Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
mods note - split from this thread I see that on Wednesday and Thursday both trains will be running through the Claydon Loops which they did not do today. Am I right in thinking these loops are for the bin liners when they resume?
www.railforums.co.uk
It won't be long before our Government display interest again in investment made in the Oxford-Cambridge arc, and will need re-reminding that we still struggle to run a regular and reliable rail service between Bedford & Bletchley as well as now not realising any benefit from the investment made by reopening to reach Bicester and Oxford.
I've been listening to EWR politics for the past thirty years, at one point being a local Councillor in Bedfordshire engaged with the EWR consortium in place in the 90s.
As a potential passenger, I can't see any benefits and currently, EWR has dropped from the news - until some point in the future where that will change again.
Not sure the government will be in any hurry to start on EWR. Seems like they are going to have to build some reservoirs first before they build the housing that needs the water from said reservoirs and therefore the passengers needed to justify and thus build the EWR.
Unfortunately I cannot see this government managing to do these things simultaneously probably blaming lack of money as the main factor followed closely behind by lack of construction workers to build said infrastructure.
Not sure the government will be in any hurry to start on EWR. Seems like they are going to have to build some reservoirs first before they build the housing that needs the water from said reservoirs and therefore the passengers needed to justify and thus build the EWR.
Thames Water/other water companies have to build, and charge their customers for reservoirs.
The private sector will build houses. Affordable housing will be a requirement for planning permission for any estates, some support from grants, but not much. There will be a very small amount of housing, relatively speaking, that would be funded by the government or councils directly. Almost all talk of building hundreds of thousands of houses is about the pace/success of granting planning permission.
Thames Water/other water companies have to build, and charge their customers for reservoirs.
The private sector will build houses. Affordable housing will be a requirement for planning permission for any estates, some support from grants, but not much. There will be a very small amount of housing, relatively speaking, that would be funded by the government or councils directly. Almost all talk of building hundreds of thousands of houses is about the pace/success of granting planning permission.
Although there's one interesting point to consider, with the use of Sustainability Urban Drainage (SUDS) in theory developments could capture rainwater to be passed into the system to provide drinking water.
That's on top of being able to use grey water (water from showers and hand basins which has had a lite treatment to make it of suitable quality) to reduce the need to use so much drinking water for doing things like flushing loos.
As well as increasing the use of rainwater harvesting for the use in outside taps (gardens and car washing) and washing machines (and loo flushing where grey water isn't an option)
That's on top of being able to use grey water (water from showers and hand basins which has had a lite treatment to make it of suitable quality) to reduce the need to use so much drinking water for doing things like flushing loos.
This does make the plumbing significantly more complex and I am not sure the public would be keen for their toilet bowl to be full of hair from shaving over the sink or in the shower.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
As well as increasing the use of rainwater harvesting for the use in outside taps (gardens and car washing) and washing machines (and loo flushing where grey water isn't an option)
Our phase two consultation took place from 30 May until 9 August 2024.
fensreservoir.co.uk
Our phase two consultation took place from 30 May until 9 August 2024.
We have received really valuable feedback from local people and stakeholders and want to thank everyone for taking part in the phase two consultation.
As we now use these comments to help shape our proposals, we’ve prepared a summary of what people told us and how we’ll be considering them going forwards.
The next key event on housing is likely to be the report of the New Towns Taskforce, hopefully not long after the end of the summer parliamentary recess. If Tempsford is not at or near the top of their list of New Towns then I will be very surprised.
I expect further government announcements on East West Rail in the autumn, linked to some or all of the New Towns Taskforce, the budget
and plans for the Universal Theme Park. Hopefully one will include the dates for the final statutory consultation.
I have had a recent update on East West which basically used a page of print to say that the Statutory Consultation due in January is likely to be delayed due to the Planning and Infrastructure Bill currently passing through Parliament, though they (East West) do promise an update in the Autumn.
The notice is intended as a decisive step towards assembling the supply chain for a complex venture aimed at modernising infrastructure and linking
www.newcivilengineer.com
East West Rail launches market engagement for £700M major support works framework
East West Railway Company (EWR Co.) has launched preliminary market engagement for a support works framework aiming to strengthen supplier participation and accelerate the Oxford to Cambridge rail project.
The notice is intended as a decisive step towards assembling the supply chain for a complex venture aimed at modernising infrastructure and linking existing rail networks with new lines, stations and depots.
Recognising the extensive scale and multifaceted challenges inherent in integrating new construction with established tracks, EWR Co. is prioritising a commercial model designed to secure high-calibre suppliers. The company emphasises the importance of fostering competitive tension alongside collaborative cooperation across multiple tiers of the supply chain to optimise project delivery.
The Programme Support Works Framework, estimated at a value of approximately £700M, is structured to cover diverse technical and operational disciplines.
Thanks for that link. I do note that the feedback I put in regarding needing high quality cycle and footpath routes connecting existing locations to the new stations has been taken on board, particularly Ridgmont, though disappointingly that doesn't include the obvious option of a footpath/cycleway alongside the line between Apsley Guise's present station and the new Woburn Sands station which is one I think is of fairly high importance given the long and tortuous road route between the two, with them seemingly concentrating on connecting it to new Ridgmont which is at the wrong end and a fair bit further. Though perhaps ideas will develop here a bit further.
I also still struggle with why Bedford St John's is needed when it's so close to Midland, yet there's nothing in the much longer gap between Bletchley and Woburn Sands. Indeed it looks like the proposals will actually move it even closer to Midland! The mind boggles.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Still going for discontinuous electrification then. In my opinion, a decision that will turn out to be a mistake in the future. It will make it harder for freight to transition away from diesel and make rolling stock and operating costs higher than they could be.
I very much doubt that. People don't take standalone train journeys of about 600m, though I suppose a few might make a connection if already on the railway as an alternative to a taxi. To be fair there are Merseyrail stations that are similarly close, but given what's being closed at the other end due to being too close...
Personally I can understand the loss of Fenny (which is also primarily used for fare dodging) but it strikes me that keeping something around Bow Brickhill would be sensible particularly given the industry there and that more is being built. It seems as justifiable to have it as Ridgmont for basically the same reason.
I would still bin Bedford St John's, just providing high quality walking/cycling facilities from Midland, and have a station around here instead. Added to a cycle path alongside the railway from Apsley Guise to Woburn Sands and some similar arrangement to ensure access from Lidlington to the Marston Vale Country Park I would then be fairly satisfied with the model.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Thanks for this (surprising it is not linked from the press release) - it is very comprehensive and worth a read, and does include some of the things I suggested so they clearly read the feedback even if they've chosen to ignore some of it (most notably regarding the relocation of Ridgmont, supported by very few but they're still going ahead with it).
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
A more common example is likely a journey like Liverpool James Street - Birkenhead Hamilton Square. Not very far, but certainly a genuine journey people make by rail.
That's because there's a dirty great river in the way so unless you're going to swim...
By contrast I suspect very small numbers bother going down into the Merseyrail Wirral Line to go between Lime St and Central/James St, for a more similar example.
I suspect the reason for keeping St John's but closing Fenny Stratford is related to (i) passenger numbers and (ii) expected increase in passenger numbers driven by the hospital and the college at the former, while the latter has no equivalent.
I know someone here won't like it, but it's more the loss of a station serving Tilbrook and the very large new industrial/warehouse development around there (which tend to have a lot of non-car-owning workers) that is a problem in my eyes. Fenny probably serves little real purpose bar a convenient exit from Bletchley not requiring the holding of a ticket, I certainly know people who have used it in that way.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That seems eminently fixable without an additional station about 600m from Midland (and if you think they won't crank the car parking cost up... ). My proposal was in fact to relocate Midland to a new site between the two, though I can see why they didn't choose that due to the immense cost, but I really do think the decision to retain St John's over one more station in south MK somewhere around Tilbrook is seriously misguided and based too much on existing passenger counts rather than potential ones and ignoring the fare-dodging motive to use St John's.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
The addition of a Cambridge East station is interesting. Makes sense in terms of redevelopment of the airport site and capacity constraints at Cambridge "Central" but would that mean through services running further down the line to Newmarket, Bury and Ipswich?
All their wording about Cambridge East is in the context of needing to turn trains back somewhere other than at Cambridge station, and the Cherry Hinton turnback with local two-tracking is the solution for that. Given that they also effectively say "no third-party funding, no station", they do not seem to be thinking of extending services beyond there. (They have to set some sort of limits!)
All their wording about Cambridge East is in the context of needing to turn trains back somewhere other than at Cambridge station, and the Cherry Hinton turnback with local two-tracking is the solution for that. Given that they also effectively say "no third-party funding, no station", they do not seem to be thinking of extending services beyond there. (They have to set some sort of limits!)
All their wording about Cambridge East is in the context of needing to turn trains back somewhere other than at Cambridge station, and the Cherry Hinton turnback with local two-tracking is the solution for that. Given that they also effectively say "no third-party funding, no station", they do not seem to be thinking of extending services beyond there. (They have to set some sort of limits!)
I'm cross posting on two threads a little. There's certainly space to two track most of the way to the former Cherry Hinton station. There's also space on Coldham's Common both north and south of the track alignment (and most of the way to Cherry Hinton) for a potential station and access (though I can already imagine the NIMBY uproar and consultation costs over that already)
Would be an expensive alternative to just using Cambridge carriage sidings or Arriva Traincare though, wouldn't it?
I also wonder why the two south-facing bays + the one south facing bay at Cambridge north isn't enough for reversing both existing and new EWR services? Especially when reversing in and out of the sidings is also possible.
The proposed closures of some of the stations between Bedford and Bletchley seems a retrograde step. As a local, what would you consider to be the optimal solution for local station stops on this section, which have been unchanged over the last 50+ years since it survived the Beeching axe?
The proposed closures of some of the stations between Bedford and Bletchley seems a retrograde step. As a local, what would you consider to be the optimal solution for local station stops on this section, which have been unchanged over the last 50+ years since it survived the Beeching axe?
I actually don't think the proposal is too bad, though I'm unconvinced about moving Ridgmont the wrong side of the motorway as it's primarily used to commute to the Amazon warehouse which it's presently right next to. However I do think Bedford St John's is a waste of space, it's 600m from Midland as proposed, so a high quality cycle/pedestrian facility would be better. That would then mean you could have one more station, which I'd put in south Milton Keynes somewhere around Bow Brickhill (but not necessarily on the present site - there would be arguments for a bit further north to serve the housing too).
I also think a cycle/pedestrian facility should be built alongside the line between Aspley Guise and Woburn Sands.
It's nowhere near as wide as the Mersey (which by that point is basically an estuary) and it has a footbridge and several road bridges over it. It simply isn't a valid comparison. To walk from Liverpool to Birkenhead involves a many-mile detour via Runcorn; to walk from Midland to St John's is about 600m down the road.
It's nowhere near as wide as the Mersey (which by that point is basically an estuary) and it has a footbridge and several road bridges over it. It simply isn't a valid comparison.
I disagree. The centre of Bedford only has 2 road bridges over the river, and 2 footbridges. Whilst not as wide as the Mersey (which has a tunnel) the River Great Ouse is a significant physical barrier in Bedford.
There's an ideal triangular pocket of scrubby undeveloped land between the current alignment and Coldham's Lane, which would be perfect for a Cambridge East station, a car park and a west-facing fan of carriage sidings. It is also currently well separated from any housing and would remain so even when the airport is fully developed.
Where they've put the EWR blob is on top of a small housing estate, a Sainsbury's and a cement works...
...but the actual likely site would have to be more like here, a little southeast of the blob:
If all they they really need a glorified eastern carriage sidings and turnback, it's an ideal site. I am pleased they are looking to make it somewhat useful to an underserved and soon-growing community.
We’ve reviewed options to maintain access at London Road level crossing and have developed a further proposal for an underpass with a single-lane, height-restricted vehicle route, plus protected access for pedestrians and cyclists. The delivery of this option would be subject to securing third-party funding contributions. We have also developed the footbridge proposal to include lifts (as well as stairs) instead of ramps, to reduce the visual impact of the structure. This option is not expected to require third party funding contributions. We’ll continue to engage with the local stakeholders on these two designs, and will present a final proposal for engagement and consultation in 2026.
If it's a single lane I'd imagine that will fit within the present road footprint, though it does note they'd need external funding for it. It would seem to me to be better than a footbridge with lifts, though, as that would seem vulnerable to vandalism and misuse.
Presumably the planners have seen how popular Cambridge North is, but wanted to provide a direct service to another part of Cambridge instead- hence Cambridge East. It will have some of the functionality of Oxford's new Cowley branch, in that it will let some suburban commuters get a direct train service to work, and others will be able to change in the centre for Cambridge North, Cambridge South or another station. Seems a good part of the plan to me, and keeps the option of an eventual Ipswich service open.
The main drawback is that Cambridge Central to Cambridge East will be reasonably indirect, because the line goes a fair way North, then turns South East. But plenty of well-used commuter routes are like that already.
I'm cross posting on two threads a little. There's certainly space to two track most of the way to the former Cherry Hinton station. There's also space on Coldham's Common both north and south of the track alignment (and most of the way to Cherry Hinton) for a potential station and access (though I can already imagine the NIMBY uproar and consultation costs over that already)
Would be an expensive alternative to just using Cambridge carriage sidings or Arriva Traincare though, wouldn't it?
I also wonder why the two south-facing bays + the one south facing bay at Cambridge north isn't enough for reversing both existing and new EWR services? Especially when reversing in and out of the sidings is also possible.
The south end bays at Cambridge are currently used by the GN Kings Cross stoppers, plus a few 5 car Liverpool Street services that don't go through to Cambridge North. The GN Kings Cross stoppers are currently 2tph at peak times, with long turnrounds, and I suspect that they will go 2tph all day once Cambridge South is established.
I have travelled the Newmarket line recently, most of the route still has room for 2 tracks, apart possibly for near Fulbourn Old Drift, though there is equipment that would need to be moved at the 2 Cherry Hinton level crossings.
This is definitely speculation but the outcome I would like to see is:
4 tracks paired by use Shepreth Branch-Coldhams Lane
EWR use the south end bays 2 and 3 at Cambridge
GN stoppers run through to/from Cambridge North (or Ely?), same for the fasts to/from the Fens
Liverpool Street trains run through to/from Cambridge East (or Newmarket?)
the only conflicting movements would be the Stansted-Norwich/Peterborough trains, plus the 2tph Brighton trains, if they need to go to the Cambridge East turnback, and the Ipswich trains, if they still need to use the north end bays.
I disagree. The centre of Bedford only has 2 road bridges over the river, and 2 footbridges. Whilst not as wide as the Mersey (which has a tunnel) the River Great Ouse is a significant physical barrier in Bedford.
Two of the tunnels are for cars and other road vehicles only, the third is only for trains. The Mersey is undeniably a more significant barrier than the Great Ouse.
I disagree. The centre of Bedford only has 2 road bridges over the river, and 2 footbridges. Whilst not as wide as the Mersey (which has a tunnel) the River Great Ouse is a significant physical barrier in Bedford.
What matters, though, is whether you can get easily from Midland to/from places served by St John's. And you can, by walking along the perfectly good road.
The tunnel is of no relevance to pedestrians as they are not permitted. The shortest pedestrian route is over sixty miles, whereas the shortest pedestrian route from Bedford Midland to Bedford St John's station is (just) under a mile and could be improved by adding a new pedestrian and cycle route to the existing footbridge directly onto the hospital site. And the new St John's is nearer Midland than the present one.
There would in my mind even be more case for a Bedford South Parkway on the edge of town than there is for St John's (given that EWR seem to have some objection to properly serving Milton Keynes in favour of the much smaller town of Bedford having multiple stations). I have scarcely seen a station with a weaker case which is no doubt based on statistics for usage that ignore the potentially very large number of people who use it simply because it means they can avoid paying their fare.
I have scarcely seen a station with a weaker case which is no doubt based on statistics for usage that ignore the potentially very large number of people who use it simply because it means they can avoid paying their fare.
Bedford St Johns isn't about current use, it is about future growth. The you said we did report has this:
We see the new station being an important means of access to the hospital for staff, visitors and patients. Our current designs position the station in a way that would make access as easy as possible. We’ve also shaped our plans around the hospital’s expansion plans and the Bedford Borough Council’s vision for the area.
the shortest pedestrian route from Bedford Midland to Bedford St John's station is (just) under a mile and could be improved by adding a new pedestrian and cycle route to the existing footbridge directly onto the hospital site.
Precisely what I mean. My personal view is that usage figures (which must be via surveys as the tickets are to Bedford Stations) will be artificially inflated by the number of people using it specifically as a means of fare avoidance. That is, once it gets a gateline, usage will drop significantly.
The hospital could easily have a shuttle bus from Midland for those unable to walk or wheel that far, but such people aren't likely to be getting there by train anyway, patient transport is usually provided in such cases or they are taken there by a friend or relative by car.
If it's a single lane I'd imagine that will fit within the present road footprint, though it does note they'd need external funding for it. It would seem to me to be better than a footbridge with lifts, though, as that would seem vulnerable to vandalism and misuse.
A height restricted bridge is a fair compromise, but I hope it is to be adequately protected to avoid the frequent closures for inspection after the inevitable bridge bashing…
www.railforums.co.uk
