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

[MarkyT]

EWR would have carried on without taking the park into consideration?

Are EWR totally unaware of the parks existence? You cannot tell me that procedure/protocol of a build of something states to ignore another plan unless they call it out first?

I expect it's a negotiating tactic to gain better provision for rail access to the park, and a publicity move to get the park in the press again. In practice I think the objection will be an opportunity for both parties, and the park will likely be a good steady off-peak trip generator for the rail operator. The internal layout details of the park are likely still being designed, so there's scope for tweaking the park and the rail elements for optimum mutual benefit. Perhaps the railway should also strategically object to the park proposal if they can, not to stop it but for similar negotiation reasons.

 

[zwk500]

I expect it's a negotiating tactic to gain better provision for rail access to the park, and a publicity move to get the park in the press again. In practice I think the objection will be an opportunity for both parties, and the park will likely be a good steady off-peak trip generator for the rail operator. The internal layout details of the park are likely still being designed, so there's scope for tweaking the park and the rail elements for optimum mutual benefit. Perhaps the railway should also strategically object to the park proposal if they can, not to stop it but for similar negotiation reasons.

I suspect it's an attempt to get the public purse to pay for better access to their park, personally.

 

[richieb1971]

I expect it's a negotiating tactic to gain better provision for rail access to the park, and a publicity move to get the park in the press again. In practice I think the objection will be an opportunity for both parties, and the park will likely be a good steady off-peak trip generator for the rail operator. The internal layout details of the park are likely still being designed, so there's scope for tweaking the park and the rail elements for optimum mutual benefit. Perhaps the railway should also strategically object to the park proposal if they can, not to stop it but for similar negotiation reasons.

Universal and East West Rail clash over perceived "significant technical flaws" - Bedford Independent

Universal Destinations & Experiences (UDX) said it raised objections to the latest East West Rail (EWR Co) proposals, warning...

www.bedfordindependent.co.uk

In planning documents submitted with its application, UDX said EWR Co.’s non-statutory consultation fails to account for the theme park masterplan, despite the proposals being publicly available since April.

UDX’s plans safeguard land for a future EWR station and express support for the wider rail scheme, but stress that the theme park is not dependent on the railway going ahead.

If land was safeguarded by UDX for the station and EWR hadn't woken up to that fact without a nudge that dictates that the 2 parties were not collaborating. I can see both parties at fault here.
It should have been dealt with before it got to the newspapers.

 

[zwk500]

If land was safeguarded by UDX for the station and EWR hadn't woken up to that fact without a nudge that dictates that the 2 parties were not collaborating. I can see both parties at fault here.
It should have been dealt with before it got to the newspapers.

Worth pointing out that East-West Rail's consultation on the Marston Vale line was conducted between November 2024 and January 2025. No wonder it doesn't account for plans published in April 2025!

UDX seems to be trying to throw it's weight around, and trying to blame EWR for the fact they've come late to the game.

 

[MarkyT]

Worth pointing out that East-West Rail's consultation on the Marston Vale line was conducted between November 2024 and January 2025. No wonder it doesn't account for plans published in April 2025!

UDX seems to be trying to throw it's weight around, and trying to blame EWR for the fact they've come late to the game.

Exactly. There couldn't have been public consideration for non-existant or unconfirmed plans, though there may have been a non-public back channel between the parties prevously. UDX clearly knows the situation on the formal consultation, hence my leverage/publicity theory, bearing in mind that all publicity is good publicity, so some people say.

 

[Cantab26]

Exactly. There couldn't have been public consideration for non-existant or unconfirmed plans, though there may have been a non-public back channel between the parties prevously. UDX clearly knows the situation on the formal consultation, hence my leverage/publicity theory, bearing in mind that all publicity is good publicity, so some people say.

You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment.

And this talk of UDX “safeguarding” land is nonsense anyway. UDX has as much power to “safeguard” land as I have (which is to say, none).

 

[BrianW]

Exactly. There couldn't have been public consideration for non-existant or unconfirmed plans, though there may have been a non-public back channel between the parties prevously. UDX clearly knows the situation on the formal consultation, hence my leverage/publicity theory, bearing in mind that all publicity is good publicity, so some people say.

It's an entertaining 'game'. UDX wishes to maximise its profits and publicity and minimise its expenditures. It has departments of folk paid to achieve these things. The lowly local authorities staffed by low numbers of lowly-paid officials, supported by consultants engaged by their 'political masters', seek to maximise income (e.g. through Section 106 and/or Community Infrastructure Levy) and minimise expenditures (e.g on consultations and meetings). Governments apply pressures, eg in quest for growth, 'good news' etc. 'The public' will get what results .

 

[InTheEastMids]

Exactly. There couldn't have been public consideration for non-existant or unconfirmed plans, though there may have been a non-public back channel between the parties prevously. UDX clearly knows the situation on the formal consultation, hence my leverage/publicity theory, bearing in mind that all publicity is good publicity, so some people say.

I think there was something in the text of one of the EWR consultation docs along the lines of "we are aware of Universal's aspiration but the proposal was not clear enough to be considered", and it was a Non-Statutory consultation.

So agree when the Statutory Consultation comes out, I'm sure EWR will have updated their plans, particularly station locations around Stewartby/Kempston. Agree with others who think it's a storm in a teacup/no such thing as bad publicity type of thing.
Perhaps the next media issue will be the extent to which what local residents feel aggrieved when the station prioritises Universal customers over local residents.

 

[edwin_m]

And this talk of UDX “safeguarding” land is nonsense anyway. UDX has as much power to “safeguard” land as I have (which is to say, none).

Do they own land alongside the railway, and if so have they allocated some of it for a station? Not safeguarding but the result is similar.

 

[Verulamius]

Do they own land alongside the railway, and if so have they allocated some of it for a station? Not safeguarding but the result is similar.

Please see the planning application made by UDX as published on 3 July 2025 - https://www.gov.uk/government/colle...rmission-entertainment-resort-complex-bedford.

There is a site allocated to a new station on the EW line not quite in the same place as the potential new station for Stewarby proposed by EW.

 

[edwin_m]

Please see the planning application made by UDX as published on 3 July 2025 - https://www.gov.uk/government/colle...rmission-entertainment-resort-complex-bedford.

There is a site allocated to a new station on the EW line not quite in the same place as the potential new station for Stewarby proposed by EW.

Thanks for that. The plan showing the "EWR safeguarded land" (so described) is https://assets.publishing.service.g...ns__U2013_East_West_Rail_Safeguarded_Land.pdf

However, most of the western boundary looks like it follows the western fenceline of the railway, not allowing any space for a platform that side. The major part that goes beyond that fenceline looks like it is intended for a road access.

 

[MarkyT]

Please see the planning application made by UDX as published on 3 July 2025 - https://www.gov.uk/government/colle...rmission-entertainment-resort-complex-bedford.

There is a site allocated to a new station on the EW line not quite in the same place as the potential new station for Stewarby proposed by EW.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6859669af05cab1603ade641/15_-_1.15.0_-_Parameter_Plans__U2013_East_West_Rail_Safeguarded_Land.pdf

This seems to show a site identified as EWR railway station land. Documents don't explain whether that is relevant safeguarding by third party EWR or something they seek for EWRs use. I expect the ambiguity is deliberate. This and other site drawings show the entire railway between here and the existing Kempston Hardwick station as just within the 'site' which might indicate that platfrom might be proposed anywhere within that distance.
On another plan a core zone transport hub is shown. I don't know whether that's visitor station facilities or car parks or where they bring the burgers and merch in :

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/68596699db8e139f95652dd6/13_-_1.13.0_-_Parameter_Plans__U2013_Core_Zone_Transport_Hub.pdf

 

[Magdalia]

Some key dates in the timeline:

• December 2023 Universal acquiring the land near Stewartby is made public
• April/May 2024 Universal conduct a local consultation in the Bedford are
• May 2024 EWR due to open non-statutory consultation which is postponed when general election is called
• July 2024 original 2 platform Wixams station gets approval and funding
• November 2024-January 2025 EWR non-statutory consultation
• April 2025 government backs the development with the Prime Minister visiting Stewartby, and Wixams station is paused
• June/July 2025 formal proposals submitted by Universal

The EWR non-statutory consultation said this in paragraph 7.9.2 of the Technical Report:

EWR Co is aware that Universal Destinations & Experiences is exploring the potential to develop a theme park and resort next to the MVL north of Stewartby. The proposals for the MVL presented in this consultation do not take account of the Universal development. EWR Co is discussing the proposals with Universal Destinations & Experiences and Bedford Borough Council and considering the implications of the theme park and resort for the railway.

Given the timeline, Universal had ample opportunity to respond to the EWR non-statutory consultation, and the discussions mentioned in the EWR Technical Report should be ongoing.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jul 2025 ==

Perhaps the next media issue will be the extent to which what local residents feel aggrieved when the station prioritises Universal customers over local residents.

This is already happening see here:

Universal theme park neighbours say they have been 'forgotten'

The future of the houses between the planned new attraction and its construction site is unclear.

www.bbc.co.uk

Universal site residents say they feel 'forgotten'​

Residents living in the middle of land purchased for a Universal Studios theme park say they have not been informed about what will happen to their homes.
Manor Road, in the village of Kempston Hardwick, Bedfordshire, sits between the intended 476-acre theme park and the construction site for the Universal Studios attraction.
Many residents say they have not yet received confirmed offers of compensation even though their homes are ear-marked for demolition in Universal's plans to transform the former brickworks site.
The BBC contacted Universal's PR representative in the UK for a response, but they declined to comment on the views of the Manor Road residents.

 

[BlueLeanie]

This is something that annoys me (and probably others) with the public sector. The pretence that something isn't happening until it is documented and discussed at multiple meetings.

 

[deltic]

This is something that annoys me (and probably others) with the public sector. The pretence that something isn't happening until it is documented and discussed at multiple meetings.

Without planning permisssion nothing is going to happen and the Park presently does not have it. If it does get permission the approved scheme may be very different to what is talked about now. There are also questions about the assumptions used as to where day visitors to the park are going to come from and how they are going to get there. Its fairly standard to claim a large public transport mode share so not have to pay for highway improvements. Then when built promote car use.

 

[Brubulus]

Without planning permisssion nothing is going to happen and the Park presently does not have it. If it does get permission the approved scheme may be very different to what is talked about now. There are also questions about the assumptions used as to where day visitors to the park are going to come from and how they are going to get there. Its fairly standard to claim a large public transport mode share so not have to pay for highway improvements. Then when built promote car use.

There's a very easy way for highway use linked to Universal to be limited and that is to only allow a relatively limited amount of parking space. This will at least mean most people arriving at Universal will use some form of public transport, even if it is only travelling a couple miles by train/bus

 

[BlueLeanie]

There's a very easy way for highway use linked to Universal to be limited and that is to only allow a relatively limited amount of parking space. This will at least mean most people arriving at Universal will use some form of public transport, even if it is only travelling a couple miles by train/bus

Nope.

Just back from a week at Universal, Orlando, and in the average 5 mins from Booking to be picked up there must have been at least 20 Uber or Lyft pick-ups. You're probably talking about 300 taxi movements an hour.

 

[al green]

This is something that annoys me (and probably others) with the public sector. The pretence that something isn't happening until it is documented and discussed at multiple meetings.

Agree. I think EWR Ltd made a big mistake in ignoring UDX proposal. UDX published a report in April 2024. It said:

"How would people travel to this site?
Our initial studies show that about 35% - 40% of visitors would travel to us
by train given the excellent transport links that already exist near to the site
and the planned improvements to the local rail network. This includes East
West Rail (EWR) connecting Oxford and Cambridge, via the Marston Vale
line, for which a new railway station is proposed in close proximity to the
resort and Wixams railway station on the Midland Mainline."

When I read that report it was obvious that the UDX theme park would massively impact EWR. Although it wasn't certain to happen EWR should have considered it. They do consider some proposed housing developments, e.g. Tempsford, even though these are not guaranteed to happen.This is what I said in Jan in response to the NSC:

"Kempston Hardwick - Universal Studios theme park
While we appreciate that most of the report was written more than a year ago and its publication has been held up by political instability and the general election we think the proposal for a Universal Studios theme park at Kempston Hardwick should have been considered in the report. It is so significant that if it goes ahead the number of passengers likely to use Kempston Hardwick station would exceed the number of passengers at all other MV intermediate stations put together. It would affect the required service provision as well as the station location and capacity. It should have been presented as a 3rd option for MV."

When I respond to the MHCLG consultation I will be recommending that appropval should be conditional on the provision of a station at Kempston Hardwick and associated bridge, track and platform improvements on MV line by UDX. They are offering to do it at Wixams so KH should be treated in similar way..

 

[Magdalia]

Agree. I think EWR Ltd made a big mistake in ignoring UDX proposal.

I disagree. What EWR did was the correct decision. In April 2024 the non-statutory consultation was almost ready to go, and only postponed because the general election was called.

After the general election the priority for EWR was meeting the requirements of the newly elected government all along the route, not the vague requirements for a theme park at one location. The government would have given clearance for the non-statutory consultation which was launched shortly after the October 2024 budget.

6 months were lost because the general election delayed the non-statutory consultation, trying to do something different at Stewartby would have added further delay for what is a high priority project for the new government.

 

[jfowkes]

London Resort was going to be a big theme park complex in Kent, everyone was very excited but it didn't happen. The Universal resort still might not happen.

I understand the desire for joined up planning, but there is a strong counter-argument that it could be a massive waste of time and money.

 

[deltic]

Agree. I think EWR Ltd made a big mistake in ignoring UDX proposal. UDX published a report in April 2024. It said:

"How would people travel to this site?
Our initial studies show that about 35% - 40% of visitors would travel to us
by train given the excellent transport links that already exist near to the site
and the planned improvements to the local rail network. This includes East
West Rail (EWR) connecting Oxford and Cambridge, via the Marston Vale
line, for which a new railway station is proposed in close proximity to the
resort and Wixams railway station on the Midland Mainline."

When I read that report it was obvious that the UDX theme park would massively impact EWR. Although it wasn't certain to happen EWR should have considered it. They do consider some proposed housing developments, e.g. Tempsford, even though these are not guaranteed to happen.This is what I said in Jan in response to the NSC:

"Kempston Hardwick - Universal Studios theme park
While we appreciate that most of the report was written more than a year ago and its publication has been held up by political instability and the general election we think the proposal for a Universal Studios theme park at Kempston Hardwick should have been considered in the report. It is so significant that if it goes ahead the number of passengers likely to use Kempston Hardwick station would exceed the number of passengers at all other MV intermediate stations put together. It would affect the required service provision as well as the station location and capacity. It should have been presented as a 3rd option for MV."

When I respond to the MHCLG consultation I will be recommending that appropval should be conditional on the provision of a station at Kempston Hardwick and associated bridge, track and platform improvements on MV line by UDX. They are offering to do it at Wixams so KH should be treated in similar way..

EWR has and do consider UDX in its plans. However, the vast majority of rail passengers visiting UDX will use Thameslink, relatively few will use EWR. Peak day visitors are expected to reach 55,000. Optimistically 20,000 will arrive by rail, of whom around 90% will use Thameslink. That leaves 2,000 using EWR, probably over a 3 hour arrival and departure time frame. Which equates to just 300-400 passengers per hour in each direction on a service which will be at least 2tph and that is on a peak day. Existing proposed capacity is likely to be more than adequate and UDX is not going to pay for additional rolling stock to cope with the occasional evening concert when arrivals/departures are likely to be more peaked.

 

[richieb1971]

I've taken this from the PDF linked in post - 6342


https://assets.publishing.service.g...eter_Plans__U2013_Core_Zone_Transport_Hub.pdf

This picture of the EWR station as illustrated by UDX opens my mind to a few questions. That station dwarfs the Wixams station on the right. The yellow is forders sidings which use to take freight trains about twice as long as Bedford station is. Will the pink part be the length of the platform? Is the width of it how many platforms or station grounds in total?

My understanding is EWR are running with 4 car units, so a standard service would be a small train for a gigantic station illustrated here.

 

[edwin_m]

View attachment 183829

I've taken this from the PDF linked in post - 6342


https://assets.publishing.service.g...eter_Plans__U2013_Core_Zone_Transport_Hub.pdf

This picture of the EWR station as illustrated by UDX opens my mind to a few questions. That station dwarfs the Wixams station on the right. The yellow is forders sidings which use to take freight trains about twice as long as Bedford station is. Will the pink part be the length of the platform? Is the width of it how many platforms or station grounds in total?

My understanding is EWR are running with 4 car units, so a standard service would be a small train for a gigantic station illustrated here.

Note it says "Transport Hub" not station and the land includes a broad corridor is a link to what must be a new interchange on the A421. I'm hoping the area west of EWR is parking, which ought to be further to walk than the public transport access, and putting it there avoids the need for a multi-lane road bridge. The "hub" could be handing admissions from those parking there as well as buses and coaches, in which case the station would be only a small part of the site.

The length of railway within the land boundary on both sides is about 200m (excluding the hatched area stated not to be part of the site - not sure why they showed it like that) which would be plenty for a two-platform four-car station. There might be room to squeeze in a bay, but I think it's more likely they would just keep the two platforms (which could have provision for future lengthening) and put a turnback in Forders Sidings.

 

[D365]

The length of railway within the land boundary on both sides is about 200m (excluding the hatched area stated not to be part of the site - not sure why they showed it like that) which would be plenty for a two-platform four-car station. There might be room to squeeze in a bay, but I think it's more likely they would just keep the two platforms (which could have provision for future lengthening) and put a turnback in Forders Sidings.

All currently proposed variants of Stewartby comprise a three platform station - two through, one bay.

 

[edwin_m]

All currently proposed variants of Stewartby comprise a three platform station - two through, one bay.

But these don't take account of Unversal.

 

[D365]

But these don't take account of Unversal.

Until EWR makes their next announcements regarding Marston Vale stations, the discussion of Universal is entirely Speculative

 

[Magdalia]

Here is an update on what the government are saying about the Oxford Cambridge Growth Corridor and East West Rail. It is a BBC report of a visit by the Science Minister Lord Vallance to Oxford today.

Oxbridge corridor will 'create jobs for everyone', says government

The Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor proposal was unveiled by Rachel Reeves earlier this year.

www.bbc.co.uk

Normally I'd quote the opening sentences of the article, but here it is more appropriate to quote what is at the end:

The plans for East-West Rail, which would connect the two cities, are a major part of the growth corridor.

Lord Vallance said: "The ability to link between Oxford and Cambridge is one that people have known is important for a very long time.

"The rail is the very backbone of allowing this to work effectively."

The government hope their growth corridor will add up to £78 billion to the UK economy.

"If we don't do that at speed then we're going to lose out to other countries, and ultimately that's going to do a disservice to all of us," Lord Vallance added.

 

[MarkyT]

All currently proposed variants of Stewartby comprise a three platform station - two through, one bay.

Which way does the bay face, and what is planned to use it?

 

[cle]

Which way does the bay face, and what is planned to use it?

It faces Bedford/east, and would be for 2tph to Cambridge. To add to 2tph Cambridge-Oxford.

There would then be the MKC-Oxford 2tph further down, and likely 1tph stopper still.

This was in place of an earlier plan which had 2tph Bletchley-Cambridge runs.

I personally think a bay could also maybe support some northbound MML service (ostensibly Bedford starters, mentioned for Leeds a while back)

 

[deltic]

Here is an update on what the government are saying about the Oxford Cambridge Growth Corridor and East West Rail. It is a BBC report of a visit by the Science Minister Lord Vallance to Oxford today.

Oxbridge corridor will 'create jobs for everyone', says government

The Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor proposal was unveiled by Rachel Reeves earlier this year.

www.bbc.co.uk

Normally I'd quote the opening sentences of the article, but here it is more appropriate to quote what is at the end:

I see ministers are still banging on about connecting Oxford to Cambridge when the numbers expected to travel between the two cities is negligible. EWR is at risk from suffering from the same problem as HS2 ie a lack of coherent narrative about why the scheme is needed. EWR itself does not refer to linking the two cities but that it

aims to deliver much-needed transport connections for communities between Oxford and Cambridge

which is subtly different.