East-West Rail (EWR): is it worth it?

[Farigiraf]

I understand the direct rail route from Oxford to Cambridge closed for passenger traffic way back in 1968. This was basically as a result of dwindling passenger numbers and increasing nubers of motorcars and cheaper and faster bus services.

I accept there has been some infill construction since but what really has changed?

Most of that new build almost automatically features ample parking for yet more cars, so once we get past the initial fanfare period it seems unclear whether there is any the long term passenger demand to justfy operating much more than a skeleton passenger service.

Conversely this route has proved already valuable to freight operators.

So perhaps it is time for Great British Railways to just leave it to freight services and stop wasting any more time, effort and taxpayers money trying to provide passenger services on the route.

I won't get into exactly why there's no chance of that happening, it's fairly self-explanatory, but to name just one thing that alone justifies the project: Oxford and Cambridge have, in addition to being busy university cities, become two of UK's (if not the world's) biggest tech & science capitals, have grown in population by about 100,000, and Milton Keynes now exists (which it barely did in 1968).

Running a direct train service between these cities will provide value for the taxpayer within not years but months of opening, through increased economic activity and reduced road traffic.

Edit: having reread your post, I'm beginning to think it may be satirical.

 

[iamraymond]

I understand the direct rail route from Oxford to Cambridge closed for passenger traffic way back in 1968. This was basically as a result of dwindling passenger numbers and increasing nubers of motorcars and cheaper and faster bus services.

I accept there has been some infill construction since but what really has changed?

Most of that new build almost automatically features ample parking for yet more cars, so once we get past the initial fanfare period it seems unclear whether there is any the long term passenger demand to justfy operating much more than a skeleton passenger service.

Conversely this route has proved already valuable to freight operators.

So perhaps it is time for Great British Railways to just leave it to freight services and stop wasting any more time, effort and taxpayers money trying to provide passenger services on the route.

Haha, brilliant

 

[A S Leib]

I understand the direct rail route from Oxford to Cambridge closed for passenger traffic way back in 1968. This was basically as a result of dwindling passenger numbers and increasing nubers of motorcars and cheaper and faster bus services.

I accept there has been some infill construction since but what really has changed?

Most of that new build almost automatically features ample parking for yet more cars, so once we get past the initial fanfare period it seems unclear whether there is any the long term passenger demand to justfy operating much more than a skeleton passenger service.

Conversely this route has proved already valuable to freight operators.

So perhaps it is time for Great British Railways to just leave it to freight services and stop wasting any more time, effort and taxpayers money trying to provide passenger services on the route.

Oxford and Cambridge had ~16,000 students between them in 1968; there's now 25,000 at Cambridge not counting ten thousand at Anglia Ruskin, and Oxford also seems to have ~35,000 students between Oxford and Oxford Brookes.

That's also assuming there's the same level of people who'd choose to drive if there's good alternatives, particularly given better knowledge of climate change against sixty years ago, and I don't know if a large fall in passenger numbers or a large decline in service came first.

As for being a waste of taxpayers money, I'd much rather see it go on this than on the overwhelming majority of road schemes.

 

[bspahh]

I understand the direct rail route from Oxford to Cambridge closed for passenger traffic way back in 1968. This was basically as a result of dwindling passenger numbers and increasing nubers of motorcars and cheaper and faster bus services.

I accept there has been some infill construction since but what really has changed?

Most of that new build almost automatically features ample parking for yet more cars, so once we get past the initial fanfare period it seems unclear whether there is any the long term passenger demand to justfy operating much more than a skeleton passenger service.

Conversely this route has proved already valuable to freight operators.

So perhaps it is time for Great British Railways to just leave it to freight services and stop wasting any more time, effort and taxpayers money trying to provide passenger services on the route.

The economic case for investing in a rail link between Oxford and Cambridge is not for students and staff at the Universities. It comes from the spin-out companies, which bring new money into the UK economy. The Cambridge Science Park was set up in 1970.

Many of those companies could be set up anywhere. They choose to set up near Oxford and Cambridge, because its easier and cheaper to hire staff to work where there is a cluster of other companies.

AstraZeneca moved to the Cambridge area because of this. This is a plot of the AstraZeneca share price (in blue) against the FTSE 100 (in orange) over the last 10 years.



Jobs in the science and technology sector can be very specialised, so its appealing to work somewhere where you might be able to get another job without having to move house. If you have a couple who both have specialised jobs, it can be even more difficult.

At the moment, the Oxford and Cambridge travel to work areas are practically independent, unless you have a couple where both are happy to drive an hour a day. I have met one couple where one worked in Oxford and the other was in Cambridge, who didn't drive. They lived in London, had very good salaries and were both able to commute by train. Paying London housing costs as well as two season tickets would be too expensive for most.

 

[Magdalia]

I accept there has been some infill construction since but what really has changed?

I grew up in Cambridge. I don't remember trains on the Bedford line but I do remember trains on the St Ives line, which closed in 1970.

Cambridge has changed hugely, most of it in the last 15 years. Just 15 years ago the area around the old Cambridge station was a run down dump, now it is a thriving business district with thousands of jobs. Just 15 years ago the area around the new Cambridge South station was fields, now the two existing hospitals have had the Biomedical Campus established between the hospitals and the railway, Royal Papworth hospital and AstraZeneca move on site, with GSK moving in soon, plus lots of research laboratories. The Biomedical Campus already has more than 20k jobs, and Cambridge South had more than 100k entries and exits in its first 4 weeks. Two more new hospitals have planning permission, and further expansion onto more green belt land is in the local plan. The government has just established a development corporation for Greater Cambridge to accelerate expansion.

Although the population of Cambridge is growing quickly, it has a huge housing shortage. Part of the solution to that is big expansion of Cambourne and a new town at Tempsford, both on the East West Rail route.

And we haven't mentioned Universal UK resort yet, expected to draw more than 8 million visitors a year and right next to East West Rail. That wasn't there in 1968!

Most of that new build almost automatically features ample parking for yet more cars

That isn't what happens in Cambridge. Most new office and laboratory buildings in Cambridge have very little car parking provision, and usually have more parking provision for cycles than for cars. For example, Botanic Place will have 23 spaces for cars and 1280 spaces for cycles. That's because Cambridge never expanded its road network in the days of car dominance, and almost all of the city road network is single carriageway. There is no point in car parking provision if it takes hours of queuing on congested single carriageway roads to get in and out of it.

it seems unclear whether there is any the long term passenger demand to justfy operating much more than a skeleton passenger service.

It is clear that there will be huge commuting flows into Cambridge from Cambourne and Tempsford, lots of economically important connectivity between Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford, and lots of people visiting Universal UK resort. The demand will there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2026 ==

At the moment, the Oxford and Cambridge travel to work areas are practically independent, unless you have a couple where both are happy to drive an hour a day. I have met one couple where one worked in Oxford and the other was in Cambridge, who didn't drive. They lived in London, had very good salaries and were both able to commute by train. Paying London housing costs as well as two season tickets would be too expensive for most.

Eat West Rail will merge the Cambridge and Oxford job markets in some economically critical high wage high productivity areas. The flexibility it will bring for people to be more productive by changing jobs, without moving house, will benefit the UK economy far beyond the numbers of people making commuting journeys along the route.

 

[William3000]

I grew up in Cambridge. I don't remember trains on the Bedford line but I do remember trains on the St Ives line, which closed in 1970.

Cambridge has changed hugely, most of it in the last 15 years. Just 15 years ago the area around the old Cambridge station was a run down dump, now it is a thriving business district with thousands of jobs. Just 15 years ago the area around the new Cambridge South station was fields, now the two existing hospitals have had the Biomedical Campus established between the hospitals and the railway, Royal Papworth hospital and AstraZeneca move on site, with GSK moving in soon, plus lots of research laboratories. The Biomedical Campus already has more than 20k jobs, and Cambridge South had more than 100k entries and exits in its first 4 weeks. Two more new hospitals have planning permission, and further expansion onto more green belt land is in the local plan. The government has just established a development corporation for Greater Cambridge to accelerate expansion.

Although the population of Cambridge is growing quickly, it has a huge housing shortage. Part of the solution to that is big expansion of Cambourne and a new town at Tempsford, both on the East West Rail route.

And we haven't mentioned Universal UK resort yet, expected to draw more than 8 million visitors a year and right next to East West Rail. That wasn't there in 1968!


That isn't what happens in Cambridge. Most new office and laboratory buildings in Cambridge have very little car parking provision, and usually have more parking provision for cycles than for cars. For example, Botanic Place will have 23 spaces for cars and 1280 spaces for cycles. That's because Cambridge never expanded its road network in the days of car dominance, and almost all of the city road network is single carriageway. There is no point in car parking provision if it takes hours of queuing on congested single carriageway roads to get in and out of it.


It is clear that there will be huge commuting flows into Cambridge from Cambourne and Tempsford, lots of economically important connectivity between Cambridge, Milton Keynes and Oxford, and lots of people visiting Universal UK resort. The demand will there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 8 Aug 2026 ==


Eat West Rail will merge the Cambridge and Oxford job markets in some economically critical high wage high productivity areas. The flexibility it will bring for people to be more productive by changing jobs, without moving house, will benefit the UK economy far beyond the numbers of people making commuting journeys along the route.

Absolutely. East West Rail is of huge importance for all the reasons you suggest and the corridor has changed beyond recognition since it closed - in the year Milton Keynes was established as a New Town I believe.

One additional element of EWR that is often underplayed in my opinion is the interchange benefits on each of the major lines heading north out of London. The original Varsity Line had relatively poor connections: there was one to the East Coast Mainline at Sandy but it was a fairly minor station with few services at the time; there was no realistic connection at Bedford, with the Bedford St John’s station in a different location and at least a 20 minute walk to Bedford Midland. The new proposals include a new station at Tempsford, which isn’t planned for long distance north/south trains to stop but will at least provide Huntingdon and Biggleswade with links to Cambridge, Bedford and Bletchley with one straightforward change. I wonder whether in the long term future as the town grows - there may be scope for some open access operators to have a calling point there - without extracting passengers. The new situation at Bedford is a dramatic improvement for connectivity and sees Bedford (Midland) become potentially a major interchange station akin to Peterborough on the ECML; the opening of Universal adds to its importance and in the future it will provide places like Wellingborough, Corby, Market Harborough, Leicester, Nottingham etc with links to Universal (and Cambridge) with one change. It’s somewhat unfortunate that Milton Keynes Central has replaced Bletchley as the major station in the conurbation as it’s the major junction now, and stopping long distance trains at Bletchley rather than MKC could provide a very attractive link to the North West for places like Bedford and Cambridge which a double change at Bletchley and MKC may discourage. But i cant see Milton Keynes Council supporting the flipping of the two stations to make Bletchley the long distance call.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I grew up in Cambridge. I don't remember trains on the Bedford line but I do remember trains on the St Ives line, which closed in 1970.

I'd say the trains on the Bedford - Cambridge line were about 33% filled on average in their final years. It was, essentially, a 1 train per-two-hour service, usually 2-car DMUs (one afternoon service had 4-car, but I don't know if that ran throughout), plus on loco-hauled, 3 carriage morning train out of Cambridge. That emptied at Bedford with school traffic, with maybe 15-20 people going on to Bletchley.

Since BR tried to close Bletchley - Cambridge in 1958 (not sure about the Oxford bit), it must have been quite a basket case, though of course they did nothing to reduce costs by de-staffing stations. Having the Eastern Region rule from Willington - Cambridge probably didn't help matters. (Not saying the ER were difficult, just another barrier to co-ordination.)

But as you say, Cambridge and indeed the entire section of the planned new line has changed dramatically since.

Absolutely. East West Rail is of huge importance for all the reasons you suggest and the corridor has changed beyond recognition since it closed - in the year Milton Keynes was established as a New Town I believe.

Milton Keynes was legally established around this time, but nothing had been built, I don't think. It was all still in the planning stage. MK was still a village, popn 250? when the Cambridge line closed. Of course, Bletchley existed - popn maybe 15,000 -20,000 then, at a guess.

One additional element of EWR that is often underplayed in my opinion is the interchange benefits on each of the major lines heading north out of London. The original Varsity Line had relatively poor connections: there was one to the East Coast Mainline at Sandy but it was a fairly minor station with few services at the time;

Sandy was a VERY minor station. Apart from the two loco-hauled commuter services to/from KX am and pm, I'd wager there were more trains stopping on the branch than the mainline during the day. I doubt more than 1 person per month used the interchange (non-) possibilities.

there was no realistic connection at Bedford, with the Bedford St John’s station in a different location and at least a 20 minute walk to Bedford Midland.

Ditto Bicester - though the walk was probably more like 25 min.

... The new situation at Bedford is a dramatic improvement for connectivity and sees Bedford (Midland) become potentially a major interchange station akin to Peterborough on the ECML;

I don't think it could reach Peterboro' levels - there's not the equivalent of Norwich, Ipswich and Cambridge/Stansted feeding into the place, nor, unless they start stopping some Sheffields, anything like the northern destinations readily available - but yes, still a big jump in connectivity.

the opening of Universal adds to its importance and in the future it will provide places like Wellingborough, Corby, Market Harborough, Leicester, Nottingham etc with links to Universal (and Cambridge) with one change.

Universal could become the real game changer, I agree, but will depend a lot on direct service levels.

i cant see Milton Keynes Council supporting the flipping of the two stations to make Bletchley the long distance call.

Very unlikely, I'd have thought.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I accept there has been some infill construction since but what really has changed?

Milton Keynes. An entire city, not "infill".

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2026 ==

It’s somewhat unfortunate that Milton Keynes Central has replaced Bletchley as the major station in the conurbation as it’s the major junction now, and stopping long distance trains at Bletchley rather than MKC could provide a very attractive link to the North West for places like Bedford and Cambridge which a double change at Bletchley and MKC may discourage. But i cant see Milton Keynes Council supporting the flipping of the two stations to make Bletchley the long distance call.

This is why I think most or all EWR trains should run via MKC with a reverse, and why a north to east chord is necessary.

 

[zwk500]

This is why I think most or all EWR trains should run via MKC with a reverse, and why a north to east chord is necessary.

If we are talking about the eventual 4tph doing this in each direction (so 8tph), you're going to need an extra line (realistically 2, because it's 16 movements an hour) from Denbigh hall south Jn to MKC and some additional platforms there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If we are talking about the eventual 4tph doing this in each direction (so 8tph), you're going to need an extra line (realistically 2, because it's 16 movements an hour) from Denbigh hall south Jn to MKC and some additional platforms there.

This would be surprisingly easy to do so far as urban rail projects go - the Up and Down Bletchley are there for part of it and there isn't anything built on most of the rest of the way either, plus MKC already has a "platform zero and minus one" space which is presently used for car parking. The one thing you would need to do is replace a few road bridges and possibly add one more double track rail bridge (I forget if the Up/Down Bletchley extend over the skew bridge over the V4 Watling St - I don't think they do).

An option would be that 2 do it and 2 don't, though for a clean "every 15 minutes" both sides you would probably need an extended layover at MKC. It might well be that post HS2 2tph each way could be squeezed in.

 

[CdBrux]

EWR has, probably quite accurately, been described as a housing project with a railway attached

 

[Zomboid]

I don't see why it would need to be everything. The current proposal is for 2tph Oxford to MK, 2tph Oxford to Cambridge and 2tph Cambridge to Bletchley.

Send the Bletchley terminators to MK, and remodel the platforms to do it via a reversal - yes it's a bit slower, but it also doesn't require the depot to be demolished. Build another face to the Marston Vale platform, there looks to be space between that and the cement plant and it should be easy enough to reverse 4tph in 2 platforms. Paths to MKC might be trickier, though.

 

[InTheEastMids]

It might well be that post HS2 2tph each way could be squeezed in.

I don't think you'd want to release all the capacity on WCML south with HS2 but then not be able to use it in full by creating a pinchpoint between Bletchley and MKC. So I think 5 or 6-tracking here is more or less inevitable for the reasons people have given. Plus I think it is capacity issues here that are why Aylesbury-MKC is still in the long grass, even once HS2 restore Aylesbury-Calvert. EWR won't really talk about it because doing this would be a Network Rail project.

why a north to east chord is necessary

I think the issue with a chord is that it doesn't save much time - perhaps 4-5 minute penalty. Changing at Bletchley, especially post-HS2 probably gets 70% of the benefit for 0% of the cost, especially post-HS2 when more trains may call at both Bletchley and MKC. An alternative scheme to build/upgrade an existing line around the back of the sidings from Bletchley P5/6 to join EWR as it descends to WCML level south of Denbigh Hall Junction would be miles cheaper and be all on existing railway land so no painful consenting. There's also space for a

I am sure it would be much, much cheaper to optimise Bletchley low-level for (passenger) reversals than build a chord. In particular, it may be feasible to build a passenger line around the back of the sidings to meet EWR tracks as they come down to the WCML level south of Denbigh Hall. Could potentially extend P6 and/or add a P6a adjacent if platform capacity was an issue. Freight could reverse at the proposed loops out by the depot.

Send the Bletchley terminators to MK, and remodel the platforms to do it via a reversal

I think we have independently said the same thing at more or less the same time!

Edit: To add - improving capability to reverse at Bletchley could mostly be done within the existing railway boundary and so avoids a lot of time-consuming consenting/TWA type stuff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't see why it would need to be everything. The current proposal is for 2tph Oxford to MK, 2tph Oxford to Cambridge and 2tph Cambridge to Bletchley.

Send the Bletchley terminators to MK, and remodel the platforms to do it via a reversal - yes it's a bit slower, but it also doesn't require the depot to be demolished. Build another face to the Marston Vale platform, there looks to be space between that and the cement plant and it should be easy enough to reverse 4tph in 2 platforms. Paths to MKC might be trickier, though.

The services from the Cambridge side need to go to MKC. Whether via a reverse or a chord is for debate, though personally I support the chord even though it would mean those services not serving Bletchley, because if stuff like Woburn Sands-MKC is too slow people won't use it for that.

The Marston Vale would, I'm convinced, be a popular service if it went to MKC. This obvious thing has escaped the railway and its funders ever since MK's first sod was cut. Indeed, an "MK Metro" of Bedford-Bletchley-MKC-Wolverton-Newport Pagnell would have done VERY well I'd say - not subsidy free of course but what local service is? Impossible to path now but if it had got in there before West Coast Route Modernisation we wouldn't be dropping it now.

 

[Zomboid]

I wonder if those Bletchley terminators might also be extended to Aylesbury if they don't end up in MK.

 

[The Planner]

I wonder if those Bletchley terminators might also be extended to Aylesbury if they don't end up in MK.

Doubt it. The Bletchley North chord is being looked at as an option last I heard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Doubt it. The Bletchley North chord is being looked at as an option last I heard.

Indeed. I was quite pleased when I read that one of my "speculative ideas" was actually being considered in real life!

It's quite an easy one to do because the land it requires is either already railway land or is relatively low value industry - I don't think (off the top of my head) it would affect even one residential property. The main issue would be the need to relocate part or all of the depot.

It is a shame in this context that Fenny is closing, though. Perhaps consideration should be given to reopening it if this plan goes ahead, so Bletchley isn't left with a railway line that runs through it and may be useful to some but which has no station. Obviously there's no way to serve Bletchley station without the reverse, but you could at least serve a station in Bletchley to allow for established flows, unless you only sent some trains to MKC and thus would have the option to send one an hour to Aylesbury (though realistically Aylesbury-MKC would be of more use).

 

[Farigiraf]

This is why I think most or all EWR trains should run via MKC with a reverse, and why a north to east chord is necessary.

I do agree that an eastern link to MKC would make a lot of sense and probably should've been done from the start. Although MKC won't be that much of a major hub, as HS2 will divert most of the long-distance trains away and most commuting traffic to the city is, and most likely will always be, by car, this argument would make sense if they were proposing e.g. 4tph to MKC, which may be overkill, but at the moment there aren't even plans for 1tph from the east. It's more than busy enough to have at least some link that doesn't require a change at Bletchley (or double-change to get to Cov, Northampton or Rugby).

Though I don't understand your logic behind diverting all services that way. There really isn't (and won't be by 2040) the demand for 4 trainloads an hour of people from Cambridge to Oxford or Bicester - 2tph is more than enough for an interregional service assuming the trains are at least 5 cars long. A triangular network centred on the future Bletchley triangle, involving 2tph on each of Oxford-MKC, MKC-Cambridge and Oxford-Cambridge (plus 1tph MKC - High Wycombe) would make a lot of sense and get a lot more out of the multibillion pound infrastructure than any Stewartby terminating shenanigans. A direct service to central MK would also make the Marston Vale station rebuilds feel a lot less like a waste of money.

It is a shame in this context that Fenny is closing, though. Perhaps consideration should be given to reopening it if this plan goes ahead, so Bletchley isn't left with a railway line that runs through it and may be useful to some but which has no station. Obviously there's no way to serve Bletchley station without the reverse, but you could at least serve a station in Bletchley to allow for established flows, unless you only sent some trains to MKC and thus would have the option to send one an hour to Aylesbury (though realistically Aylesbury-MKC would be of more use).

There are hundreds of rail lines in the country that pass through a fairly busy urban area with no stops. I agree in principal that we shouldn't be closing stations with no replacement post-2000, but if you do want to get full potential out of the (much higher potential) longer-distance city links that EWR will create, then you're left with no space on the MVL for stopping trains.

I really don't think keeping the MVL stopper at the expense of 1-2 long-distance paths is a good tradeoff, and the cost of making the line e.g. 3 or 4-tracked to maintain a local stopper would be a few hundred million pounds for only a few thousand annual passengers. Of course as a supporter of rail growth I'd have been all for that, maybe you could even run the stopper as a tram-train into MK city centre to get the most out of it; it'd be a way of sneaking mass transit into a city that won't pay for it, Cardiff-style. But I don't think the wider UK populace would've taken too kindly to an extra £1 billion being added to the EWR project just for the MVL locals.

The stations planned to be closed currently have around 100,000 combined annual users - even if we assume 50% growth in the next few decades, that's still around £7000 spent per Marston Vale line passenger. Not a good look, when you could just close the stations, rebuild the existing ones with a big car park, and move on.

Even if you do accept that the MVL stopper's fate is likely sealed, not exactly sure why you'd need a station on the Bletchley north-east chord. The town (or is it just a suburb now?) will still have a minimum of 2 trains an hour from Oxford to Cambridge even if the chord is built, which is plenty for the Bletchley - Marston Vale/Bedford/Cambridge flow.

You're more or less asking for semi-fast long distance services to serve a secondary station in southern MK, which would be very different to e.g. Cambridge South (which is an actual destination). That's what urban mass transit should do the job of, in the same way that semifast long-distance trains from London don't usually serve zone 2 interchanges, because the tube ride from a central London station is really straightforward. MKC should be a major urban transit hub in the city instead, with people in the city connecting from bus/bike/car to train there, which would make a lot more sense than getting EWR to provide the main urban transport connection from Bletchley into Milton Keynes. The layout of the city doesn't really lend itself to a good bus network unfortunately (although it'd be great for a dense light rail network, impossible as it is) which is why things are as they are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You're more or less asking for semi-fast long distance services to serve a secondary station in southern MK, which would be very different to e.g. Cambridge South (which is an actual destination).

Well, it's certainly my view that there should be an additional south MK station instead of Bedford St John's, which will be barely 500m from Midland (and I'd oppose Cambridge South if that was barely 500m from "Cambridge City" too). My overall preference wouild be for that station to be "freed up" by redeveloping Midland the other side of the bridge (it's really an inadequate station in most ways and would be slightly nearer the centre that way) and not have two stations in Bedford, allowing an additional MK station instead. High quality pedestrian connectivity between there and the hospital site would be provided, money could be spent on upgrading the rather grim road between there and the town centre as a nice thoroughfare instead of a cheap kebab shop alley, and consideration could also be given to moving the main bus interchange to the same site.

St John's may be reasonably popular, but in part that's more because it's free (no gateline and barely any on board checks).

That said, maybe that station shouldn't be Fenny but rather something more like a Bow Brickhill Parkway given that most people in MK reach stations by car or taxi. But then again given that if the road connectivity is done right (and there is I think a plan to build a bypass replacing the level crossing) "Woburn Sands Parkway" might well adequately fulfil that role.

 

[William3000]

The services from the Cambridge side need to go to MKC. Whether via a reverse or a chord is for debate, though personally I support the chord even though it would mean those services not serving Bletchley, because if stuff like Woburn Sands-MKC is too slow people won't use it for that.

The Marston Vale would, I'm convinced, be a popular service if it went to MKC. This obvious thing has escaped the railway and its funders ever since MK's first sod was cut. Indeed, an "MK Metro" of Bedford-Bletchley-MKC-Wolverton-Newport Pagnell would have done VERY well I'd say - not subsidy free of course but what local service is? Impossible to path now but if it had got in there before West Coast Route Modernisation we wouldn't be dropping it now.

I agree. Bletchley would still get 4 trains an hour and 2 trains an hour to Cambridge. Cambridge and Oxford would both get two trains per hour to Milton Keynes Central for interchange with long distance services to the North West. This is more important for Bedford and Cambridge, than Oxford, which is already served albeit by slower crosscountry services to Manchester Piccadilly.

 

[Farigiraf]

Well, it's certainly my view that there should be an additional south MK station

That said, maybe that station shouldn't be Fenny but rather something more like a Bow Brickhill Parkway given that most people in MK reach stations by car or taxi.

Bletchley is effectively the 'South MK' station though. And even if a north-east chord were built, diverting half the Cambridge-Oxford trains from to MK would still leave Bletchley with 2tph which is appropriate for the level of demand. Building an additional station near Fenny just for Cambridge-MKC trains to be able to stop there would be fairly pointless as it's not actually creating any new links compared to the service provision from Bletchley.

On the other hand, a station in east MK near Bow Brickhill is a good idea in theory, but if you already are keeping 5 intermediate stops on the MVL for all trains to stop at (or 6 if you include Bletchley, which wouldn't really be an interchange if the north-east chord is built), adding another one would effectively turn the EWR project into a Marston Vale Metro. You can have either the consolidated stations plan (which is already pandering quite a lot to MVL users, e.g. why on earth is Lidlington being saved), or you can accept the politically unfeasible ~£3000 per head cost of building the infrastructure to maintain the MVL stopper train, assuming around £300mil for a third track and/or passing loops. Can't have your cake and eat it.

I do sympathise - it must be really bloody annoying to lose your local station - but EWR won't be four-tracked which means longer-distance traffic will always take priority over short-distance, even if you don't consider potential revenue I'd say that an end-to-end EWR service contributes a lot more to society (not to mention the economy) than a local stopping service to a city designed for car commuting. There just isn't really a world where you can run both frequent EWR stoppers and MVL locals without spending a disproportionately high amount on saving the MVL stopper. At best, a frequent bus link from Bow Brickhill / Fenny Stratford to Bletchley station could be established post-EWR.

instead of Bedford St John's, which will be barely 500m from Midland (and I'd oppose Cambridge South if that was barely 500m from "Cambridge City" too). My overall preference wouild be for that station to be "freed up" by redeveloping Midland the other side of the bridge (it's really an inadequate station in most ways and would be slightly nearer the centre that way) and not have two stations in Bedford, allowing an additional MK station instead. High quality pedestrian connectivity between there and the hospital site would be provided, money could be spent on upgrading the rather grim road between there and the town centre as a nice thoroughfare instead of a cheap kebab shop alley, and consideration could also be given to moving the main bus interchange to the same site.

St John's may be reasonably popular, but in part that's more because it's free (no gateline and barely any on board checks).

I agree - the station was only really saved because it was the main station in Bedford on the Varsity line, as at the time the line bypassed Bedford Midland. I doubt there is space for a rebuild of the station to make it more fit for purpose, with proper accessibility and ticket barriers - the EWR relocation will likely be just as small and unfit for purpose - so a high quality urban transport link from Bedford station to the hospital and southern side of the city provides a lot more value for money.

 

[Bletchleyite]

why on earth is Lidlington being saved

I think it's pretty much a given that Lidlington and the surrounds will be expanded housing wise, probably significantly. Also it serves (to a fashion) the Country Park.

While Lidlington is presently smaller, I think it's not entirely unlike the answer to the question of why Winslow has a station. And the reason for that is that in 20 years' time Winslow will look rather like Bicester does now (the latter having expanded massively from the small and slightly quaint market town it was when I first went there).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Aug 2026 ==

Bletchley is effectively the 'South MK' station though. And even if a north-east chord were built, diverting half the Cambridge-Oxford trains from to MK would still leave Bletchley with 2tph which is appropriate for the level of demand. Building an additional station near Fenny just for Cambridge-MKC trains to be able to stop there would be fairly pointless as it's not actually creating any new links compared to the service provision from Bletchley.

I suggested it as part of the idea of the whole service going via MKC as MK is so important to the route. Though that said I suppose Bletchley as a parkway is also important, so 2 via Bletchley and 2 to MKC probably does also work, though isn't quite as "metro". If Bletchley retains service to/from Bedford and beyond it isn't really needed.

Fenny isn't my local station by the way, Bletchley is.

 

[Farigiraf]

I think it's pretty much a given that Lidlington and the surrounds will be expanded housing wise, probably significantly. Also it serves (to a fashion) the Country Park.

While Lidlington is presently smaller, I think it's not entirely unlike the answer to the question of why Winslow has a station. And the reason for that is that in 20 years' time Winslow will look rather like Bicester does now (the latter having expanded massively from the small and slightly quaint market town it was when I first went there).

There are quite a lot of housing projects being built near a mainline railway, few of them receiving a station. The closest parallel is probably Thorpe Park, though even there it'll A: only have 2tph, and B: have passive provision for future four tracking. EWR in comparison will have at least 5 semifasts/fasts an hour with presumably no passing points between Bedford and Bletchley, so slowing down trains to stop at Lidlington has a much greater cost than other similar stations. Without the north/east link at Bletchley, it's not like Lidlington residents are likely to take the train over the car to central MK, they'll use EWR for longer-distance commuting or the odd leisure trip.

Building new towns / housing centred on a public transport link is the sensible way, but only if that transport route actually has capacity for a turn-up-and-go service to the place alongside maintaining existing services.

While Lidlington is presently smaller, I think it's not entirely unlike the answer to the question of why Winslow has a station. And the reason for that is that in 20 years' time Winslow will look rather like Bicester does now (the latter having expanded massively from the small and slightly quaint market town it was when I first went there).

Ridgmont-Stewartby is around 5 miles, Bletchley-Bicester is around 20. Not exactly comparable when deciding whether an intermediate stop for longer-distance services is a good idea.
Re. Winslow v Bicester, Bicester has a train every half hour to Birmingham and 4tph to London when combining both stations. Winslow will have no London services at all, with the Bletchley detour not exactly being too attractive compared to P&Ring somewhere closer to London. The town will certainly grow and the station will be well-used, but I don't see rail leisure travel figures being too high from Winslow, it'll be more of an Oxford/MK commuter satellite town with high car dependency for non-commuter travel rather than a standalone place like Bicester.

If Bletchley retains service to/from Bedford and beyond it isn't really needed.

I don't really see a scenario where this could happen though. Without a north-east chord it's the only route, and even with one, I don't see why the minimum 2tph Oxford-Cambridge service would skip it. If you propose diverting all EWR trains via MKC, the 10-15 minute time penalty of that for all non-MKC passengers would never be worth it to eliminate the 10-15 minute time-penalty incurred by the need to change at Bletchley for MKC from the Bedford direction. Inconveniencing the majority to save the minority a few minutes.

 

[cle]

Many have answered this - Bicester (Village and the town itself) have also exploded, proportionately - and will see a ton of inbound demand from this route too in off peak / weekend time too.

Basically, ever node along this route has transformed in one way or another. And the population, cost of motoring and mobility has evolved hugely since 1968 also. It's barely the same way of living. I actually think it's a circlejerk, as would be termed on reddit.

 

[The Pelican]

For the Marston Vale line stations, I'd look at one or two Class 398 serving a reversible third track sometimes seperate to the main EWR tracks, a bit like the isolated third track around Tottenham Hale. This would be combined with some sort of system for fast tacking planning permission for grade seperating the main line from roads. But the Class 398 could stick reasonably closely to the current road locations if needed, and in other sections share track with EWR for short distances.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

EWR has, probably quite accurately, been described as a housing project with a railway attached

On thinking hard, that is a good description imho.

 

[Farigiraf]

For the Marston Vale line stations, I'd look at one or two Class 398 serving a reversible third track sometimes seperate to the main EWR tracks, a bit like the isolated third track around Tottenham Hale. This would be combined with some sort of system for fast tacking planning permission for grade seperating the main line from roads. But the Class 398 could stick reasonably closely to the current road locations if needed, and in other sections share track with EWR for short distances.

This is along the lines of what I'd suggest as well. Saves the smaller stations, and possibly allows the longer-distance EWR services to miss out Lidlington and skip/stop Ridgmont, Bedford St Johns and Woburn Sands, which saves a few minutes and concentrates EWR services on longer distance flows which allows for more capacity (and therefore cheaper fares / more advances) between the larger cities.

But the big question is who'd pay for it? EWR got most of its funding as it connects two major tech hubs and 3 or 4 new/expanded towns. This would essentially be an interurban village link (that'd be a job for a bus if the railway didn't exist) that connects MK/Bedford with a few suburbs, a few villages and the two larger traffic sources of Lidlington and Universal. It's pretty excellent, and probably the ideal way to connect places like Ridgmont and Lidlington to MK city centre, but it's not exactly transformative enough to justify the few hundred million pounds it'd cost in addition to the main EWR project.

Which is why the easy option was chosen, closing half the stations and stopping EWR services at the ones that are saved. It's a lose-lose in terms of efficiency and connectivity, but a win-win if your goal is spending as little as possible (which is the DfT's main task right now). May get a few dozen village dwellers to switch to the car instead of the train for trips into Bedford/MK, and slows down end-to-end EWR trains by 10-15 mins, but the money saved could (but won't) be reinvested into something that'd certainly get a lot more mode shift for the same amount of money.

 

[Zomboid]

Aren't the stations which are going amongst the least used on the network? They mostly certainly don't justify their continued existence in the face of the upgrades to the route. There's literally nothing to serve at Kempston Hardwick and Millbrook. The south east MK ones might be a different matter, but not by enough to justify a call by EWR trains.

 

[Farigiraf]

Aren't the stations which are going amongst the least used on the network? They mostly certainly don't justify their continued existence in the face of the upgrades to the route. There's literally nothing to serve at Kempston Hardwick and Millbrook. The south east MK ones might be a different matter, but not by enough to justify a call by EWR trains.

With an hourly diesel shuttle that only goes as far as Bletchley, which has had atrocious reliability since COVID, it's not surprising there aren't many regular travellers.

If it was more useful, let's say half hourly direct to MK city centre, then it'd certainly be a lot busier, and would grow exponentially once the housing at Lidlington goes up. But even if you try to market the saving of the MVL local stopper as effectively providing a MK - Fenny Stratford - Woburn Sands - Lidlington high-frequency mass transit service, it's still far from worth the cost of implementation, since the stations aren't exactly surrounded by high density housing. If you were looking at mass transit routes to trial in MK, there are routes with far greater potential than the western MVL.

Plus, given that Universal Stewartby and Ridgmont M1 Parkway will still be served by EWR either way, most travellers to the busier stations still wouldn't take the local service.

It'd just be an outer-suburb villagehopper S-bahn style train, which is useful and fairly common in countries on the continent with better urban transport, but not exactly the best use of funds in a place like MK where the population compared to public transport provision is inherently abysmal.

 

[The Pelican]

I think a lot of our network operates on a sort of precedent system, where established unpopular stations are treated better than new unpopular stations- for example, in Scotland in the last 15 years, saving Breich was right and building Reston was probably a mistake. I don't think this needs to be held to absolutely, but I also think the bigger a project is, the more of this sort of thing it should try to do. Plenty of lines across the country might speed up a lot if the minor stations were closed, but it doesn't happen that often in the post-1980s world.

A 398 based- scheme just seems about the cheapest way to keep service to most of the stations, and should also be a quid pro quo for allowing modern concrete road and rail flyovers, footbridges and all the other things needed for the fast trains along the line.