doesn't say anything on the Midland Main Line platforms

True, but that was just speculation on what a highly unlikely total rebuild might look like.

 

[Magdalia]

True, but that was just speculation on what a highly unlikely total rebuild might look like.

Indeed. I was trying to point out that, while the EWR consultation has answers to various questions raised above, it doesn't have an answer for yours.

 

[flitwickbeds]

I'm also in the "make Bedford a through station" camp - but Corby isn't the right place for Thameslink to terminate.

If a new set of sidings/depot was built around "52.2094492, -0.5219515" (with new access roads off the A6) - and, optionally, a new station built for Clapham/Oakley, somewhere around "52.1664749, -0.5124836" - you could demolish all of the current sidings and depot at Bedford for a new station car park and riverside regeneration. You could then reroute the St Johns line to better line up with the MML on approach to Bedford station, rebuild Ford End Road bridge, and move the station slightly south. That gives plenty of horizontal room for 6 platforms (2 MML, 2 Thameslink, 2 EMR, plus maybe 1 extra south-facing bay platform for Marston Vale stoppers if the option retaining all stations is selected). North of the station you can then merge all trains back to 4 running lines, as now, so you don't have to demolish homes in the Poets area.

From there, Thameslink can stop at Oakley then reverse or continue into the depot. EMR can continue up to Wellingborough. EWR will have already peeled off to the east on the new lines.

Expensive.

 

[Magdalia]

I'm also in the "make Bedford a through station" camp - but Corby isn't the right place for Thameslink to terminate.

North of the station you can then merge all trains back to 4 running lines, as now, so you don't have to demolish homes in the Poets area.

These two statements are incompatible. There is no way of running all of MML, Thameslink and EWR, plus the freight, north of Bedford on 4 tracks.

 

[Zomboid]

If Thameslink finishes in the station as now, I'm not sure why 4 tracks isn't enough heading north to the EWR divergence. The fast lines will carry 6tph in each direction (assuming the Corby trains run there), and the EWR are proposing up to 4tph towards Cambridge. Is there that much freight that it needs a pair of lines of it's own? How would that mesh with the much busier slow lines south of the station?

I haven't got the whole story so I'm sure EWR wouldn't want to spend all that money building new track for no reason, but it's not obvious to me...

 

[edwin_m]

If Thameslink finishes in the station as now, I'm not sure why 4 tracks isn't enough heading north to the EWR divergence. The fast lines will carry 6tph in each direction (assuming the Corby trains run there), and the EWR are proposing up to 4tph towards Cambridge. Is there that much freight that it needs a pair of lines of it's own? How would that mesh with the much busier slow lines south of the station?

I haven't got the whole story so I'm sure EWR wouldn't want to spend all that money building new track for no reason, but it's not obvious to me...

Bedford Council commissioned an analysis which concluded exactly this. It seemed to me that the six-track design was based on a remit to keep EWR separate from existing lines as far as possible. With EMR staying on the Fasts (with a new Up platform) and Thameslink turning back as now, the only real conflict is between EWR and the freight. The freight itself is pretty infrequent, unlikely to increase much due to congestion further south, and on a six-track layout any extra freight to/from EWR would have to switch tracks so wouldn't benefit much from parallel running.

 

[Stephen42]

If Thameslink finishes in the station as now, I'm not sure why 4 tracks isn't enough heading north to the EWR divergence. The fast lines will carry 6tph in each direction (assuming the Corby trains run there), and the EWR are proposing up to 4tph towards Cambridge. Is there that much freight that it needs a pair of lines of it's own? How would that mesh with the much busier slow lines south of the station?

I haven't got the whole story so I'm sure EWR wouldn't want to spend all that money building new track for no reason, but it's not obvious to me...

It's covered in detail in the technical report, but to summarise the two key issues are the freights and limited space for the junction before the bridge.

The freights travelling south are much slower than the Thameslink trains, such that they must be pathed immediately following a Thameslink departure from Bedford so they can be pulled into a loop just before the following Thameslink departure catches up. This ties the two timetables together and regulation wise the freight would be prioritised over East West services due to the Thameslink knock on impacts. This move prevents any EWR services north of Bedford in either direction and even minor delays will create issues.

The second is to avoid land take and bridge works the merge of EWR platforms and mainline platforms needs to happen very soon after the platforms. This leaves a non-compliant overlap, safety systems largely prevent a train going far past a red signal than stopping before it so a distance must be clear beyond the red signal. The 4 track layout doesn't leave sufficient distance. Trains might have to be signalled more slowly into the platforms, that isn't guaranteed to be permissable and instead a Thameslink arrival might need to prevent EWR moves north of Bedford or arrival into the Bedford platforms.

The council commissioned a study that looked at slots available which suggested 4 tracks could work, but didn't consider the above factors which make producing a workable timetable very challenging.

 

[Zomboid]

Well that explains some of it.
As an amateur with crayons, could the thameslink platforms be dead end? The MML through slows would then be the EWR platforms and the EWR/MML slow line junction would be to the south of the station. So there's 2 fast line platforms, 2/3 dead end TL platforms and 2 slow/ EWR platforms.
I imagine the geometry of that southern junction might be difficult to build it with much speed, but there'd be no overlap issues to the north.

 

[Stephen42]

Not easily, the freights would need to weave on and off the fast lines. South of Bedford wouldn't be much space for a junction to the EWR lines, the existing Bedford North junction would suffice if its current slow lines are redirected around the Thameslink platforms with no junction. It's all going to be very expensive though.

The preferred solution from EWR is about the same cost as 4 tracks, the 6 track approach while having land purchase costs avoids extensive remodelling of Bedford station itself making the signalling alterations a lot cheaper.

 

[BrickhillEWR]

Have a crossover in at Elstow Road with a modest speed e.g. 30mph to allow some trains to terminate at Flitwick / Wixams and run straight into the depot, when at high peak they are then going out of service, saving a platform every 30 minutes or so.

Use the redundant space on the north side of the Ouse, and put a reversing siding in at the south end, so Thameslink traffic in the 'centre' of the layout can then get out of the way at high peak or other times.

Remodel Bedford South and North junctions to allow some sort of flashing junction / preliminary route indicator high-ish speed crossing at 60mph, so that every single platform (one assumes you need at least six) can be used by Thameslink or EMR and still then get moving again, without a really harsh time penalty during perturbation.

Island platforms for the MML fast lines, Thameslink / MML slow lines, and EWR, but with a desire to only use one EWR platform where possible, so that the other platform can be used to increase Thameslink capacity at high peak. Retain a small bay platform for the EWR stopping hourly service, or for service recovery.

Assuming EWR is going north, demolish Bromham Road bridge and put a new one in that allows five tracks under there.

Bromham Road bridge was rebuilt fairly recently to allow clearance for the OHLE north of Bedford i.e. Corby electrics and the future services using 810s. We definitely don't want to go through all the associated disruption again. Besides which Network Rail congestion/utilisation report states that there's sufficient capacity on the slow lines north of Bedford to accommodate EWR services.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 15 May 2025 ==

Wonder what a Reading style rebuild for Bedford might look, to allow pretty much everything to call. Probably two fast line platforms each direction and then 2 each for Thameslink and EWR? Is there any realistic possibility of there being space for that? I guess the car park could be sacrificed and made multi storey if demand requires. Getting everything under the bridges at either end would be challenging...

It would probably mean that Wixhams wouldn't need calls by fast trains for the theme park - with 4tph on both Thameslink and EWR to Stewartby that particular market will be adequately served.

Thameslink require 3 platforms to allow freight to pass through on the slow lines.
MML x2 + TL x3 + EWR x2 = 7 platforms required. EWR to extend platform 1A and add addition platform to the east i.e. Whole new station building required (could be built above the tracks and incorporate the footbridge) plus new multi-storey car park, taxi rank, drop off area and bus stops.

 

[mwmbwls]

I'm also in the "make Bedford a through station" camp - but Corby isn't the right place for Thameslink to terminate.

Could you expand on your reasoning regarding Corby?

 

[bramling]

Could you expand on your reasoning regarding Corby?

If the Corby service currently seems to manage with two 8-car services per hour, it’s hard to justify sending a further four 12-cars there, even if there were sufficient 700/1s available to do it.

 

[cle]

Ending Thameslink at Bedford does make the most sense. Yes there is probably capacity to send the odd service on to Wellingborough - which is underserved as compared to Kettering arguably, now it's four tracked/platformed - but it's not essential. And might mess with operations at a bigger future Bedford - which I assumed would align TL to the right, EWR running in the middle lines (which do need to run through), and MML fasts on the left. EWR through and MML calling services might be able to share space, to a degree?

 

[flitwickbeds]

Could you expand on your reasoning regarding Corby?

Sure. I don't believe Corby, Kettering and Wellingborough on their own would justify four 12-car trains per hour (and I don't know if there is the capacity to do this - is the line between Kettering and Corby still single track?). On the assumption that sending Thameslink to Corby would replace the EMR Connect service at these three stations, it would mean the trains would be full after Flitwick (ish) especially in the peaks. Passengers at Harpenden wouldn't stand a chance of getting anywhere near the train. Plus, it would add, what, 20 minutes to the Northamptonshire journey time? Finally, you need either more trains available or to send those Corby trains somewhere else south of London.

The alternative would be having three separate service groups north of London - all stops to Luton/St Albans; fast to St Albans (optional West Hampstead) then all stops to Bedford; and a Luton x2 - Bedford - all stops to Corby group. Which you may as well keep as the status quo, with Corby trains starting ans terminating at St Pancras. In which case, EMR may as well continue operating them.

Ending Thameslink at Bedford does make the most sense. Yes there is probably capacity to send the odd service on to Wellingborough - which is underserved as compared to Kettering arguably, now it's four tracked/platformed - but it's not essential.

My preferred solution a year ago would have been to build a North Bedfordshire/South Northamptonshire Parkway station off the A6 at Oakley/Clapham and turn trains there, with Bedford becoming an entirely 'through' station for every service.

With Universal now all but confirmed, I think a smarter solution would be to terminate two Thameslinks an hour there, and two Thameslinks at Bedford as now. Bedford would still retain at least 4tph and hour into London (2xTL, 2xEMR Connect, more in peak times). You could potentially have a 1tph shuttle running on the Vale line between Bedford and Universal to give an extra train too. That would free up some platform/reversing siding space at Bedford which potentially means you don't need to go as huge on the rebuild and potentially even EWR can use the existing platforms and lines north of the station.

 

[D365]

You could potentially have a 1tph shuttle running on the Vale line between Bedford and Universal to give an extra train too. That would free up some platform/reversing siding space at Bedford which potentially means you don't need to go as huge on the rebuild and potentially even EWR can use the existing platforms and lines north of the station.

There won’t be any EWR reversals at Bedford. Even before Universal had gained outline approval, the plan was already for westbound terminators to reverse at a third Stewartby platform.

 

[edwin_m]

...a bigger future Bedford - which I assumed would align TL to the right, EWR running in the middle lines (which do need to run through), and MML fasts on the left. EWR through and MML calling services might be able to share space, to a degree?

It would make more sense to put EWR on the east side and Thameslink in the middle. That way the two don't have to cross each other at the south end of the station. Depending on the exact layout there might be no interaction between them at all, with the possible exception of empty stock if there are still Thameslink sidings south of the station.

 

[Zomboid]

I think the latest EWR proposal gets rid of the sidings that are accessed near St Johns, and extend Cauldwell to compensate. So if there are sufficient platforms and EWR are you the east of the layout there would be no need for EWR and Thameslink to interact at all.

 

[cle]

It would make more sense to put EWR on the east side and Thameslink in the middle. That way the two don't have to cross each other at the south end of the station. Depending on the exact layout there might be no interaction between them at all, with the possible exception of empty stock if there are still Thameslink sidings south of the station.

But what happens at the north where we want to send EWR north (and east) - to Cambridge?

 

[edwin_m]

But what happens at the north where we want to send EWR north (and east) - to Cambridge?

Thameslink terminates in the station so it doesn't get that far north. Even with your suggestion of sending a few of them to Wellingborough, this would be less conflict than crossing the route of all of them at the south end.

 

[BlueLeanie]

With a bigger budget, would it be possible to build an underground station for East West (or mainline services) at Bedford.