East-West Rail (EWR): Consultation updates [not speculation]

[Bletchleyite]

I thought the theme Park was looking for access from both the MML and East West Rail? So two stations.

It might want that but that doesn't mean it will get it. Perhaps it will pressure for moving Stewartby to the edge of its site, but leaving the Millennium Country Park with no station within a few miles would to me be criminal - the last thing you want to do at such places of natural beauty is to add more car traffic.

 

[Magdalia]

a loop somewhere would do the trick.

See the Technical Report section 7.9.5.

7.9.5 Passing loops Six options have been identified for the location of passing loops which would be constructed in the Ridgmont and Stewartby area as shown in Figure 63. There are three westbound loop options and three eastbound options, with only one loop required in each direction. There are four passing loop options proposed around Stewartby: • West of the railway, south of Green Lane. • East of the railway, south of Broadmead Road and opposite the former brickworks sidings. • East of the railway, north of Broadmead Road. • West of the railway, north of Broadmead Road. The location of the passing loops would be influenced by the decision on station concept and the potential relocated station options for Ridgmont and Stewartby. This is because the proposals overlap with station options. An option appraisal will be undertaken prior to the statutory consultation once station locations have been confirmed. All loops at this consultation are included in the draft Order Limits boundary

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2025 ==

I don't see why local users and residents should be punished to allow someone to save 5 minutes on a journey between Oxford and Cambridge.

Like with HS2, the issue is line capacity not journey times. The slower the train, the more capacity it takes up that can't be used for other trains. The technical report has lots of figures of the low usage at intermediate stations in the Marston Vale: not many people will be affected, and many more will benefit, including people in Marston Vale getting access to Oxford and Cambridge for the first time in more than 60 years.

 

[DarloRich]

The technical report has lots of figures of the low usage at intermediate stations in the Marston Vale

which cant be trusted as there are no ticket checks and there has been long periods ( like a year!) with no blooming train service.

including people in Marston Vale getting access to Oxford and Cambridge for the first time in more than 60 years.

Only if you live at Woburn or Ridgmont because if the other stations close 9.9/1- people will just drive. I will just buy a car if my station closes. If i buy a car my train usage will fall to almost zero.

I also ( along with most local residents or users I suspect) with most don't care how quick you can get to Oxford or Cambridge. I just want to go to MK or London or Bedford!

 

[Magdalia]

which cant be trusted as there are no ticket checks and there has been long periods ( like a year!) with no blooming train service.

Actually EWR have quoted the 2019/20 numbers, not using anything from the long periods when there was no service, see this for Fenny Stratford in section 7.1.4.3:

Fenny Stratford and Bow Brickhill stations Fenny Stratford currently experiences low levels of existing usage (approximately 84 entries and exits per day in 2019/20). This is not expected to increase significantly, noting that the surrounding area is already well-developed....... At less than two miles to the west of Woburn Sands, Bow Brickhill currently experiences higher level of usage, though still among the lowest nationally (approximately 132 entries and exits per day in 2019/20).

I also ( along with most local residents or users I suspect) with most don't care how quick you can get to Oxford or Cambridge. I just want to go to MK or London!

But there are not very many of you, and what the government and EWR care about is getting thousands of people in and out of Oxford and Cambridge every day.

 

[DarloRich]

Actually EWR have quoted the 2019/20 numbers, not using anything from the long periods when there was no service, see this for Fenny Stratford in section 7.1.4.3:

I repeat: the figures quoted are not reliable. Tickets are very rarely checked. I cant recall the last time my ticket was checked at any point along the line. More accurate would be to say 84 honest people are stupid enough to actually buy a ticket for the otherwise free MV service!

I will happily admit the stations are not Clapham Junction alike but they are used by more people than the "official" figures suggest and if the service was any good more would use it. After all, there have been few periods when there has actually been a reliable service. I have used ( or at least tried to use!) the line almost everyday for 12 years so should know.

PS Still no Sunday service despite several promises. At least if E-W get their way I can watch the trains travel past the remains of my station every Sunday from about 2137. I will be at the level crossing, which isn't going to close, in my new car driving somewhere while the train trundles past at about the same speed as today. It may as well pick me up at Fenny

But there are not very many of you, and what the government and EWR care about is getting thousands of people in and out of Oxford and Cambridge every day.

There would be more passengers if the service could be relied upon! You know like when E-W have upgraded the line and decent trains are in use.........................

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Is it not kind of like this:
Rail Industry- we are upgrading your line
MV residents- hooray
Rail Industry- but you can't use it

There seems to me to be a danger of ending up with a line that is busy at both ends has a certain amount of traffic along it but that slams the door shut on the entire, or at least a large number, of the current potential users who actually, as DarloRich says, want to go to London or MK or Bedford.

 

[Magdalia]

I repeat: the figures quoted are not reliable. Tickets are very rarely checked. I cant recall the last time my ticket was checked at any point along the line. More accurate would be to say 84 honest people are stupid enough to actually buy a ticket for the otherwise free MV service!

I will happily admit the stations are not Clapham Junction alike but they are used by more people than the "official" figures suggest and if the service was any good more would use it. After all, there have been few periods when there has actually been a reliable service. I have used ( or at least tried to use!) the line almost everyday for 12 years so should know.

Here are the 2019/20 daily figures for all of the Marston Vale stations, from section 7 of the Technical Report:

Fenny Stratford 84
Bow Brickhill 132
Woburn Sands 149
Aspley Guise 30
Ridgmont 84
Lidlington 63
Millbrook 39
Stewartby 233
Kempston Hardwick 34

Even if we assumed 50% fare evasion and doubled everything, lots of those numbers are still small.

2024/25 data will give us a much better picture, but I'd guess we are going to have to wait until November for that.

At least if E-W get their way I can watch the trains travel past the remains of my station every Sunday from about 2137. I will be at the level crossing, which isn't going to close, in my new car driving somewhere while the train trundles past at about the same speed as today. It may as well pick me up at Fenny

Consultation is an iterative process. What is in the current proposal isn't necessarily what gets into the Development Consent Order application. There is this round of consultation and a further statutory consultation to happen before the Development Consent Order application goes in. The Consolidated Stations Option is what it says on the tin. It is an option not a foregone conclusion.

Reading section 7 of the Technical Report I think that the key to what happens in Marston Vale is Stewartby, where there a turnback platform proposed in both the Existing Stations Option and the Consolidated Stations Option, plus passing loops. It seems to me only a small step from there to a new Stewartby station with 4 through platforms, that could also be used for turnbacks, with consequent impact on line capacity.

If I were a betting person then my money would be on the Stewartby/Kempston Hardwick, Lidlington/Millbrook and Aspley Guise/Ridgmont consolidations happening but Bow Brickhill and possibly also Fenny Stratford surviving. The problems that Fenny Stratford has are the limited scope for new development around the station to generate new traffic, and how close it is to Bletchley. But I suspect that line capacity over the Bletchley-Bedford section as a whole will be the key factor in determining the outcome, which is why what happens further along the line matters.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Here are the 2019/20 daily figures for all of the Marston Vale stations, from section 7 of the Technical Report:

Fenny Stratford 84
Bow Brickhill 132
Woburn Sands 149
Aspley Guise 30
Ridgmont 84
Lidlington 63
Millbrook 39
Stewartby 233
Kempston Hardwick 34

Even if we assumed 50% fare evasion and doubled everything, lots of those numbers are still small.

I wouldn't use 2019, the unreliability of the 230s had already destroyed the service. Not saying it'd be much higher, but I'd look at 2017 or thereabouts for when a reasonably reliable service was running with the 150 and 153.

 

[Magdalia]

I wouldn't use 2019, the unreliability of the 230s had already destroyed the service. Not saying it'd be much higher, but I'd look at 2017 or thereabouts for when a reasonably reliable service was running with the 150 and 153.

I have used the data quoted by EWR in the Technical Report.

The Office of Rail and Road website appears to have broken links for earlier data.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I have used the data quoted by EWR in the Technical Report.

Which I suspect they've selected because it suits their purposes. The figure for Woburn Sands in particular looks rather low.

The Office of Rail and Road website appears to have broken links for earlier data.

Shame.

 

[Magdalia]

Which I suspect they've selected because it suits their purposes. The figure for Woburn Sands in particular looks rather low.

It is probably the least worst of the available options.

If I were attending either of the Bletchley or Woburn Sands consultation events next week I think I would be talking about station usage data.

 

[Jimbo]

It is probably the least worst of the available options.

If I were attending either of the Bletchley or Woburn Sands consultation events next week I think I would be talking about station usage data.

At the risk of asking a stupid question, are the station usage data only based on ticket purchases? Or do they have an alternative means (in the absence of ticket barriers), e.g. a people counter at the entrances/exits, AI counting of CCTV footage etc?

 

[bspahh]

These are the estimated entries and exits for 2017-2018 from

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1220/table-1410-estimates-of-station-usage-2017-18.ods

Estimates of Station Usage 2017-2018

Station Name	Entries & Exits_Full	Entries & Exits_Reduced	Entries & Exits_Season	1718 Entries & Exits	1617 Entries & Exits	1718 Entries & Exits - GB rank
Fenny Stratford	4,892​	9,038​	8,702​	22,632​	24,974​	2,194​
Bow Brickhill	6,158​	7,164​	25,524​	38,846​	40,626​	2,065​
Woburn Sands	9,634​	17,108​	19,864​	46,606​	38,942​	2,009​
Aspley Guise	2,412​	3,614​	3,936​	9,962​	9,454​	2,317​
Ridgmont	6,174​	11,714​	18,562​	36,450​	34,388​	2,084​
Lidlington	2,208​	11,112​	14,190​	27,510​	27,326​	2,152​
Stewartby	6,064​	11,794​	30,554​	48,412​	36,976​	1,993​
Kempston Hardwick	3,246​	3,332​	3,264​	9,842​	11,806​	2,318​
Bedford St.Johns	25,434​	84,209​	76,995​	186,638​	183,826​	1,427​

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just 30 per day (Mon-Sat) at Woburn Sands? Surprised it's so low - and surprised Fenny isn't lower.

Those are in "would struggle to justify a couple of buses a day" territory, never mind the railway! Might shift my view a bit on whether the consolidated stations option is better.

 

[CdBrux]

I would imagine locations for future MV line stations would in some large part be linked to where (lots of) new houses can be built. Don't forget a decent part of the reason to build the line is to extend the travel to work catchment area of Oxford and Cambridge, possibly even more so for the new government

 

[DarloRich]

If I were attending either of the Bletchley or Woburn Sands consultation events next week I think I would be talking about station usage data.

are you reading my mind?

These are the estimated full annual entries and exits for 2017-2018

They are still unreliable for the reasons noted above

Reading section 7 of the Technical Report I think that the key to what happens in Marston Vale is Stewartby, where there a turnback platform proposed in both the Existing Stations Option and the Consolidated Stations Option, plus passing loops. It seems to me only a small step from there to a new Stewartby station with 4 through platforms, that could also be used for turnbacks, with consequent impact on line capacity.

I think this is a fair comment with which I agree

If I were a betting person then my money would be on the Stewartby/Kempston Hardwick, Lidlington/Millbrook and Aspley Guise/Ridgmont consolidations happening but Bow Brickhill and possibly also Fenny Stratford surviving.

Liddlington is the one with the most local opposition. It really isn't popular not helped by the previous E-W plan to cut the village in half by closing the level crossing.

I suspect the level crossings are the real capacity eater and by extension the reason some of the stations survive.

The problems that Fenny Stratford has are the limited scope for new development around the station to generate new traffic, and how close it is to Bletchley.

Agreed, but that said E-W haven't looked very far. Within walking distance of Fenny Stratford station (with Bow Brickhill closer but harder/less safe to reach on foot) is the "Woburn Downs" (!) development which is part of the final fill in section of MK. It should eventually cover the whole area bordered by the canal, Watling Street & the A4146.

There are also lots of plans for various sites near the station but nothing, beyond the new flats on Simpson Road have come forward. Who knows if any of it actually happens. It hasn't yet!

However, the biggest issue with all of this is the lack of "sign posting" to public transport generally in any of these developments! The residents drive to where they work.

 

[edwin_m]

Reading section 7 of the Technical Report I think that the key to what happens in Marston Vale is Stewartby, where there a turnback platform proposed in both the Existing Stations Option and the Consolidated Stations Option, plus passing loops. It seems to me only a small step from there to a new Stewartby station with 4 through platforms, that could also be used for turnbacks, with consequent impact on line capacity.

Stewartby is the wrong place for passenger trains to overtake, as it's too close to Bedford. Any overtake needs to be near the midpoint of Bletchley-Bedford to maximise capacity benefit.

Also, if a train is overtaken, then it should preferably be at a station where the overtaking train doesn't stop. Otherwise the train being overtaken has to wait that much longer in the station. Passengers travelling between two stations where both trains stop but with an overtake in between will use for the overtaking train, which is likely to be the majority of the ridership. For this reason the overtake option makes the all-stations train a "local train for local people" which doesn't go beyond Bletchley or Bedford.

I suspect the level crossings are the real capacity eater and by extension the reason some of the stations survive.

The capacity issue is about the travel time difference between stopping and non-stopping trains. Level crossing closure times are a separate issue, and depend mostly on the total number of trains per hour.

 

[12LDA28C]

Just 30 per day (Mon-Sat) at Woburn Sands? Surprised it's so low - and surprised Fenny isn't lower.

Those are in "would struggle to justify a couple of buses a day" territory, never mind the railway! Might shift my view a bit on whether the consolidated stations option is better.

30 per day? Where do you get that figure from? Unless I'm reading it wrong, entries & exits for Woburn Sands were 46,606 in 2017/18. That's rather more than 30 per day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

30 per day? Where do you get that figure from? Unless I'm reading it wrong, entries & exits for Woburn Sands were 46,606 in 2017/18. That's rather more than 30 per day.

Appears the post was updated since I posted that - only the left column was originally shown. The updated one (about 150 per day) is more like it.

 

[12LDA28C]

Also, if a train is overtaken, then it should preferably be at a station where the overtaking train doesn't stop. Otherwise the train being overtaken has to wait that much longer in the station.

I'd be very surprised if a passing loop is provided at a station, that seems most unlikely. Surely it would be between stations, to prevent having to demolish and relocate platforms for a start.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd be very surprised if a passing loop is provided at a station, that seems most unlikely. Surely it would be between stations, to prevent having to demolish and relocate platforms for a start.

If the consolidated stations option is chosen, the stations will all be demolished and relocated anyway. It's basically a complete rebuild.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd be very surprised if a passing loop is provided at a station, that seems most unlikely. Surely it would be between stations, to prevent having to demolish and relocate platforms for a start.

In which case the delay to the overtaken train will be even longer, because it will have to make an extra stop away from a station.

 

[12LDA28C]

In which case the delay to the overtaken train will be even longer, because it will have to make an extra stop away from a station.

Indeed. But you're not going to have a fast train overtaking a slow train at a station unless you install a 'centre road' for passing purposes (if the platforms are on the outside), or a passing loop around the outside of a platform which is even more unlikely. Both options would require significant demolition and/or construction.

 

[Magdalia]

These are the estimated entries and exits for 2017-2018

Thanks. These aren't very different from the 2019/20 numbers quoted by EWR.

Agreed, but that said E-W haven't looked very far. Within walking distance of Fenny Stratford station (with Bow Brickhill closer but harder/less safe to reach on foot) is the "Woburn Downs" (!) development which is part of the final fill in section of MK. It should eventually cover the whole area bordered by the canal, Watling Street & the A4146.

Thanks. I didn't know about Woburn Downs. One bit of estate agent puffery that I found gave the nearest station as Bletchley!

Stewartby is the wrong place for passenger trains to overtake, as it's too close to Bedford. Any overtake needs to be near the midpoint of Bletchley-Bedford to maximise capacity benefit.

That depends on what is being overtaken and direction of travel.

I think Stewartby is a good place for loops. Eastbound that would be mainly to overtake freights which can then be regulated through Bedford. Eastbound there shouldn't be much need for one passenger train to overtake another. Westbound that could be for stopping passenger trains, before all of the little stations, or freight.

I'd be very surprised if a passing loop is provided at a station, that seems most unlikely. Surely it would be between stations, to prevent having to demolish and relocate platforms for a start.

The existing stations option already has an additional turnback platform for Stewartby see the Technical Report section 7.9.1:

Under the Existing Stations Option (Concept 1a) for the MVL, an additional platform would be required at Stewartby Station to accommodate the two proposed services that would run between Stewartby and Cambridge. The station would have three platforms in total, two through platforms and one turnback platform to enable trains from Cambridge to terminate at Stewartby. To deliver this, a new platform face would be constructed creating an island platform between the existing railway and the new turnback track. A new accessible footbridge would provide access across the tracks. Emergency exits from each platform would also be provided. The station would also see the existing platforms widened and lengthened

Indeed. But you're not going to have a fast train overtaking a slow train at a station unless you install a 'centre road' for passing purposes (if the platforms are on the outside), or a passing loop around the outside of a platform which is even more unlikely. Both options would require significant demolition and/or construction.

In the consolidated stations option Stewartby would be a completely new station in a new location so any track layout is possible.

 

[12LDA28C]

I think Stewartby is a good place for loops. Eastbound that would be mainly to overtake freights which can then be regulated through Bedford. Eastbound there shouldn't be much need for one passenger train to overtake another. Westbound that could be for stopping passenger trains, before all of the little stations, or freight.


The existing stations option already has an additional turnback platform for Stewartby see the Technical Report section 7.9.1:




In the consolidated stations option Stewartby would be a completely new station in a new location so any track layout is possible.

Why is Stewartby a good place for loops? (ignoring the fact that there are already loops at Stewartby which are not ideally located for EWR)?

As suggested upthread. a more centrally-located loop would be better for a fast train to overtake a stopping train (if a local service is retained, or if much freight is pathed over EWR).

A 'turnback' platform at Stewartby would not provide a passing loop either although there is no reason why a passing loop at the station could not also be used for trains reversing back towards Cambridge as long as dwell times are kept to a minimum.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suspect the reason for Stewartby is likely extra demand for the theme park.

 

[Merle Haggard]

The current usage data for Fenny Stratford shows Bletchley as the 2nd (after Bedford) most popular destination which seems odd as it's only 1.2 miles by road. But generally some of the stats in the database are puzzling.

 

[paulmch]

At the risk of asking a stupid question, are the station usage data only based on ticket purchases? Or do they have an alternative means (in the absence of ticket barriers), e.g. a people counter at the entrances/exits, AI counting of CCTV footage etc?

It's almost entirely based on ticket sales, with a few exceptions where an exact count isn't possible and an estimate needs to be made (like tickets only available to a group of stations such as London Terminals or Birmingham Stations, or journeys made using local authority-provided free travel arrangements).

It's not a perfect measure as it doesn't capture ticketless travel, but then why should the railway care about the needs of people who are effectively stealing from them?

 

[edwin_m]

That depends on what is being overtaken and direction of travel.

I think Stewartby is a good place for loops. Eastbound that would be mainly to overtake freights which can then be regulated through Bedford. Eastbound there shouldn't be much need for one passenger train to overtake another. Westbound that could be for stopping passenger trains, before all of the little stations, or freight.

The discussion upthread does suggest that freight loops are proposed. But for passenger trains, if the loop is that close to Bedford, then you don't benefit much over just passing the slow train when it starts or terminates there.

I suspect the reason for Stewartby is likely extra demand for the theme park.

The theme park is not agreed. I suspect it's about providing a better service for an area of new housing, plus being cheaper to add a new platform there than the extra one that would otherwise be needed to terminate a Cambridge train at Bedford.

 

[Trainbike46]

The current usage data for Fenny Stratford shows Bletchley as the 2nd (after Bedford) most popular destination which seems odd as it's only 1.2 miles by road. But generally some of the stats in the database are puzzling.

Split tickets could be part of the reason for that - the popularity of split tickets has thoroughly messed up origin/destination stats based on ticket sales