East West Rail - Bletchley to Bedford | 2024 Update

[@Rail_Focus]

Consultation page eastwestrail.co.uk/consultation2024

[@JenOnTheMove]

Closing some of the stations does make a bit of sense... but closing Fenny Stratford and Bow Brickhiill would be a big backwards step as they actually serve populated areas. It's important to not decimate local transport use in favour of long distance travel. They shouldn’t even be considering how to handle the Stewartby and Kempston Hardwick situation until the Universal Studios plans are firmed up

[@TheWolfXCIX]

I'm not inherently opposed to keeping Fenny Stratford or Bow Brick hill, but if it interferes with frequency or speed between the main station then I think they have to go. The distances are likely more suited to bus travel anyway. Agreed on waiting for Universal Studios to finish before making any drastic commitments.

[@Rail_Focus]

It does seem a bit odd, retaining Bedford St Johns but closing Fenny Stratford. They seem like they serve similar functions.

[@pizzapoop]

@@TheWolfXCIXtrains are the best form of public transport. Why scrap a station when it is used often. It seems like a backward step. Also using buses would extend journey times and traffic would also hold people up in rush hour.

[@JenOnTheMove]

@@TheWolfXCIX Local stations are how people access the rail network to travel to the bigger stations for the long distance services. Without smaller stations feeding passengers into the network, the long distance network becomes pointless. Long distance should never take preference over local. This is why half of South Manchester has a terrible rail service

[@Sam-uo8ki]

On the other hand Bletchley station is only about a mile away from Fenny Stratford, which recorded fewer than 20 daily passenger entries and exits in the most recent annual data. And St Johns recorded around 400 per day

[@mikeprior-jones7779]

It’s worth noting that the Marston Vale line is really old - it opened in 1846 to link Bedford to the London & Birmingham railway, and came long before the lines to Oxford and Cambridge. This is why it has so many level crossings! The line through Bedford St Johns that gives access to Bedford Midland station was originally a spur to allow freight wagons to be transferred to boats on the river, hence the sharp curves. It’ll take quite a bit of investment to bring it up to modern standards.

[@jamesweatherly1595]

I would say I take the EWR comment that stations could be closed due to low passenger usage with a pinch of salt, as I feel that due to the various disruptions to the services such as the issue with the Class 230s, the pandemic and so on, combined with an infrequent service does help with the low passenger figures. I feel that they should keep them open and see how they fare in the new scheme, as improved consistent services combined with going to more destinations can encourage more people to use the stations and then see if the low passenger figures remain. It also should not have too much of an impact on journey times, as many metro services around London have plenty more stations on lines and are not affected.

[@izzieb]

Very fair point.

[@Rail_Focus]

Improving the service would likely increase the number of people using the stations, but I have to question if all 9 stations are needed on a 27km route?

[@CreatorPolar]

@@Rail_Focus you could make a case for closing aspley guise, Millbrook and Kemptson Hardwick because they’re practically in the middle of nowhere but it would be ideal for the rest to stay

[@dcw127]

Looking forward to this line because I live between Northampton and Wellingborough so can go from Bedford or MK. Should be fun!

[@QALibrary]

thank you for the update and changes they are looking at

[@Rail_Focus]

Glad you found it informative 🙂

[@jermainetrainallen6416]

Thanks for the informative vid. Will be interesting to see if the Universal Studios development goes ahead and how that affects EWR

[@phaasch]

Even thinking of closing any stations nowadays is stupidly short sighted, as full-on housebuilding will continue ad nauseam into the future, and what might be seen as superfluous now, will become absolutely essential in a very few years to come.

[@Rail_Focus]

4 stations on a 27km route isn't too bad though. Some people may have to drive, cycle or get the bus, but overall connectivity should be better.

[@andrewhotston983]

​@@Rail_Focus A rail development scheme that increases road traffic is utterly ridiculous.

[@MannyAntipov]

@@Rail_Focus Who's to say that people will travel to nearby stations? They may as well drive the whole way or not bother the train!

[@Rail_Focus]

People all over the country drive, walk, cycle and get buses to stations every day!

[@phaasch]

@Rail_Focus Me too. That doesn't make it right. I drive for 20 mins to my local railhead. Up until 1965 I could have walked 5 mins to my local station. I thought we were about getting traffic off the roads.

[@grobbins6244]

Have any of the test workings for gauging and route learning between Oxford and Bletchley carried on through to Bedford or have they all turned back at Bletchley? There aren't just road level crossings on the MVL, there's a footpath crossing not far from my office in MK whose gates I have leant on during many a sunny lunch hour...

[@Rail_Focus]

Test workings have been between Oxford and Milton Keynes as that's where the initial service will operate to/from The term level crossings encompass footpath crossings as well.

[@BCrossing]

4:32 You say Ridgmont but it isn't highlighted in bold or shown as a stop. Also, this could've done with some data on recent passenger numbers for the stations, to show which are most important. You could've shown that the stations proposed for closure have low passenger numbers: Kempston Hardwick 2,296 (1st least used on the line) Millbrook 2,312 (2nd least used) Aspley Guise 3,320 (3rd least used) Fenny Stratford 6,420 (4th least used) Bow Brickhill 13,274 (7th least used)

[@Rail_Focus]

There's lots I could've shown, but like I said the consultant document is extensive and I did my best to highlight the main points within a relatively short video 🙂

[@humza890]

What's the purpose for Bedford St John? It seems so odd to have it when Bedford station is so close by .

[@Rail_Focus]

I think mostly to serve the hospital

[@TheWolfXCIX]

Rigemont would surely become a huge P&R off the M1

[@danw8968]

Very interesting video with a lot of detailed points worthy of discussion. There is another channel focusing on the Universal studios development and the associated Wixams train station, not sure if they are aware of the proposals you’ve highlighted in this video for possible train connectivity.

[@fenpikey]

Could there be the potential of a loop line in MK using the old Newport Pagnell line which could connect to East West rail to provide a circular service using Bletchleys platforms 5 & 6 as a terminus calling at MK, Newport Pagnell, Fenny Stratford, Bow Brickhill plus other new stations. Junctions could also enable some services from the loop to go onto Bedford, Northampton ot towards Oxford or even Aylesbury. The remaining stations on the Marston Vale line ought to stay open with Ridgmont having a bus link to nearby Cranfield University & airfield. Maybe a hotel at this station too? As for Bedford St Johns......straighten the curve out plus move the current station to serve Amthill Road/Hospital whilst re-open the original St Johns for the line to then head east on to Cambridge once a route has bneen indentified past Bedford. This would keep Midland free for possible other services to/from the Midlands, say a loop service to/from Leicester via Corby with the potential of reopening olde stations or expanding existing ones. Thus, there is the scope of the possibilty of services Leicester/Nottingham to MK/Oxford. Other possibilities maybe available... Should a revamped Bedford Midland station be built to the layout of the olde station?? Just a random musing!!

[@andrewmarsden1970]

Useful. I live in Flitwick so the normally excellent service into central London. Interesting that I will at some point be able to go north and catch trains to Cambridge or Oxford.

[@countertony]

Has there been any information on just how 'discontinuous' the discontinuous electrification is planned to be? Presumably it would impact on the mass of batteries required in each EMU, and therefore how disruptive each station stop is compared with non-stop running at line speed.

[@Rail_Focus]

No, they've only just announced that they're exploring options. I imagine more details will be provided during the statutory consultation

[@phaasch]

Could someone please explain the logic to me of actively pursuing an electrification policy for the Marston Vale line, yet not between Oxford and Bletchley? Anyone who cares to scratch even slightly beneath the surface gloss of "discontinuous electrification", will realise that it is sheer economic folly. With the application of recent technological advances, the need to replace overhead structures is becoming vanishingly small.

[@Rail_Focus]

The full route between Oxford and Cambridge will be electrified, including between Oxford and Bletchley

[@phaasch]

@@Rail_Focus Ah, I thought it was purely speculative, so good. Just wish to god they'd done it as part of the rebuilding, seems like a no-brainer.

[@andrewhotston983]

Is there room to construct a curve at Bletchley to allow trains to run direct from MK to Fenny Stratford? This would simplify the Oxford - Bedford service pattern.

[@jagman84]

3 factory units and Bletchley Rail depot is in the way.

[@andrewhotston983]

@@jagman84 That's a shame!

[@Rail_Focus]

Unlikely considering they've just built new platforms at Bletchley and a new flyover for the Oxford - Bedford (Cambridge) services.

[@andrewhotston983]

​@@Rail_FocusThe flyover would be needed anyhow, as would the Bletchley stop.

[@robblake8999]

what limits the linespeed to not be upgraded to 100 mph? is it tight curves or something like that.

[@Rail_Focus]

There will still be more than a few level crossings even after the upgrade, so it's a safety issue I believe

[@MrGreatplum]

An interesting video. I’m usually one to say that closing stations is a backward step but I’m not sure here. If the stations serve very few people, then maybe it’s ok? I wonder if they should mothball rather than close stations so they can be reopened if demand allows?

[@Rail_Focus]

I think it would be difficult to retain any stations. The biggest issue being capacity, I don't think there would be scope to add stops once the service is up and running. I'm leaning towards the consolidation option, but I just hope EWR listens to locals about what they think is best.

[@gunnyo50]

I've been on the line a few times over the years for work and for the capacity that EWR wants on that line a consolidated option is the better option with new stations. From my knowledge Stewartby's current station is the only one that passengers use most often. Even that station won't be able to handle increased numbers. This is going to cause lots of disruption and a bit of anger once that whole rail upgrade gets greenlighted especially moving St John's station to the new location by the hospital.

[@gunnyo50]

I can see why they need to move the St Johns train station for more space, but that'll be an absolute nightmare for many that use the hospital car park in Bedford daily when they build the new one. I think option 2 with having fewer train stations on the line is more practical and they picked the right stations for the new east west railway.

[@keithtomlinson3823]

I was around at the time we destroyed these lines and now in my eighties I sit here and hear about how much work needs to be done and all of the cost it will involve o why is it we never think of the future and what it might hold

[@Christopher125]

Would it be possible to post the link? 6:35

[@Rail_Focus]

eastwestrail.co.uk/consultation2024

[@christopherlloyd-roberts2205]

Great video as always, very inciteful. Thank you! I'm curious, do you think consolidating to four stations might make the local service worse as high density of stations and frequency so often seems to be the model to success and it seems strange to remove stations of service will increase. If they did consolidate to four, do you think they should have to provide good bus links to surrounding regions, similar to the way Paris buses work in the suburbs along RER routes, where they pick passengers up and at each RER stations the passengers get off to use the train. This could aid the four stations then a d improve connectivity to the local areas as well as make public transit more amenable and convenient to users.

[@Rail_Focus]

Part of the argument is the current stations are poorly served by buses and it's difficult to serve the existing locations. Whereas the new stations would provide better opportunities to provide bus links.

[@christopherlloyd-roberts2205]

@Rail_Focus I suppose they could build the upgraded line in a way where new infill stations, particularly in Bletchley could made as well I suppose (Though that required forward thinking, something the UK doesn't do well it seems 🙄).

[@sssdddkkksss]

Can Thameslink handle two airports, commuters from 30 commuter towns, and an international theme park??

[@Rail_Focus]

Good question

[@Wildcard71]

Referring to Google Maps, the line from Bicester got its own platforms at Bletchley.

[@Rail_Focus]

@@Wildcard71 2 platforms in fact on a new high-level station

[@iman2341]

100% the consolidated station option is the one to go for. It will be a massive bottleneck on capacity having that many local stations in the middle of what is a regional/intercity line.

[@andrewhotston983]

Depends whether you think a railway should exist for the benefit of passengers or the convenience of the train operator.

[@PGATProductions]

@@andrewhotston983 keeping stations like kempston hardwick open might benefit the 6 people a day that use the station but it will hamper frequency and reliability on everyone else using the line as far out as oxford and cambridge

[@Rail_Focus]

I tend to agree. I don't think it'll be popular, but they have to balance long distance connectivity with local services. 5 stations on a 27km route seems ample

[@andrewhotston983]

@@Rail_Focus Are the annual passenger figures for each station available? It wouldn't be a good look if they try to close some well-used stations, forcing people onto the local roads.

[@Rail_Focus]

Annual passenger figures for starions are published by either the ORR or ONS. But the consultant document does give some examples of under used stations

[@lawrenceporter8389]

Do you think there will be a massive backlash against closing stations? If so why not threaten to close all the intermediate stations then allowing four to stay becomes a reasonable compromise. By threatening to close five but not nine, you will end up compromising and keeping more. Besides, as we all know closing stations is a complex procedure so that might be better off maintaining a one a week ghost train service to some of them.

[@Rail_Focus]

I think it'll be 50/50 depending on where people live. But the consolidation option definitely has merits which could provide better connectivity as a whole

[@alistairkewish651]

As far as my education goes it has never been possible to travel directly from Oxford to Bedford. Soon, however, it will be.

[@MervynPartin]

If the service patterns all envisage starting from Oxford, I think that an opportunity is being missed- if Didcot was the starting point, then there would be faster connections from the GW main line. This may have already been examined and discounted, of course, either for financial reasons or physical difficulties in accommodating EWR trains at Didcot. Whatever happens, the OLE should be extended from Didcot to Oxford anyway.

[@Rail_Focus]

They are investigating starting services at Didcot.

[@MervynPartin]

@@Rail_Focus That's good👍

[@ProjectUniversalUK]

Network rail should start construction on a new bridge to replace the level crossing at Kempston Hardwick in May 2025. They have recently compulsory purchased some of the land Universal Studios have just brought.

[@mobilephil244]

I have a good idea. Why not close ALL those cost-inefficient stations except for Cambridge and Oxford. After all, who needs stations to be near where they live !

[@Rail_Focus]

5 stations on a 27km route is still good. But if you have any serious suggestions or feedback then it's best you take part in the consultation

[@andrewhotston983]

Here's an idea - electrify the whole Bletchley to Bedford section to increase the acceleration of the stopping trains so that they don’t get in the way of the fast trains so much!!

[@Rail_Focus]

They plan to electrify the whole route from Oxford to Cambridge

[@andrewhotston983]

@Rail_Focus What happened to the Intermittent Electrification plan that was proposed a few weeks ago, then?

[@Andrewjg_89]

Wish that London Northwestern Railway would have kept the Class 230 since Vivarail went into administration.

[@humza890]

No wonder why Bletchley to Bedford is so unreliable! Didn't realise there was so many level crossings. It causes delays up to 30 minutes for the train

[@alistairkewish651]

31 level crossings! Good Lord!

[@thetessellater9163]

Closing Fenny Stratford station would not be too problematic as its just a short walk to Bletchley station.

[@Anonymoususer_8823]

Oxford-Milton Keynes and Bedford would provide a much better quicker journey when coming from the North and other parts of the Midlands. Without having to go via London. And a new Eastern section to be built from Bedford to Cambridge and to connect with the rest of the East of England.

[@erwallace1]

Yeah, there aren’t a lot of passengers, but the service isn’t particularly good. It would be better to have a better service to all stations than ditch some.

[@Rail_Focus]

Age old chicken and egg situation

[@niallmarsay]

I lived in Marston moratain and was one of the 5 people that used Millbrook station. Right now it's a easy decision to close that and others on the line. They are in the middle of nowhere. But that's not the future of the valley. the local plan is going to build 1000s of houses in the valley. But what frustrates me is this is completely disconnected from the EWR upgrade. There is an amazing opportunity to Make transport centered development hear that would allow people to live without cars. But noone is thinking about it at all. Instead most people are going to drive to work from there. Such a wasted opportunity. In some ways ewr should be like The railways of Old and be in charge of the Land around the railway. So much silo thinking 😢

[@Rail_Focus]

On the other hand residents in and around Tempsford are blaming EWR for the Bedford local plan for 7000 new houses. But like you say we should be planning railways around housing developments.

[@richardstringer6162]

Its strange how they plan to modernize but have plans to enhance the original plan before the first plan is already underway. What is that all about?

[@Rail_Focus]

Original re-opening planned and constructed on a shoestring budget, now having to come back and ensure there's capacity for freight.

[@andrewhotston983]

Total bodge job - terminating trains at Stewartby makes no sense for passengers. Yet another example of penny-pinching and ruining a scheme for a short-term financial saving.

[@PGATProductions]

why does it make no sense? by passenger numbers it's the busiest on the marston vale section and it's going to be within the vicinity of the universal studios development

[@Rail_Focus]

As I explained it would be for operational reasons rather than building an extra platform at Bedford to terminate trains there instead

[@gunnyo50]

That isn't a bodge job as most ppl using that line from Oxford, Bletchley, and MK side are using it mostly for the theme park and it's wise that most of the trains are terminating at the new relocated Stewartby/KH station.

[@andrewhotston983]

@gunnyo50 That's just speculation - the theme park doesn't exist yet.

[@gunnyo50]

​@@andrewhotston983 Yes, it's speculation for now, but It's likely it'll happen over the first quarter of next year where both the govt and Universal will finally come to an agreement. This isn't a bodge job as the line for years needs serious investment and upgrades. There are lots of inefficient train stations on the line that are hard to get to for most ppl. Kempston Hardwick one of the worst inaccessible train stations for many to get to.

[@EdgyNumber1]

FFS, I'm fed up with hearing about discontinuous electrification - its such a cop out. I get it for truly rural, middle of nowhere lines but this is practically area route has a multitude of options to be able to link to the grid. IF THEY CHOSE to use wireless sections, then they should use 'smart third rail' just for the bits that pass under the bridge. Batteries weigh ridiculous amounts, and lugging a diesel engine would be completely unnecessary. This is currently being considered at concept stage by South West Rail.

[@Rail_Focus]

Smart 3rd rail wouldn't be useful for the Class 93s or 99s though and would mean lugging round inverters which are quite sizable and heavy themselves. I'm not saying discontinuous is the right choice, but with plenty of existing bridges about you can understand why.

[@christopherlloyd-roberts2205]

@@EdgyNumber1 and @Rail_Focus could a similar system be implemented on new stadtler trains such as being used on the 756s that drops and raises the pantograph. You could feasiblely electrify everything except bridges and the trains would have enough momentum to carry to the next electrified section maybe. Only issue is if there is a bridge at a station, this may be an issue, but maybe small battery packs could solve this?

[@Rail_Focus]

They could use neutral sections of wires, which aren't energised so the pantograph can remain up, but it depends on clearance. But even then I imagine small batteries would be needed to keep, lights and computer systems running, I also imagine there are other technical reasons why you can't just interrupt the power supply. There is also a short tunnel at Oxford that may not have sufficient clearance for wires and through which there wouldn't be sufficient momentum.

[@christopherlloyd-roberts2205]

@@Rail_Focus that's fair enough. I know Kyoto, Japan, has a line that runs from the city in a subway tunnel where the pantograph is compressed compared to normal clearances, then when it emerged from the tunnels to run on its own line up through the mountain pass (the subway is shared with one of the Kyoto Subway lines), the pantograph moves to normal clearances and then for the last half a kilometre or so, it runs on roads like a tram and the wire is at tram levels of clearance, which I believe is even higher, so their train a Series 800 run by Keihan Railway operates on three different catenary heights without special tech (I think ots just springs, but I may be wrong). I suspect this might not work so well though for higher speeds as this route has a fairly slow average speed especially on the tram section (not more than 30mph)