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

[Farigiraf]

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.

Closing stations hasn't only become stigmatized in the last 20-30 years because people don't want to lose a transport link (no matter how useless it is).
Many minor stations have few passengers but are the only useful public transport link to a village, as so many rural buses have been cut over the years. It'd only be justifiable to close a rail station if you can provide a bus service that's equally as frequent, fast and reliable as the train service.

But since bus deregulation, providing and safeguarding such a bus route is a lot harder to do than doing nothing and keeping a station open. Tendered council routes have existed for a long time and franchising is becoming more common, but even these schemes are vulnerable to council budget cuts and conversion to DRT - e.g. in Cambridgeshire the plan post-franchising is to replace a lot of rural buses with DRT, which if you've ever tried DRT know isn't a suitable replacement.

Therefore it's an incredibly risky game to be closing minor halts and replacing them with buses. The mothballing strategy does allow you to close a station and replace it with a safeguarded RRB, but the fact that this has only happened a few times over the years, usually where the station's either totally useless or in the way of an upcoming major project, does show that most stations, even the small ones, do serve an important local purpose and all have differing levels of potential. There are a few where it would make sense - e.g. at Coombe Junction Halt if a bypass curve is ever built - but they're few and far between.

On the Marston Vale line the stations that are planned to be closed aren't totally useless, they each have a few dozen entries/exits a day which means that some people do find it more useful than the limited bus provision in the area. This means that normally closure wouldn't be worth the fallout, as you'd still have to provide a decent bus route. EWR is unique in that the value of the paths freed up by eliminating the MVL stopper is so high, being along the Oxford-Cambridge Arc, that you could probably subsidise taxis for each station user at the smaller halts and still be financially better off. That's separate from any ideas for a 398 operated service, which would be primarily for moving the Woburn & Lidlington calls off the faster trains and providing a new housing development a proper transport link into the nearest city centre.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

I don't think you get how important MK is to the viability of this line. It was simply not viable without it, which is why it closed - the New City came later and changed everything. I would venture that journeys involving MKC will wildly outnumber those not involving it, and that the demand for Oxford to Cambridge end to end will be very close to nil. OK, a bit, from the likes of students whose mate went to the other one, but very small.

It isn't an InterCity route. It will be like a more frequent microcosm of Liverpool to Norwich, with hardly anyone doing end to end and lots of overlapping short journeys. Thus a bit of time lost with the odd extra stop will be de minimis.

Though I do seem to recall overtaking loops at at least one MV station are being considered.

 

[Farigiraf]

I don't think you get how important MK is to the viability of this line. It was simply not viable without it, which is why it closed - the New City came later and changed everything. I would venture that journeys involving MKC will wildly outnumber those not involving it, and that the demand for Oxford to Cambridge end to end will be very close to nil. OK, a bit, from the likes of students whose mate went to the other one, but very small.

Sure, there won't be that much Oxford-Cambridge travel, but there'll certainly be quite a few local journeys which would still avoid MK post-northeast chord. Oxford-Bedford, Winslow-Cambridge, Bicester - Stewartby etc. - a fair amount of leisure travel on these routes. London - Bicester/Oxford - Universal - Cambridge will be one of the busiest routes for foreign tourists to take. To send these tourists to Milton Keynes, well, I'm not sure they'd revisit the UK after that

I don't see why diverting all trains via MK Central would be any better than simply running separate OXF-MKC, MKC-CBG and CBG-OXF trains all at half hourly frequencies - high capacity, high speed and a lot easier to understand. A half-hourly frequency to MK (or 4tph if you change at Bletchley) is perfectly adequate for all traffic to MKC from east of the city, noting that currently there's 0tph (there is the X5 bus but I suspect most EWR traffic will be from those who currently drive).

It's not as if Milton Keynes Central is particularly useful as a connector to most jobs/schools in the city if they're further than 20 minutes from the station, so most commuting will be limited to places in the CMK area - which is still a high amount, but I wouldn't say high enough to call it the main hub of EWR. From Oxford or Cambridge+CamSouth stations you can reach a lot more places quite easily. In reality there isn't really one place on EWR that would make it unviable if it wasn't served, it's mostly a joining up of 3 different commuter routes with new towns inbetween (Cambridge - Bedford, Bedford - MK, MK - Oxford) into a rail service that's also useful for end-to-end travellers. Connecting Oxford, Bicester Village, Winslow expansion, Lidlington expansion, Universal, Bedford, Tempsford new town, Cambourne expansion and Cambridge+Cambridge South already results in a high BCR, MK being along the line just makes it even better.

 

[Magdalia]

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

This is good news, and the right solution for the passenger service would be this.

A triangular network centred on the future Bletchley triangle, involving 2tph on each of Oxford-MKC, MKC-Cambridge and Oxford-Cambridge

Sure, there won't be that much Oxford-Cambridge travel

I'd expect Cambridge-Oxford to be at least as big as Cambridge-Norwich, probably bigger. It will need 2tph not going in and out of Milton Keynes. There is also likely to be significant traffic from the Oxford end to/from Universal, that does not need to go in and out of Milton Keynes.

Cambridge-Milton Keynes can be a big flow too, especially if it also gives good connectivity to/from WCML stations.

But a Bletchley North chord is not just about passengers. It is also essential for realising EWR's potential as a route for intermodal trains between Felixstowe and Northampton/Daventry.

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.

The EWR plans for Bedford St Johns in the last consultation were:

Since our previous consultation, we have assessed how the railway could best integrate with the emerging Bedford Hospital masterplan and wider development aspirations identified by Bedford Borough Council. Ensuring the station aligns with these plans is essential to achieving a joined‑up solution for the area. The existing single‑platform station at Bedford St Johns would be demolished and replaced with a new two‑platform station 130 metres to the north‑west, bringing it closer to Bedford Hospital. The new station would be an important access route to and from Bedford Hospital for staff, visitors and patients, while also supporting the area’s regeneration. As presented at our previous consultation, the proposed location for the new station remains between Ampthill Road and Cauldwell Street. However, the station building, concourse and facilities have been refined from our previous plans. We are working with Bedfordshire Hospitals NHS Trust, Bedford Borough Council and Network Rail to bring together development proposals for the area. The relocated station would create improved opportunities to link trips with different modes of transport to the front door of Bedford Hospital and more convenient access to key employment sites nearby. This would allow development opportunities to the east of the railway too. Increasing travel by rail to Bedford Hospital and nearby employment areas may help to ease pressure on town centre parking and reduce demand for vehicle access. The new Bedford St Johns station concourse would be elevated above the railway and would be accessible from both the east and west. Access would be provided via passenger lifts and a pedestrian footbridge. This footbridge would be accessible to people without train tickets, and would make local walking and cycling more convenient and direct, complementing Bedford Borough Council’s plans for housing and employment growth in the immediate vicinity of the station.

"Small and unfit for purpose" is not the description that I would use.

 

[stevieinselby]

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 key point there is that the cost of running a station is tiny compared to the cost of building it.

If a station is already there and trains will still be running through it, then unless it has a big negative impact on the operational efficiency of the line, the savings from closing it will be minimal, so it doesn't need to be bringing in a lot of bacon for it to be worthwhile keeping it open. In a small number of cases, closing some very minor stations might cut journey times enough that it will have a bigger impact on boosting ridership between bigger destinations that it would offset the passengers lost from closing the smaller stations, but that is going to be a pretty unusual situation given the current network. An upgraded Marston Vale line is one of the few places where it might well be true.

By contrast, a new station will cost a huuuuge amount of money to build, and so for that investment to be worthwhile you need to be getting a decent number of new passengers – a much higher threshold than that for keeping an existing station open.

 

[The Pelican]

A key point there is that the cost of running a station is tiny compared to the cost of building it.

If a station is already there and trains will still be running through it, then unless it has a big negative impact on the operational efficiency of the line, the savings from closing it will be minimal, so it doesn't need to be bringing in a lot of bacon for it to be worthwhile keeping it open. In a small number of cases, closing some very minor stations might cut journey times enough that it will have a bigger impact on boosting ridership between bigger destinations that it would offset the passengers lost from closing the smaller stations, but that is going to be a pretty unusual situation given the current network. An upgraded Marston Vale line is one of the few places where it might well be true.

By contrast, a new station will cost a huuuuge amount of money to build, and so for that investment to be worthwhile you need to be getting a decent number of new passengers – a much higher threshold than that for keeping an existing station open.

I think if you look at the Welsh Marches line, or Shrewsbury-Aberystwyth, as examples of fast reigonal railways, it's pretty clear that, for other lines, closing at least half of the stations and running something like a 158 as quickly as possible (certainly lots of 90) can lead to some impressive journey times suprisingly close to a 125mph mainline. It's a bit like the way the Cotswold line and the South Western Exeter mainline were both relaid for fast speeds on the singled sections using the full formation. It's easy to imagine that, given the investment, this would make most railway sections more likely to be profitable. But the railway's public transport function is seen as particularly important by the government, which quite rightly means avoiding station closures.

 

[stevieinselby]

I think if you look at the Welsh Marches line, or Shrewsbury-Aberystwyth, as examples of fast reigonal railways, it's pretty clear that, for other lines, closing at least half of the stations and running something like a 158 as quickly as possible (certainly lots of 90) can lead to some impressive journey times suprisingly close to a 125mph mainline. It's a bit like the way the Cotswold line and the South Western Exeter mainline were both relaid for fast speeds on the singled sections using the full formation. It's easy to imagine that, given the investment, this would make most railway sections more likely to be profitable. But the railway's public transport function is seen as particularly important by the government, which quite rightly means avoiding station closures.

Which lines do you have in mind?

One route that is often suggested for speeding up is Skegness to Nottingham, which includes lots of piddling little stations like Havenhouse and Hubberts Bridge. But here's the thing – for most of the day, those minor stations are effectively closed already, they only get 2 or 3 trains each way a day, with most trains passing straight through.

The reason the end-to-end journey time is a painfully slow and unappealing 2 hours is not the existence of Swineshead station, it's the fact the east of Grantham the trains are plodding along at 50–60mph.

Fur the most part, the kind of stations you're looking to close only get a skeleton service anyway, are on lines where there isn't much potential to increase ridership, and/or are on lines where a slow linespeed is more of a limiting factor.

 

[cle]

Sure, there won't be that much Oxford-Cambridge travel, but there'll certainly be quite a few local journeys which would still avoid MK post-northeast chord. Oxford-Bedford, Winslow-Cambridge, Bicester - Stewartby etc. - a fair amount of leisure travel on these routes. London - Bicester/Oxford - Universal - Cambridge will be one of the busiest routes for foreign tourists to take. To send these tourists to Milton Keynes, well, I'm not sure they'd revisit the UK after that

I don't see why diverting all trains via MK Central would be any better than simply running separate OXF-MKC, MKC-CBG and CBG-OXF trains all at half hourly frequencies - high capacity, high speed and a lot easier to understand. A half-hourly frequency to MK (or 4tph if you change at Bletchley) is perfectly adequate for all traffic to MKC from east of the city, noting that currently there's 0tph (there is the X5 bus but I suspect most EWR traffic will be from those who currently drive).

It's not as if Milton Keynes Central is particularly useful as a connector to most jobs/schools in the city if they're further than 20 minutes from the station, so most commuting will be limited to places in the CMK area - which is still a high amount, but I wouldn't say high enough to call it the main hub of EWR. From Oxford or Cambridge+CamSouth stations you can reach a lot more places quite easily. In reality there isn't really one place on EWR that would make it unviable if it wasn't served, it's mostly a joining up of 3 different commuter routes with new towns inbetween (Cambridge - Bedford, Bedford - MK, MK - Oxford) into a rail service that's also useful for end-to-end travellers. Connecting Oxford, Bicester Village, Winslow expansion, Lidlington expansion, Universal, Bedford, Tempsford new town, Cambourne expansion and Cambridge+Cambridge South already results in a high BCR, MK being along the line just makes it even better.

There is barely any Plymouth-Edinburgh demand... or Norwich-Liverpool / Stansted-Birmingham as others have mentioned.

Now that all the Marston stops and all the new new towns are being added, this is a nippy stopper - basically. 100mph but really 5-10 mins between each station.

As such it is all about the overlapping pairs, and the connections, much like XC. Oxford/Cambridge are hub end points (the two busiest stations by far at 8m and ~11m, MKC is next @ ~6m) - so many journeys will involve them, but many will not. And many will involve a change at Bedford or Bletchley - which have various N/S links. MKC will be a WCML/Avanti connection (the Crewe should call at Bletchley in future IMO) - but Bletchley will be used for the likes of Hemel, Watford, Northampton.

In short, we will see a ton of new patterns and journey opportunities enabled. Be-robed dons going between Oxford/Cambridge is fantasy, but makes for good press, I suppose.

 

[Palmerston]

Re. Winslow v Bicester....Winslow will have no London services at all

True at first, but if Winslow expands like Bicester a direct connection via Aylesbury becomes more and more likely

 

[cle]

True at first, but if Winslow expands like Bicester a direct connection via Aylesbury becomes more and more likely

I don't think those EWR Aylesbury services would continue to London, as planned - it was via High Wycombe too. But yes it could change in time. The works on the line between them are being done.