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

[DynamicSpirit]

In all the discussion and consultation about EW Rail in the Bedford area, has the idea of a triangular junction with the Midland Main Line been suggested? This would enable freight trains to access the very lightly-used slow lines north of Bedford and avoid Soham and Ely.

Interesting idea. To avoid polluting this discussion I've replied in a new speculative thread here.

 

[flitwickbeds]

The plans for East West rail as a key element of the Oxford Cambridge arc predate the announcement of the construction of Universal leisure complex and have been controversial in the City of Bedford, The directly elected City Mayor lives east of the city

Bedford has never been, and probably never will be, a city. Tom Wootton is not a city mayor, and not was David Hodgson before him. Which one are you talking about living east of the city as the current mayor is not the same mayor involved in the preferred route discussions?

Bedford Council made clear in their following response to the 2019 East West Rail Consultation that they wanted East West Rail to call at Bedford Station in the centre of Bedford and not bypass Bedford to the South. This was option E and was accepted as it clearly offered the best connectivity for East West Rail. There were other options which bypassed Bedford and connected with a Bedford South Station but Bedford Council opposed this for the reasons stated. Bedford Council really should have anticipated that some buildings close to the railway could be affected by the development of the new East West railway if it served the existing Bedford Station in the centre of Bedford and they need to work with East West Rail to get this new railway built as soon as possible.

A station somewhere near the Interchange retail park on both EWR and Thameslink would have been my preferred solution, ie EWR avoiding central Bedford and then heading towards Cambridge to the South of the town, and closing St Johns station. However that boat has sailed, and the need for a Universal/Wixams station now makes that unworkable.

 

[Dr Hoo]

The article specifically mentions Dom Polski and Ashburnham Road, surgery, to give a sense of where these buildings are located relative to the railway and station.

Ironically the two properties on Ashburnham Road just north of Dom Polski were purchased by British Rail and demolished as part of the new Bedford station under the Midland Suburban Electrification project in the late 1970s.

That was the first time that I met Peter Parker, the BR Chairman. I was entrusted with meeting him off a train at the old station (even though I was only a Grade 1 clerk) and making sure that he got to the County Hotel.

There was a very high level reception where the Chairman, with a Bedford history, was able to shape local opinion. No expense spared; there was a beautiful scale model of the proposed new station in a plastic case. I had the job of unscrewing the lid so that guests could poke a clever little inverted architect’s periscope into it and see what it would be like in 3D.

The Chairman never forgot me and would always greet me by my surname afterwards. Great bloke.

(Apologies for wandering off into historical reminiscences. Are there any plans for a similar ‘hearts and minds’ offensive by current senior rail figures?)

 

[Magdalia]

Not at all sure why those would need to be demolished, there's clearly room for another two tracks well away from those properties.

Given the constraints at either end of Bedford Station and the use of the slow line platforms for Thameslink I think it would be unreasonable to suggest it is possible to add another railway without affecting any properties outside the railway boundary at all.
Whether that involves demolition and if EWR are proposing doing more than the minimum though is another question.

The BBC report quotes EWR saying this:

"The proposed demolition of properties, while difficult, is necessary to significantly reduce construction time - by up to three years. This means the benefits of the new station can be delivered sooner, with less disruption over time."

The proposal for Bedford in the non-statutory consultation did not include demolition of these buildings, but did say this about approach to construction:

A construction compound immediately north of the River Great Ouse near Bedford station would be created to support delivery of the redevelopment of the existing Bedford station, relocation of the existing Jowett Sidings, and construction of the new railway in this area. The main compound would extend from the north bank of the River Great Ouse through to Bromham Road and would sit within land owned by Network Rail. Due to the size of the site, there would likely be a main welfare and office facility to the east of the existing Bedford station. There would be a need to undertake some works outside of normal hours to reduce the disruption to the operational railway, for example to access the operational railway and the operational station environment, and to reduce traffic disruption. Works outside normal working hours would include midweek nights and weekends, as well as Christmas and Easter holiday periods.

Having the construction compound for the station by the river does not sound to me conducive to building quickly.

Given the massive street level car parks and depot around Bedford station I think you easily could expect that. A bit of local knowledge does help when it comes to this. Yes you'd lose parking but that could be replaced by going multi storey, it's all street level at present.

The proposal for Bedford in the non-statutory consultation did include a multi-storey car park to replace the street level parking:

To replace the lost surface car parking at Ashburnham Road and Bedford station EWR Co is proposing new and improved parking facilities including a multi-storey car park on Ashburnham Road, sited above the current station car park. The car park on Ashburnham Road is anticipated to be up to eight floors in height. A temporary car park sited south of Ford End Road is proposed during the construction of the multi-storey car park. The existing surface car park adjacent to Bromham Road would be retained and reconfigured to accommodate the new railway.

Construction of a multi storey car park also requires land for access to get raw materials in and waste products out, plus plenty of space for staff accommodation, storage of plant and equipment and storage of raw materials.

I guess they want to clear the whole block to make a clear site for the station and parking.

That's my reading too.

 

[Bald Rick]

The Chairman never forgot me and would always greet me by my surname afterwards.

You might be misunderstanding what he was saying … “Who?”

 

[Dr Hoo]

Very good!

 

[DavidGrain]

Reversing in and out of Bedford would not happen, just like it is not going to happen at Milton Keynes.

The comment about not reversing out of Milton Keynes made me think.

I, and I think many people, had assumed a service Oxford - Milton Keynes - Bedford. Looking at it realistically, a service from Oxford to Bedford will go through Bletchley High Level and then down to Fenny Stratford. Because of the direction of the junctions. unless you reverse at Bletchley, there is no way that a service from Milton Keynes to Bedford will work. I really don't see two reverses in such a short distance working.

 

[Magdalia]

I, and I think many people, had assumed a service Oxford - Milton Keynes - Bedford. Looking at it realistically, a service from Oxford to Bedford will go through Bletchley High Level and then down to Fenny Stratford. Because of the direction of the junctions. unless you reverse at Bletchley, there is no way that a service from Milton Keynes to Bedford will work. I really don't see two reverses in such a short distance working.

The non-statutory consultation has the following for initial service:

2tph Oxford-Cambridge
2tph Oxford-Milton Keynes
2tph Cambridge-Stewartby
1tph Bletchley-Bedford stopper

If the Marston Vale consolidated stations option is adopted then the Bletchley-Bedford stopper doesn't run and one of the Cambridge-Stewartby trains goes through to/from Bletchley.

 

[zwk500]

I really don't see two reverses in such a short distance working.

The issue is not actually two reverses in short distances, but rather the fact that each reversal requires the same route from Denbigh Hall South Jn to Bletchley in both directions (Bletchley Relief No. 2, Bletchley Platform 5).

 

[flitwickbeds]

The non-statutory consultation has the following for initial service:

2tph Oxford-Cambridge
2tph Oxford-Milton Keynes
2tph Cambridge-Stewartby
1tph Bletchley-Bedford stopper

If the Marston Vale consolidated stations option is adopted then the Bletchley-Bedford stopper doesn't run and one of the Cambridge-Stewartby trains goes through to/from Bletchley.

Why Stewartby? I know it's the most popular station on the MV - purely because of the College - but surely no-one is going to want to travel there from Cambridge. Is there no scope to extend this at least to Bletchley?

I'd argue even terminating at Bedford is more sensible than Stewartby.

 

[Freightmaster]

Why Stewartby?

Anticipating future demand from the new Universal theme park, perhaps?




MARK

 

[Magdalia]

Why Stewartby? I know it's the most popular station on the MV - purely because of the College - but surely no-one is going to want to travel there from Cambridge. Is there no scope to extend this at least to Bletchley?

There are 3 key reasons for turning back at Stewartby not Bedford:

• there is more space at Stewartby for a turnback platform than at Bedford
• Stewartby will be in range for Cambridge commuting
• Bedford Hospital is near to Bedford St Johns not Bedford Midland

One of the Stewartby trains will go through to Bletchley if the Marston Vale consolidated stations option is adopted.

This all predates Universal. As it happens there is a useful update on this on the BBC website:

Five things we learnt about the Universal Studios UK plans

The American entertainment company want to build a theme park near Bedford.

www.bbc.co.uk

A Universal Studios theme park could be built in the UK, spanning 268 hectares (662 acres) and promising some of Europe's biggest rides.

As part of the planning process the US entertainment giant published thousands of pages outlining its vision for Bedfordshire back in July.

The public had two months to read the plans and share feedback, but that window officially closed on Sunday afternoon.

Now, as we await the government's verdict, here are five standout details revealed during the consultation process.

One of the five things is transport including this:

5. No Eurostar in Bedford​

One of the more eye-catching diagrams in Universal's planning documents shows a train line stretching from mainland Europe all the way to Bedford.
Some may be dreaming of trains from the continent to the theme park, echoing the old direct UK-to-Disneyland Paris service, which was scrapped due to EU entry complications.
Eurostar told the BBC there were no plans to extend the service to Bedford. It had previously ran to Kent but was stopped in 2020, though this will be reviewed in 2026.
What the plans do make clear is the park will be well connected by rail.
A two-platform station is already under construction in the nearby new town of Wixams, though Network Rail said work has paused, external while Universal's plans are considered.
Universal wants the station to be upgraded to include four platforms so it can welcome even more visitors.
Space has been reserved for a new station at the resort itself, which would sit on the East West Rail line, connecting the park to Cambridge and Oxford, if the project gets the green light to reach Bedford.

 

[flitwickbeds]

Anticipating future demand from the new Universal theme park, perhaps?




MARK

But that would be the current Kempston Hardwick site (which, yes, trains would have to pass through en route to Stewartby). Also, wasn't this decided before Universal was known about (at least publicly)?

Is it just current track layout deciding this? There is a set of points to the north-east of the station which could enable trains to terminate at Stewartby then get back onto the Bedford-bound line, but no other points visible on gMaps until just before Ridgmont and, the other way, not until the single-line section heading into Bedford St Johns. Of course the track layout will almost certainly change around Universal anyway.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2025 ==

(cross post)

Thanks for the additional info re Stewartby.

One of the five things is transport including this [Eurostar to Bedford]:

Thank God that speculation should now end!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Sep 2025 ==

(Further thoughts, somewhat speculative)

I can't remember - is Ridgmont station staying where it is even if the consolidate stations plan is adopted? That location could make a great Park and Ride station from the M1 into Universal, Bedford, Milton Keynes/Bletchley, Cambridge and Oxford.

 

[Magdalia]

But that would be the current Kempston Hardwick site (which, yes, trains would have to pass through en route to Stewartby). Also, wasn't this decided before Universal was known about (at least publicly)?

The non-statutory consultation was ready to go in spring 2024 but was delayed by the general election. At that time the only thing that was known about Universal was that they had acquired the land.

 

[edwin_m]

Is it just current track layout deciding this? There is a set of points to the north-east of the station which could enable trains to terminate at Stewartby then get back onto the Bedford-bound line, but no other points visible on gMaps until just before Ridgmont and, the other way, not until the single-line section heading into Bedford St Johns. Of course the track layout will almost certainly change around Universal anyway.

I doubt the presence of a set of points would make much difference, but the railway land of the former sidings at Stewartby made that a logical choice for a turnback. I guess trains might turn back at the proposed Universal station instead, although they might want to keep that at Stewartby as having all Bedford trains going from the same platform might help with managing passenger flows.

 

[al green]

The issue is not actually two reverses in short distances, but rather the fact that each reversal requires the same route from Denbigh Hall South Jn to Bletchley in both directions (Bletchley Relief No. 2, Bletchley Platform 5).

It is true that currently to get from MKC to Marston vale line and vv trains have to use

Bletchley Relief No. 2, Bletchley Platform 5

But it would be quite easy and cheap to make platforms 6,7,8 reversible too and provide access to P5 and 6 via Bly rel 1. Only requires a handful of signals and points. That provides lots of capacity for EWR trains to reverse at BLY.

 

[Magdalia]

But it would be quite easy and cheap to make platforms 6,7,8 reversible too and provide access to P5 and 6 via Bly rel 1. Only requires a handful of signals and points.

Recently I have been able to watch the changing of a handful of signals and points as part of the Cambridge South project. It is neither easy or cheap.

 

[zwk500]

It is true that currently to get from MKC to Marston vale line and vv trains have to use

But it would be quite easy and cheap to make platforms 6,7,8 reversible too and provide access to P5 and 6 via Bly rel 1. Only requires a handful of signals and points. That provides lots of capacity for EWR trains to reverse at BLY.

It would neither be easy or cheap, because it requires a handful of signals and points. Providing access from BR1 to P5 is doable, providing access from either BR1/BR2 to P6 is going to cost a vast amount of money.

Platforms 7/8 permit reversals to/from the West, however the geometry of the flyover means you can't make flyover summit junction a crossover. Therefore you'd need to put extra crossovers in on approach, or more likely put wrong-direction signals at the junction for the single line to Fenny Stratford and on the Up Bletchley at Denbigh Hall South Jn.

The only change at Bletchley that looks like it could be done reasonably simply would be to provide a route from 4134 Signal (controlling movements to the Carriage Sidings) into Platform 7. You would then be able to have trains from Bedford to MK reverse in 5 and trains from MK to Bedford reverse in 7, with only a single conflict at Denbigh Hall South Jn itself. However, this might breach requirements about the distance between the protecting signal and pointwork, so even that relatively small change would probably require another signal, with overlap protection and all the interlocking data, which is presumably why it wasn't done.

 

[DarloRich]

Why Stewartby?

Surely it is the same as the TPE Saltburn service: get the train out of the way of a pinch point for a bit

One of the Stewartby trains will go through to Bletchley if the Marston Vale consolidated stations option is adopted.

not while I have liquid in my tanks

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 4 Sep 2025 ==

The only change at Bletchley that looks like it could be done reasonably simply would be to provide a route from 4134 Signal (controlling movements to the Carriage Sidings) into Platform 7.

or knock down the industrial estate and build the curve

 

[D365]

But it would be quite easy and cheap to make platforms 6,7,8 reversible too and provide access to P5 and 6 via Bly rel 1. Only requires a handful of signals and points. That provides lots of capacity for EWR trains to reverse at BLY.

Recently I have been able to watch the changing of a handful of signals and points as part of the Cambridge South project. It is neither easy or cheap.

For ideas about changes to signalling / S&C there is an EWR speculative thread.

 

[zwk500]

or knock down the industrial estate and build the curve

Neither simple nor cheap, with all those warehouses and the TMD in the way.

 

[DarloRich]

Neither simple nor cheap, with all those warehouses and the TMD in the way.

hence the :

( i have said the same thing about 1000 times - you cant you wave your hand and shout: "make it so!")

 

[mangyiscute]

Hi, does anyone know the route distances along East West rail, specifically from Bicester Village to Milton Keynes Central? I was on the GWR train that travelled this route yesterday but I can't record it in my logs since I don't know how long the distances are.

 

[DavidGrain]

According to my old Quail Maps
Milton Keynes Central to Denbigh Hall South Junction 2m 14ch
Denbigh Hall South to Flyover Junction 1m 71 ch
FlyoverJunction to Bicester Town 19m 34ch
Of course these might not be the actual for the current tracks but I am sure that they are close enough for your purpose

Hi, does anyone know the route distances along East West rail, specifically from Bicester Village to Milton Keynes Central? I was on the GWR train that travelled this route yesterday but I can't record it in my logs since I don't know how long the distances are.

 

[mangyiscute]

According to my old Quail Maps
Milton Keynes Central to Denbigh Hall South Junction 2m 14ch
Denbigh Hall South to Flyover Junction 1m 71 ch
FlyoverJunction to Bicester Town 19m 34ch
Of course these might not be the actual for the current tracks but I am sure that they are close enough for your purpose

Cheers that's great

 

[chrismk]

Rumours that opening may be 6 months away. Training runs starting from Oxford last week using turbos. A bid to run Nottingham to Bristol services has seen widespread opposition. Propsed to start next year just as Marston Line has engineering work. Objections on ability of Midland ml, Oxford station and GWMl to cope. EWRCO say problems finding paths for a third service already. Fenny Stratford bridge ned=eds replacing. Bletchly HL only takes 4 coaches.

 

[Trainbike46]

Sorry, your post raises a lot of questions, if you could answer some of them I'd really appreciate it, but no worries if you can't, for whatever reason.

A bid to run Nottingham to Bristol services has seen widespread opposition.

How is this relevant to EWR? Wouldn't these be instead of, or at least similar to Cardiff-Nottingham XC services?
Also, who is making this bid, and who is opposed to it?

Propsed to start next year just as Marston Line has engineering work.

Why would this matter? The initial EWR service doesn't go that way anyway.

Objections on ability of Midland ml, Oxford station and GWMl to cope.

To cope with what? EWR's initial Oxford-Bletchley-MKC service, or the service of some later phase? And also, cope in what way?

EWRCO say problems finding paths for a third service already.

Where are these alleged paths issues? On Bletchley-MKC? Oxford station? Oxford-Bicester? On finding a third path that fits on all of those?
AIUI, the aim was for 2tph Oxford-MKC, 2tph Oxford-Cambridge + 2tph Stewartby-Cambridge, so is this paths issue going to be an issue long-term?

Fenny Stratford bridge ned=eds replacing.

Presumably, that will be dealt with as part of the plans for Bletchley-Bedford section, if not before?

Bletchly HL only takes 4 coaches.

Could they not use SDO or extend the platform, if more than 4 coaches becomes necessary?

 

[The Planner]

Rumours that opening may be 6 months away. Training runs starting from Oxford last week using turbos. A bid to run Nottingham to Bristol services has seen widespread opposition. Propsed to start next year just as Marston Line has engineering work. Objections on ability of Midland ml, Oxford station and GWMl to cope. EWRCO say problems finding paths for a third service already. Fenny Stratford bridge ned=eds replacing. Bletchly HL only takes 4 coaches.

Nottingham to Bristol was an Open access proposal, that was nowhere near getting through the process. Marston Vale has no confirmed blocks on it for E-W.

 

[fishwomp]

Rumours that opening may be 6 months away. Training runs starting from Oxford last week using turbos[..]

I noticed the turbo workings this week..

If turbos were used, they would I guess have different requirements for DOO to the 196s .. perhaps fixable or agreeable sooner? .. meanwhile the mk-v and class 68s land at Chiltern, over the next six months? Could it be that turbos end up doing this- would any become spare?

 

[Bletchleyite]

They have only just started driver training? Wow.