Universal United Kingdom Resort - rail implications

[Bletchleyite]

Well one reason is not everyone lives in London / South East....

They don't, but because of the layout of our transport network it is the easiest single place that everyone in the country can get to. If you put it in Manchester it would be awkward to get to for vast swathes of the population. Birmingham would probably be the only place with similar levels of connectivity.

 

[InTheEastMids]

Well one reason is not everyone lives in London / South East....

I am not sure of the point you are trying to make as none of them are specific to travelling to/from the South East.

 

[Bantamzen]

They don't, but because of the layout of our transport network it is the easiest single place that everyone in the country can get to. If you put it in Manchester it would be awkward to get to for vast swathes of the population. Birmingham would probably be the only place with similar levels of connectivity.

London is the easiest, but not so much Bedford if travelling by train.

(Although Man Utd fans seem to make their way easily enough to Manchester from the S/E.... )
(That's a little football humour in case anyone is wondering)

 

[quantinghome]

One is dross, the other is thoughtful. One will be daytrippers from London with little local impact beyond youth jobs, the other sees overnight visitors into a highly deprived, remote area - hard to pop in.

I think the one to be encouraged and supported is not in Bedfordshire personally, but here we are.

I think you're putting the cart before the horse. Whatever your views on the merits of the two attractions, UUKR needs the proposed transport links to function (or more accurately the local area needs them to ensure the local roads don't grind to a halt). It also has two railway lines immediately adjacent to the site, so it's a no brainer to put in stations.

By contrast the Eden Project is 1.5 miles from the nearest railway line, so can't have a directly connected station. It already has direct bus links to the main station in the area. I can't see that any transport improvements would increase its patronage (other than those to boost tourism in Cornwall in general).

 

[Magdalia]

The location of Universal United Kingdom Resort was not decided by the government, the location was decided by Universal, when they purchased the land in 2023.

Universal chose the location because of its connectivity. Here is a BBC report from April 2024 with a quote from Universal.

What do we know about Universal Studios' Bedfordshire plans?

The US movie giant's plans reveal its theme park would be split into four main "zones", if approved.

www.bbc.co.uk

Universal Destinations and Experiences has movie-related resorts in places like Hollywood in the United States, Osaka in Japan and Beijing in China. It currently has its sights on a new theme park in Bedfordshire. What do we know so far?

Late last year it emerged Universal Destinations and Experiences, external had bought a 480-acre (194ha) parcel of land south of Bedford with a view to building a new theme park and resort experience there.

The firm is now carrying out four weeks of public meetings before deciding whether or not to go ahead with it.

The plot includes the former Kempston Hardwick brickworks and sits near the A6 and the A421 between Stewartby to the south, Wootton to the west and Kempston to the north.

It is a tract of land that Bedford Borough Council, external has identified for development and Universal says it is flat enough and large enough to build a "large-scale theme park resort" on.

Stewartby is 60 miles (100km) north of London, with its own railway station and close to the M1 and Luton Airport. Universal says the plot is "well connected for travel from all parts of the UK".

If built, it would become Universal's sixth resort and its only one in Europe.

Universal says it has also acquired the option to buy another parcel of land to the south west of the main plot which, if the project moves forward, would "allow a direct link" with the A421.

 

[richieb1971]

I went to the EWR consultation at Bedford a week or 2 ago. Very interesting. I had a word with Graham (EWR rep) for at least 30 minutes.

I asked about Forders sidings which haven't been used since the 1970's. Apparently it is outside of the land secured for EWR. For illustration this is the section surrounded by a yellow outline -

I proposed the sidings to be refurbished for Charter stabling and freight loops. EWR said they would like to gold stamp everything but cannot justify the cost. I never did find out who owns the land I assumed it was network rail but it seems it comes under the umbrella of the brickworks which will mark it for homes I suppose. Disappointing.

The 2nd issue I brought up was Thameslink stables for 12 car trains in Jowitt sidings. What will happen to 2 trains that the tracks are transitioned into the lanes used by EWR? Surprisingly, he said all the lanes are being closed as stables and all 12 car trains are going to Cauldwell walk. That really shocked me. Seems a logistical nightmare to get trains out of Cauldwell walk (only faces south) and I believe it would cause Bedford station to continue to be a terminus holding position for Thameslink bottlenecking the station. I suppose they could opt for trains to start at Wixams in the future? Not all of them of course, but maybe half of them.

They volunteered information that Stewartby Universal station is a 4 platform station, with 2 platforms acting as loops.

I am not in favor of the current Wixams station. Although I did touch on it with EWR reps, the main reasoning of its positioning which I protested against was that under current rules and regulations a NEW station has to be placed on straight track for health and safety on visibility of oncoming trains. Which is fine. But it does sort of bottleneck its positioning as either side are curves. Kind of strange when you think of stations like Wolverton which is on a heavily banked turn at 125mph.

We also talked about 5 car trains on EWR and consequently extensions to platforms at Winslow and Bletchley upper, full OHLE on the Marston Vale is apparently the new spec with first rolling stock being hand me downs from elsewhere with new builds designed for non continuous OHLE coming later. They will be hybrid trains.

I asked why EWR cannot extend to Bedford straight away being the line is already there. They said its a branch line and specked accordingly. It cannot handle more than 2 trains in any direction or something like that.

I was surprised St Johns at Bedford was still specced to use the Hitchin alignment. Again the reasoning is the station has to be on a straight away, accommodate 5 car trains in both directions and this isn't possible on the existing curve. So I was happy with that. Its still extremely inconvenient for the adjacent hospital car parking situation. It will be chaos.

I heard a freight loop was going in west of Bletchley on EWR. Just the other side of the flyover.

Yeah, sorry not much on Universal itself to report. But there was talk Bedford being used as a major hub to get quite a few Universal visitors to the park. Which is surprising really because Wixams is there. It does seem like EWR might be preferable to use as Stewartby Universal station is much closer to the entrance than Wixams. I believe EWR station sits right next to the park entrance, whilst Wixams requires shuttle buses.

Tempsford was confirmed as a joint ECML/EWR station, not having to leave rail premises to reach one from the other. Which is nice. And the platform will obviously be specced for 5 car trains since its not built yet.

 

[cle]

I can't copy the illustration, but it shows the fifth path as 2 segments:

• Stewartby to Oxford and potentially beyond
• Stewartby to Cambridge and potentially beyond

Would be lunacy to not connect these into another through Oxford-Cambridge service... maybe to North or to Ipswich, which has been mentioned. But if Stewartby has 4 platforms, maybe it's a layover.

I also think that with the 4 platforms, Stewartby could work as a southern terminus for MML, ie a starting point for ostensibly a Bedford starter to Nottingham or Sheffield. HS2 had a Bedford-Leeds added in a future scenario. Or a little shuttle up to Corby, might be handy for locals/workers to have Corby/Kettering/Wellingboro with direct services to Stewartby (but that could be the Oxford-Stewartby!)

I asked why EWR cannot extend to Bedford straight away being the line is already there. They said its a branch line and specked accordingly. It cannot handle more than 2 trains in any direction or something like that.

Thanks for these updates. I can't see why the Marston today could not extend to Oxford. Random, but something at least. Sounds like rubbish.

 

[The Planner]

I went to the EWR consultation at Bedford a week or 2 ago. Very interesting. I had a word with Graham (EWR rep) for at least 30 minutes.

I asked about Forders sidings which haven't been used since the 1970's. Apparently it is outside of the land secured for EWR. For illustration this is the section surrounded by a yellow outline -

I proposed the sidings to be refurbished for Charter stabling and freight loops. EWR said they would like to gold stamp everything but cannot justify the cost. I never did find out who owns the land I assumed it was network rail but it seems it comes under the umbrella of the brickworks which will mark it for homes I suppose. Disappointing.

The 2nd issue I brought up was Thameslink stables for 12 car trains in Jowitt sidings. What will happen to 2 trains that the tracks are transitioned into the lanes used by EWR? Surprisingly, he said all the lanes are being closed as stables and all 12 car trains are going to Cauldwell walk. That really shocked me. Seems a logistical nightmare to get trains out of Cauldwell walk (only faces south) and I believe it would cause Bedford station to continue to be a terminus holding position for Thameslink bottlenecking the station. I suppose they could opt for trains to start at Wixams in the future? Not all of them of course, but maybe half of them.

They volunteered information that Stewartby Universal station is a 4 platform station, with 2 platforms acting as loops.

I am not in favor of the current Wixams station. Although I did touch on it with EWR reps, the main reasoning of its positioning which I protested against was that under current rules and regulations a NEW station has to be placed on straight track for health and safety on visibility of oncoming trains. Which is fine. But it does sort of bottleneck its positioning as either side are curves. Kind of strange when you think of stations like Wolverton which is on a heavily banked turn at 125mph.

We also talked about 5 car trains on EWR and consequently extensions to platforms at Winslow and Bletchley upper, full OHLE on the Marston Vale is apparently the new spec with first rolling stock being hand me downs from elsewhere with new builds designed for non continuous OHLE coming later. They will be hybrid trains.

I asked why EWR cannot extend to Bedford straight away being the line is already there. They said its a branch line and specked accordingly. It cannot handle more than 2 trains in any direction or something like that.

I was surprised St Johns at Bedford was still specced to use the Hitchin alignment. Again the reasoning is the station has to be on a straight away, accommodate 5 car trains in both directions and this isn't possible on the existing curve. So I was happy with that. Its still extremely inconvenient for the adjacent hospital car parking situation. It will be chaos.

I heard a freight loop was going in west of Bletchley on EWR. Just the other side of the flyover.

The freight loop west of Bletchley was always in the plan originally, but got cut out, clearly now added back.

 

[richieb1971]

The interactive map the consultation used to show me updates was here - https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/5e440e6e10844c80bcb21deaec6a6a72

On page 83 of the 2026 consultation booklet which I have (I asked for a copy) it doesn't just mention loops west of Bletchley but a proposed maintenance depot being built there as well. Interesting. Here's a pic of the page -

 

[Magdalia]

Would be lunacy to not connect these into another through Oxford-Cambridge service... maybe to North or to Ipswich, which has been mentioned. But if Stewartby has 4 platforms, maybe it's a layover.

On the contrary, it is very sensible. There will still be 2tph Cambridge-Oxford and 2tph Cambridge-Bletchley for the Oxford Cambridge corridor traffic. Having Stewartby starters in both directions will be particularly beneficial in the afternoon/evening for people on their way home from Universal.

I also think that with the 4 platforms, Stewartby could work as a southern terminus for MML, ie a starting point for ostensibly a Bedford starter to Nottingham or Sheffield. HS2 had a Bedford-Leeds added in a future scenario. Or a little shuttle up to Corby, might be handy for locals/workers to have Corby/Kettering/Wellingboro with direct services to Stewartby (but that could be the Oxford-Stewartby!)

What the MML will get is more stops at Bedford, where the station rebuild will provide a platform on the up fast line, removing a major operational constraint. MML won't run through to and from Stewartby because it would introduce conflicting movements at the north end of Bedford station.

On page 83 of the 2026 consultation booklet which I have (I asked for a copy) it doesn't just mention loops west of Bletchley but a proposed maintenance depot being built there as well.

The consultation document is available to download here. Bletchley loops and train depot start on page 95.

East West Rail | Consultation 2026

This consultation will run for eight weeks from 14 April to 9 June 2026. The purpose of this consultation is to gather feedback on the updated proposals, particularly the elements which are new or have changed significantly since our previous consultation.

eastwestrail.co.uk

We’re proposing to construct a train maintenance depot west of Bletchley on the north side of the EWR main line, as well as westbound and eastbound passing loops in the same area.

 

[edwin_m]

What the MML will get is more stops at Bedford, where the station rebuild will provide a platform on the up fast line, removing a major operational constraint. MML won't run through to and from Stewartby because it would introduce conflicting movements at the north end of Bedford station.

While that's a constraint I don't believe it is insurmountable. I'd expect to see the crossover ladder north of Bedford extended to allow trains to cross to/from the EWR lines, avoiding conflict with Thameslink which will terminate in the platforms. Probably not worth running a MML service just to Stewartby but something like Nottingham-Oxford fills a gap in the wider network.

 

[Zomboid]

I'd expect to see the crossover ladder north of Bedford extended to allow trains to cross to/from the EWR lines

Not the final design, but the consultation drawings show an elevation difference which would prevent that. There's a single line shown between the two routes to the south of the station, but it doesn't look like the kind of thing that'll be designed for much in the way of capacity being a tight curve on a bit of an incline.

EWR platforms are shown much shorter than the MML ones, too.

 

[edwin_m]

Not the final design, but the consultation drawings show an elevation difference which would prevent that. There's a single line shown between the two routes to the south of the station, but it doesn't look like the kind of thing that'll be designed for much in the way of capacity being a tight curve on a bit of an incline.

EWR platforms are shown much shorter than the MML ones, too.

That seems very short-sighted. Even if a passenger service isn't viable, the MML slow lines (with the Manton route and the Erewash Valley) are a potential freight corridor which could be better used if it connected south of Bedford without conflicting with Thameslink.

 

[Zomboid]

That seems very short-sighted. Even if a passenger service isn't viable, the MML slow lines (with the Manton route and the Erewash Valley) are a potential freight corridor which could be better used if it connected south of Bedford without conflicting with Thameslink.

I think it's necessary to get over the river Great Ouse/ Paula Radcliffe Way with a sensible gradient (it'll be a high viaduct into a deep cutting).

Though looking at it more closely there might be some crossovers - there are tracks going through the embankment symbol. I don't think the drawing is really intended to show rail infrastructure detail like that especially accurately.

 

[Magdalia]

I think it's necessary to get over the river Great Ouse/ Paula Radcliffe Way with a sensible gradient (it'll be a high viaduct into a deep cutting).

You are right. The consultation document says this:

The railway would pass under the A6 Great Ouse Way, which would be realigned. This realignment is necessary to ensure sufficient separation between the road and railway as it would now pass over the new EWR track and the existing railway (MML). The realignment has been moved closer to the current alignment, compared to previous designs, to reduce the extent of land needed. The railway would rise onto the new 1.1km (0.7 miles) long River Great Ouse viaduct to the north of the Great Ouse Way (A6). The viaduct would be up to 18 metres high at deck level. It would cross over the River Great Ouse twice, as well as the Paula Radcliffe Way (A6). The design of the viaduct requires the existing electricity transmission lines in north Bedford to be rerouted across the Paula Radcliffe Way (A6) to the west of the route. The viaduct would be designed to draw on Britain’s proud railway heritage and the tradition of viaduct structures that have shaped our railway network for generations.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2026 ==

BBC has a story about rail links from Northampton to the Universal UK Resort see here:

Northampton MP calls for direct trains to Universal theme park

A direct railway connection would open job opportunities for the town's residents, says Mike Reader.

www.bbc.co.uk

An MP has launched a campaign calling for direct trains from his constituency to Universal's planned UK theme park.

Mike Reader, the Labour MP for Northampton South, said in the House of Commons on Thursday he planned to raise the issue with the Minister for Rail, Lord Hendy.

He said freight trains already use the line to Northampton Gateway and "all that's missing is the commitment to let local people use it".

The MP quoted doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of railway geography.

Bizarrely, the West Northamptonshire rail action plan, referred to at the end of the article, makes no reference to East West Rail.

 

[zwk500]

That seems very short-sighted. Even if a passenger service isn't viable, the MML slow lines (with the Manton route and the Erewash Valley) are a potential freight corridor which could be better used if it connected south of Bedford without conflicting with Thameslink.

The plans on the consultation: https://ewr-production-files.s3.eu-.../ListsBlockMedia/04ae917ae5/Bedford-PP-v3.pdf
Appear to show there will be single-lead connections to the MML slows north of Bedford.

Not very clear though, due to the line type used. You might be able to tell better than I can from the drawings, I've tried to snip the relevant part of Plan 2:


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2026 ==

The MP quoted doesn't seem to have a very good grasp of railway geography.

He appears to have been told that Freight trains are using East West Rail (correct) and that Universal is being built next to East West Rail (also correct).

I don't think it's necessarily completely unreasonable for an MP to not know the details of freight movements (that trains to Northampton Gateway don't use the relevant section of EWR), especially given there are freights on the Bedford-Bletchley section today.

It's still not great for him to go around making such statements though.

 

[westcoaster]

The 2nd issue I brought up was Thameslink stables for 12 car trains in Jowitt sidings. What will happen to 2 trains that the tracks are transitioned into the lanes used by EWR? Surprisingly, he said all the lanes are being closed as stables and all 12 car trains are going to Cauldwell walk. That really shocked me. Seems a logistical nightmare to get trains out of Cauldwell walk (only faces south) and I believe it would cause Bedford station to continue to be a terminus holding position for Thameslink bottlenecking the station. I suppose they could opt for trains to start at Wixams in the future? Not all of them of course, but maybe half of them.

What has been said in the messroom is that Jowett sidings will close as is, 2 roads will be through roads for EWR and the other 3 roads for stabling of EWR units.

The 5 roads for Thameslink will move to where Cauldwell walk industrial area is ( from the road junction all the way to EMR recycling/scrap yard), this is already railway land and leased to all the units.
Coming out of Cauldwell and Jowett both involve double shunting to reach the station, and both only face south.
Thameslink do not use it but are allowed to shunt via Bedford north junction, may help with platform availability.

 

[Stephen42]

What has been said in the messroom is that Jowett sidings will close as is, 2 roads will be through roads for EWR and the other 3 roads for stabling of EWR units.

The 5 roads for Thameslink will move to where Cauldwell walk industrial area is ( from the road junction all the way to EMR recycling/scrap yard), this is already railway land and leased to all the units.
Coming out of Cauldwell and Jowett both involve double shunting to reach the station, and both only face south.
Thameslink do not use it but are allowed to shunt via Bedford north junction, may help with platform availability.

That aligns with the previous proposals from the consultations, though might be 2 stabling roads for EWR to reprofile the through lines to align better with the existing arches. Cauldwell was proposed to have a second half that's north facing. The internal turnback wouldn't be available to the other half anyway which would be the main reason to join them up.

The shunt via Bedford north shouldn't be required. With the proposed up fast platform that should remove the Corby trains from the Thameslink platforms and the current 1A is proposed to be extended to full length to replace platform 3 no longer available from the slow lines. The new Cauldwell would be available to all 3 Thameslink platforms unlike Jowett and the carriage sidings would have some roads available to all up from the current 2 in both cases. Together those would ease most of the current problems at Bedford.

 

[brightonbususe]

Sharing this video from Wandering Northerner with some drone footage of the surrounding area where he talks about some of the infrastructure that will be going in to support the park including rail links. His channel is worth following if you want to follow the construction of the project as there's already been a ton of groundwork in the form of archealogical work.