Should the New Towns have been designed more around the railway?

[Bletchleyite]

New towns were intended to be self contained not commuter dormitories for London. The original policy was to not build central stations as that would encourage commuting.

Expecting people to behave how the planners want to them to behave rather than mitigating how they will actually behave is a bad strategy

Although that does create different problems, if there is no suitable station or services, how do people do leisure trips, multiple changes of train to visit the beach isn't going to encourage usage. Or students trying to get to/from University etc. 200 years ago people might not have traveled beyond their village, but not nowadays

In the 60s and 70s the future was the car. Rail was largely irrelevant and dying. The New Towns were all designed for car use first, particularly Milton Keynes. If people wanted to use rail they'd be happy to drive to Wolverton or Bletchley, and indeed some still do as the parking is cheaper than MKC.

It's *inbound* commuting that necessitated the construction of MKC.

This makes the Skelmersdale issue quite interesting, and explains why, if Maghull North* isn't enough, a station on the existing line around Pimbo (basically an upgraded Upholland) would work fine and why there isn't a need for a central station as there isn't, and wouldn't be, any inbound commuting - pretty much all the work there is minimum wage retail (which you tend to do locally as it's available more or less anywhere so why waste scarce money on commuting?), and the one big non-minimum-wage employer there, the Co-operative Bank, is to close its site soon in favour of more home working.

On the other hand, would it have been that hard to build Skem mirrored south on where it is with the centre around the railway and a new central station per Telford? Probably not...imagine it might have been called Rainford New Town but otherwise would have been similar...

* Headbolt is often quoted, but Maghull North is quicker for most people as it's only just off the motorway.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The new towns of the 70s are basically a case study in how to not do things. Even taking into account the rise of the car, so many new towns were designed with little or no thought to how people would actually live and work in them.

Haverhill in Suffolk is probably one of the worst examples. They moved 25,000 people out of London to a new build town and there’s literally nothing there.

 

[Acathater]

The new towns of the 70s are basically a case study in how to not do things. Even taking into account the rise of the car, so many new towns were designed with little or no thought to how people would actually live and work in them.

Haverhill in Suffolk is probably one of the worst examples. They moved 25,000 people out of London to a new build town and there’s literally nothing there.

The standing anecdotal joke in Haverhill for years has been that the GLC migrated people out of London's east end to the new council properties in the town, then talked Dr Beeching into removing the rail services so they couldn't get back

 

[Bletchleyite]

The new towns of the 70s are basically a case study in how to not do things. Even taking into account the rise of the car, so many new towns were designed with little or no thought to how people would actually live and work in them.

Haverhill in Suffolk is probably one of the worst examples. They moved 25,000 people out of London to a new build town and there’s literally nothing there.

But then some have been successful. Milton Keynes certainly has - it might not be to your taste but it's certainly a workable place to live and does have some considerable advantages such as the amount of green space and, as long as you drive, the ease of getting around by car.

Even Skelmersdale isn't *that* bad a place and does have some of MK's good features. I'd not choose to live there, but it wouldn't be an awful place to live if I had to e.g. for reasons of affordability.

 

[Magdalia]

New towns were intended to be self contained not commuter dormitories for London.

Historically this is correct. When the original new towns were created the UK was still a manufacturing nation, new towns had lots of industrial employment, and there was no need for them to be designed around railways. Stevenage is a good example: almost all of the land between the ECML and the A1(M) was industrial, including a large factory where the retail park now is on the down side of the station, which was opened in 1973 replacing the station in the old town about a mile further north. Another new town that got a new station, but on the edge, is Harlow, as part of the 1960 electrification.

Haverhill in Suffolk is probably one of the worst examples. They moved 25,000 people out of London to a new build town and there’s literally nothing there.

Haverhill was not a new town, it was what was called London Overspill. When people moved to Haverhill in the 1960s there was industrial work to do, including food processing. Much of it disappeared in the 1980s. The interesting comparison with Haverhill is St Neots, which was also London Overspill. The industry in St Neots was mainly in Cromwell Road next to the ECML.

Places such as Harlow, Stevenage and St Neots only became significant commuting towns in the 1980s, local industrial work being replaced by financial services work in the City of London. It was only then that Haverhill lost out because it had lost its rail link. Now Haverhill has lots of commuting to Cambridge, but by car and bus not train. Haverhill is particularly popular for hospital workers at Addenbrookes and Royal Papworth.

On the other hand new towns now will mostly be designed around rail, most notably at Tempsford.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Milton Keynes certainly has - it might not be to your taste but it's certainly a workable place to live and does have some considerable advantages such as the amount of green space and, as long as you drive, the ease of getting around by car.

The bit in bold is the issue with most new towns. Milton Keynes is a nice place to drive around. But if you don’t have a car then it’s a poor place to get around. It didn’t even get a railway station until 1982 and, even then, it is over a mile uphill from the railway station to the main shopping district.

It’s the same with so many of them. Washington in Tyne and Wear is the same, great to drive around on big wide dual carriageways but not so much fun if you’re reliant on public transport. Skelmersdale, Cumbernauld, Glenrothes, Newton Aycliffe, Peterlee are all the same too. Telford didn’t get a railway station until 1986.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2025 ==

Haverhill was not a new town, it was what was called London Overspill.

I think we can lump overspill and planned new towns together really, especially places like Haverhill which weren’t really overspill in the usual sense (e.g. Seacroft in Leeds, Wythenshawe in Manchester).

The planners expected people to stay in their little boxes and not go anywhere, which is why so many of these new towns have such high levels of deprivation. It wasn’t really realistic even then. BBC Archive had a video from 1968 about Haverhill posted quite recently and it showed that, even in the 60s, the people who moved there were complaining that they couldn’t get anywhere.

I imagine Haverhill is popular with hospital workers in Cambridge but its deprivation- and the cheaper house prices/rents it creates- will be the draw.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The bit in bold is the issue with most new towns. Milton Keynes is a nice place to drive around. But if you don’t have a car then it’s a poor place to get around. It didn’t even get a railway station until 1982 and, even then, it is over a mile uphill from the railway station to the main shopping district.

This isn't correct. Milton Keynes Borough had 5 railway stations on the day the New Town was designated and it has six now (Wolverton, Bletchley, MKC, Fenny Stratford, Bow Brickhill and Woburn Sands). It didn't have a city centre railway station, no, but that was more about inbound commuting (it's heavily used for outbound commuting now, of course, but that's just because it has the best service of the three; if that was Bletchley, as was originally envisaged, everyone would be driving/taking taxis there to commute to London instead). Rail is pretty much not used for travel within the city by those not owning cars, they use the buses instead. Rail is primarily for going to London, and secondarily Birmingham/Manchester, just as it is in most of the South East.

I think we can lump overspill and planned new towns together really, especially places like Haverhill which weren’t really overspill in the usual sense (e.g. Seacroft in Leeds, Wythenshawe in Manchester).

I'm not sure we can, because they never had quite the same planning drives behind them - most notably the whole utopian* "live, work and play in one town" thing wasn't really applied to them in quite the same way as they weren't envisaged to be as big. Though Milton Keynes of course has both - Bletchley has significant 1960s overspill estates e.g. the notorious Lakes Estate.

* Is it that utopian, though? I'd imagine most people who live in Manchester** also work there. It's just a case of critical mass - MK is probably not far off big enough for that, but Skelmersdale would never be.
** The main built up area, I know it's actually made up of two cities, a few large towns and some boroughs in a technical sense.

 

[Magdalia]

'm not sure we can, because they never had quite the same planning drives behind them - most notably the whole utopian* "live, work and play in one town" thing wasn't really applied to them in quite the same way as they weren't envisaged to be as big.

The important distinction is that London Overspill towns already had established town centres, whereas new towns got new town centres.

 

[35B]

The important distinction is that London Overspill towns already had established town centres, whereas new towns got new town centres.

Have you been to Telford? The concept of "town centre" there is very dubious

 

[Bletchleyite]

Have you been to Telford? The concept of "town centre" there is very dubious

It's got a large central shopping centre, which is a pretty standard model for the earlier and mid-period New Towns - Telford, Runcorn, Skelmersdale and Peterborough are all the same. Milton Keynes has a wider city centre which essentially combines the shopping centre with a business park and leisure facilities, but it was a later model. Telford has now gained the leisure facilities adjacent to the shopping centre as a later construction.

 

[A S Leib]

From memory (and I may be wrong), Hemel Hempstead was built around a railway station. Unfortunately, that station was the Nickey line one which closed to passengers a year after designation as a new town (and to freight sixteen years later) rather than Boxmoor or Apsley on the WCML.

 

[Merle Haggard]

. Milton Keynes is a nice place to drive around. But if you don’t have a car then it’s a poor place to get around. It didn’t even get a railway station until 1982 and, even then, it is over a mile uphill from the railway station to the main shopping district.

The design of the new housing developments (based around total car ownership, and in clumps, in dead ends off main roads) meant estates were not disturbed by through traffic but it was difficult to provide bus services that actually went close to where people lived. United Counties always struggled - apart from possibly Bletchley Station - Lakes estate - but, with a subsidy from the new town, started a 'demand-responsive' (then known as. 'dial-a-ride') operation in 1974 in the Fishermead area with 6 Mercedes minibuses. I went on an Omnibus Society visit soon after it opened - we were dropped off individually, phone calls were made and we were scooped up. Very likely the high spot of its usage - we were the only ones on the one bus in use! It didn't succeed in that form, and the minibuses were then used on a fixed route which was also heavily subsidised and soon ceased. In 1986 when U.C. was privatised and split it become 'MK CityBus' here, they immediately sold off their big bus fleet and bought a load of Mercedes minibuses. These didn't last that long, either, although I'm not sure of the reasons - a competitor set up and used a fleet of secondhand full size buses from West Midlands may have been involved but they folded after a couple of years. I'm not sure after that. Having tried to walk from Bletchley rail station to the bus station, and from the Central station to the shopping centre (in both cases the logical walking route seemingly deliberately obstructed) I decided that they didn't like people who use public transport so took the hint.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Having tried to walk from Bletchley rail station to the bus station, and from the Central station to the shopping centre (in both cases the logical walking route seemingly deliberately obstructed) I decided that they didn't like people who use public transport so took the hint.

In the 1960s it wasn't seen as necessary to have bus stations near railway stations, they were seen as entirely separate things. There are many examples of the two being a bit far apart, but I don't think you can put Bletchley in anywhere near as bad a bracket for that as Preston*, which is almost at the level of wilfully nonsensical. It's such a shame the redevelopment of the Fishergate centre isn't being used to move Preston's to that end (the existing one could become a public space instead).

As for Bletchley it's not very far to walk if you use the steps past the signal box which all locals would know about. For MKC they arguably did it the right way round (though could have avoided the issue if the centre had straddled the railway) - the time-critical business centre was nearest to the station, whereas those going to shop would be willing to either walk or take the bus the short distance further. Those working in the shopping centre for minimum wage wouldn't be commuting in by rail as that sort of job is invariably done by locals as it's available in most places. As the station was mostly about inbound commuting** this makes a lot of sense.

* Preston is actually interesting in this New Town discussion away from the discussion of bus stations and railway stations, because it, unusually, has parts that were designated as New Town areas rather than overspills - places like Ingol to the north west of the city - but it didn't get a new build city centre.

** MKC wouldn't need to exist at all if it was purely about outbound commuting. MKC might be roughly in the middle of the conurbation but because most people drive or taxi to the station it isn't really important where it is, so for outbound commuting Bletchley and Wolverton would have been fine. It's only the most popular station because it has the best service.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not sure we can, because they never had quite the same planning drives behind them - most notably the whole utopian* "live, work and play in one town" thing wasn't really applied to them in quite the same way as they weren't envisaged to be as big.

I don't think the planning drives behind them were that different. Whether you consider somewhere like East Kilbride, Cumbernauld, or Redditch a new town or an overspill estate probably comes down to semantics.

The important distinction is that London Overspill towns already had established town centres, whereas new towns got new town centres.

Many ended up a bit of both. Hemel Hempstead had an established town centre yet they built a new one anyway. And now the 'old' town centre is attractive and the 'new' town centre is a dump.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't think the planning drives behind them were that different. Whether you consider somewhere like East Kilbride, Cumbernauld, or Redditch a new town or an overspill estate probably comes down to semantics.

Or when it was built. Overspill was 1960s and New Towns were a bit later. You can compare Kirkby and Skelmersdale there.

Kirkby of course has a railway station, because it was envisaged that people might actually use it to go to Liverpool. (It has two now! ). It's not, of course, in the town centre (which was a new build and has since been razed and entirely rebuilt).

Many ended up a bit of both. Hemel Hempstead had an established town centre yet they built a new one anyway. And now the 'old' town centre is attractive and the 'new' town centre is a dump.

Preston has parts which were developed as New Town areas (e.g. Ingol) and managed by the Commission for the New Towns but not a new city centre.

 

[35B]

It's got a large central shopping centre, which is a pretty standard model for the earlier and mid-period New Towns - Telford, Runcorn, Skelmersdale and Peterborough are all the same. Milton Keynes has a wider city centre which essentially combines the shopping centre with a business park and leisure facilities, but it was a later model. Telford has now gained the leisure facilities adjacent to the shopping centre as a later construction.

I don't know Runcorn or Skem, but Peterborough has the new centre overlain on an old centre. Telford lacks any of that placing or context, and is just a modern shopping centre plonked down in nowhere

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't know Runcorn or Skem, but Peterborough has the new centre overlain on an old centre. Telford lacks any of that placing or context, and is just a modern shopping centre plonked down in nowhere

There's very little difference in concept between the placing of the modern town centre in Telford, Skem or Runcorn - it was just plonked in the middle, though in Runcorn's case that was specifically based around the figure 8 busway. Skem didn't really have an old centre as Skelmersdale village was tiny and would never have had more than the classic butcher, baker and candlestick maker*, while larger Runcorn does have an old town centre not far from the station**.

Talking of Bletchley the present town centre around the station is a later development that probably mostly came with the overspill development, the area used to be more residential, with a centre around where the Three Trees pub is now and Fenny Stratford as another. There were a few shops along the present town centre road but not many.

* The "candlestick maker" is still there, believe it or not! https://maps.app.goo.gl/vwbvv1tbZ6UDdp9AA and "High Street" further south is roughly all it had.

** Here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/HH2qy4vCcTtsPcUZ9

 

[cle]

I appreciate the designation, but Peterborough doesn't really feel like a new town in the sense of MKC, Harlow, Hemel - MKC is a different beast entirely, from an urbanist POV - but it doesn't fit that slew of fairly generic, late brutalist places with a bleak shopping precinct of Harlow, Stevenage et al

Northampton too, is more like Peterbourough. A well-established place with real history, legacy industry... but designated for growth and accelerated - vs net-new placemaking.

In any case, it's a north/south thing. The southern ones are all clustered around the radial London rail lines - with few exceptions - - and as such have good links... the northern ones were built far more around the car and bus. Urban rail commuting (non-existent in Leeds, Newcastle and quite sad in Manchester from 1960-2000) not being as prevalent up north in those days - notably exceptions of Liverpool and Glasgow who obviously have better legacy networks - to support the likes of Cumbernauld... today it would be a different story and you'd see new towns along the trunk likes like those through Bolton and the CLC... places like Stalybridge or Wilmslow would see a ton of homebuilding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In any case, it's a north/south thing. The southern ones are all clustered around the radial London rail lines - with few exceptions - - and as such have good links... the northern ones were built far more around the car and bus.

All of them are built for local travel by car and bus. None more so than Milton Keynes, where the whole grid structure concept is pro-car and anti-public-transport, rather than Runcorn which is structured to work well for both.

 

[Sorcerer]

Building towns and settlements around railways has historically been a standard practice. Where many railways went, housing popped up later because of how the railway enabled people to live further from the destination. This is how it worked even in the United States despite it's passenger rail network being decimated since the rise of the roads (curiously lobbied by car and oil industries), including cities like Atlanta.

One big part of the Rail Plus Property model (used by Hong Kong MTR, Brightline and some Japanese rail groups) is the rail company capturing the value of the land around the railway and building on it or leasing it out. So not only do I think new towns should be built around railways, I think GBR as an institution should be able to take advantage and capture the value of the land around the railway itself wherever possible.

There is often talk about how the railway could or should reduce subsidy, and this is very much a proven way of doing it. It won't quite be as successful as the MTR which is so profitable that it requires no subsidy, but railways can and do profit from property, so if we want to reduce subsidy and build new towns then both policies should be done as part of a package deal.

 

[BrianW]

Have you been to Telford? The concept of "town centre" there is very dubious

'Telford' was a concoction based around the three existing towns of Dawley, Wellington and Oakengates. The latter two already had stations, as did dawley until 1962. Telford Central is a 'new' staion added in 1986.
The notion of a 'town centre' has developed and changed- where do you shop?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Dec 2025 ==

Building towns and settlements around railways has historically been a standard practice. Where many railways went, housing popped up later because of how the railway enabled people to live further from the destination. This is how it worked even in the United States despite it's passenger rail network being decimated since the rise of the roads (curiously lobbied by car and oil industries), including cities like Atlanta.

One big part of the Rail Plus Property model (used by Hong Kong MTR, Brightline and some Japanese rail groups) is the rail company capturing the value of the land around the railway and building on it or leasing it out. So not only do I think new towns should be built around railways, I think GBR as an institution should be able to take advantage and capture the value of the land around the railway itself wherever possible.

There is often talk about how the railway could or should reduce subsidy, and this is very much a proven way of doing it. It won't quite be as successful as the MTR which is so profitable that it requires no subsidy, but railways can and do profit from property, so if we want to reduce subsidy and build new towns then both policies should be done as part of a package deal.

Metroland- an early version of what is now being promoted, though at somewhat lower density.

Letchworth and Welwyn Garden Cities had stations, and stlll do IIUC.

 

[35B]

'Telford' was a concoction based around the three existing towns of Dawley, Wellington and Oakengates. The latter two already had stations, as did dawley until 1962. Telford Central is a 'new' staion added in 1986.
The notion of a 'town centre' has developed and changed- where do you shop?

A mixture of places, including the town centre.

When I first visited Telford, 20-odd years ago, the point was that the town centre was not just plonked down without any natural integration around it, but that it wasn't actually a town centre but an out of town shopping centre cum supermarket.

That's improved since, but it still lacks any organic sense of place.

 

[Magdalia]

It's got a large central shopping centre, which is a pretty standard model for the earlier and mid-period New Towns - Telford, Runcorn, Skelmersdale and Peterborough are all the same.

Peterborough doesn't really feel like a new town in the sense of MKC, Harlow, Hemel - MKC is a different beast entirely, from an urbanist POV - but it doesn't fit that slew of fairly generic, late brutalist places with a bleak shopping precinct of Harlow, Stevenage et al

Queensgate in Peterborough is a classic 1980s retail mall, it came long after new town status.

In the 1960s it wasn't seen as necessary to have bus stations near railway stations

New Town bus stations were usually near the New Town shopping, even if that was a long way from the railway. Harlow is an excellent example of this. In Stevenage they moved the railway station to be near the shops and the buses.

 

[The exile]

Or when it was built. Overspill was 1960s and New Towns were a bit later. You can compare Kirkby and Skelmersdale there.

Eh? First of the designated New Towns was 1946 (Stevenage).

 

[Bletchleyite]

New Town bus stations were usually near the New Town shopping, even if that was a long way from the railway. Harlow is an excellent example of this. In Stevenage they moved the railway station to be near the shops and the buses.

Curiously the now-disused Milton Keynes Central Bus Station didn't follow this pattern, and is located opposite the railway station a fair way from the shopping centre - and occupied that site even before the railway station existed.

 

[Sorcerer]

Metroland- an early version of what is now being promoted, though at somewhat lower density.

Letchworth and Welwyn Garden Cities had stations, and stlll do IIUC.

They do indeed still have stations. I believe that Amersham and Rickmansworth had similar origins with the Metropolitan Line. In terms of density I would prefer any new developments to lean towards higher density and also have some good public transit options within so we don't just end up with a low-density car-centric suburbia. Nothing big like a new rail link, just a few local bus routes and maybe a tram network later on if it gets large enough.

 

[Magdalia]

Overspill was 1960s and New Towns were a bit later.

The New Towns Act was 1946 and the following were in the first wave:

Stevenage
Crawley
Hemel Hempstead
Harlow
Newton Aycliffe
Peterlee
Welwyn Garden City/Hatfield
Basildon
Bracknell
Corby

 

[HSTEd]

I know Milton Keynes has its issues with regard to people without cars, but I am not sure we can say it has not been very succesful.

Its one of the most economically productive parts of the country outside London.

I know its road layout has issues with regards to public transport, but I think you could, to some extent, mitigate that (edit: if doing it again obviously!) by providing bus only bridges between adjacent squares. They'd only have to be single lane and it would remove much of the issue with existing bus services having to run in and out via odd routes

 

[Bletchleyite]

I know its road layout has issues with regards to public transport, but I think you could, to some extent, mitigate that (edit: if doing it again obviously!) by providing bus only bridges between adjacent squares. They'd only have to be single lane and it would remove much of the issue with existing bus services having to run in and out via odd routes

The problem fundamentally is that even if you did that then bus routes would be slow and tortuous. The layout of the city will never mean people will choose the bus over the car as the car is always much faster.

 

[Magdalia]

Letchworth and Welwyn Garden Cities had stations, and stlll do IIUC.

Both stations only came when the Garden Cities were started, Letchworth in 1903 and Welwyn in 1920. The former only had a restricted service until 1905 and the latter only had a halt with the current station dating from 1926.