I have heard a number of times over the years that the legislation that closed the Varsity line - Cambridge to Oxford via Bedford and Bletchley - specified that a replacement bus service (currently the X5 Oxford to Bedford and then 905 Bedfod to Cambridge) must run in perpetuity. This because of the importance of Oxford and Cambridge universities and the need to be able to get between the two.
This may be an urban myth but does anyone know exactly what the legal position is should the opening of the Oxford-MK section of East-West Rail kill off the Oxford-MK bus?
The legislation to close the parts of the Oxford-Bletchley and Bedford-Cambridge line was the same Transport Act 1962 that applied to all the other Beeching closures. The bus services were specified for three years, with BR making up the losses, and even that requirement was removed in the 1968 Transport Act (enacted in 1969). Definitely nothing 'in perpetuity'.
The original replacement bus services were nos. 428 (Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge), which was overlaid as an additional limited stop service on the existing unaltered bus network (which gave various new links, but also some duplication), and Service 121 (Bletchley-Winslow-Bicester- Oxford) which largely replaced existing service 377 (Bletchley-Winslow-Buckingham). The Winslow-Bicester section was a new link, and between Bicester and Oxford it augmented existing service. Both services sort of connected with the remaining train service between Bedford and Bletchley, which was not closed at that point due to staff shortages of the bus company and a plague of trip cancellations in the district at the time. (This section of line had some high peak time loadings of scholars and brickyard workers which would have required a considerable number of extra buses, whilst the 428 only required two and the 121 only one)
There was also a long standing coach service (jointly by Premier Travel and Percival's Coaches) that ran Cambridge-Hitchin-Luton-Aylesbury-Oxford on Fr.Sa.Su. which was augmented to a twice daily (with an extra at weekends) at the closure. Unsure if BR contributed to this augmentation, but probably.
It was also possible to travel from Cambridge to Oxford by changing in Bedford from service 128 (Cambridge-Bedford-Northampton) and service 131 (Bedford-Stony Stratford-Bicester-Oxford). However these long standing services did not follow the line of rail and via the intermediate stations, except between Bicester and Oxford - loosely they followed the current X5/905 routeing before the building of MK and various road schemes have changed the landscape somewhat!
Service 428 was a hopeless economic case from the start, and the section from Gamlingay to Cambridge was withdrawn shortly after the three years was up, covered at peak times by an extension of existing Service 118 (Cambridge-Longstowe) to Gamlingay. The rump of the 428 was reduced to 5 journeys and continued for quite some years (by then renumbered 178) well into the 80s if not longer.
The 121 disappeared in the service upheavals related to the opening of Milton Keynes City Centre - I am unsure if the Winslow-Launton section survived at all at that time. Certainly not as a substantial service.
No idea what happened to the Oxford-Luton-Cambridge route - presumably disappeared around deregulation; hopefully someone else can fill us in there?
It must be remembered that Oxford and Cambridge are
rival universities and back in 1967 it was almost seen as treachery for an individual to be seen as co-operating! I very much doubt the rail link did much business, or that it was important to the nation - the academics should have enough nous to travel via London if they really had to go. There wasn't much other economic activity to cause any intermediate residents to travel, other than what was generally more convenient by existing bus services. Things have moved on since then with development of course and EW rail will require some pretty hefty developments along the route to be sustainable (which we can see are already starting to come). In 1967 the closed sections were very rural indeed.
