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

[InTheEastMids]

Which I suspect they've selected because it suits their purposes.

The figure for Woburn Sands in particular looks rather low.

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.

ORR does provide historic station usage, all the way back to 97/98, it's in a different dataset - Table 1415 is what you need to look for.
I am sure the below repeats analysis that EWR would have done when deciding to baseline against 19/20.

My table omits 20/21 (nobody travelled) and is only every 5 years until 2015, helping see long-term trends but hopefully keeping the table manageable size.

Since 2021, it's like the pandemic never ended... So it's very clear why EWR have used pre-pandemic station usage.
Stewartby and St Johns look like star performers, but the St Johns increases by a factor of 10x in 07/08 and again by 10x in 12/13 so perhaps these are methodology changes? Either way you can see why EWR wants St Johns over Fenny Stratford, and has thought up the idea of Stewartby-Cambridge services.

However I don't see much evidence of why 19/20 is a really bad year to baseline against. Overall usage had fallen a bit, but aside from Stewartby, but it still provides a reasonable answer to the question of "which stations are busy, and which are not?"

Table 1415-Time series of passenger entries, exits and interchanges by station (year ending 31/03/20XX)

Station name	2000	2005	2010	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2022	2023	2024
Aspley Guise	14,795	11,202	11,348	10,086	9,564	9,454	9,962	11,636	9,408	4,146	4,650	3,320
Bedford St Johns	327	470	11,908	173,191	178,636	183,826	186,638	189,276	180,520	108,408	141,586	151,452
Bow Brickhill	23,772	22,415	26,938	40,918	43,016	40,626	38,846	43,410	41,340	17,046	18,532	13,274
Fenny Stratford	21,539	18,507	15,580	27,134	27,416	24,974	22,632	26,292	26,446	7,230	11,350	6,420
Kempston Hardwick	1,983	2,955	6,350	7,712	10,022	11,806	9,842	9,692	10,494	3,154	4,458	2,296
Lidlington	23,627	16,257	21,028	28,742	25,794	27,326	27,510	26,888	19,628	9,544	11,542	8,206
Millbrook (Bedfordshire)	8,305	11,744	12,758	16,384	16,084	13,654	11,324	12,504	12,250	3,618	6,566	2,312
Ridgmont	13,178	28,021	24,028	35,428	37,200	34,388	36,450	31,532	26,208	10,604	11,570	9,142
Stewartby	9,732	16,529	15,502	32,330	36,326	36,976	48,412	61,542	72,748	76,872	72,444	47,456
Woburn Sands	52,047	42,382	38,958	42,408	44,674	38,942	46,606	51,606	46,704	19,718	24,618	19,576

 

[Bletchleyite]

Since 2021, it's like the pandemic never ended... So it's very clear why EWR have used pre-pandemic station usage.
Stewartby and St Johns look like star performers, but the St Johns increases by a factor of 10x in 07/08 and again by 10x in 12/13 so perhaps these are methodology changes? Either way you can see why EWR wants St Johns over Fenny Stratford, and has thought up the idea of Stewartby-Cambridge services.

It would be interesting to know what the methodology is. If St John's is heavily used as a ticketed destination kind of fair enough (though I still think most users could use Midland instead as they're so close). But what St John's absolutely is is a fare dodger's way out - Midland is gated. I similarly wonder if some users of Fenny use it because you don't have to pay (Bletchley is gated, though the gates are in use far less often than those at Bedford).

Again depending on methodology I'm inclined to think the post-COVID lack of recovery is a combination of no ticket checks (so no need to pay for many) and the woefully useless service that has operated during most of that period due to the unreliability of the 230s (and now the 150s are here due to staffing issues - it's better but not *that* much better, probably on a par with much of Northern's rural hourly service).

 

[Mikey C]

I assume that the vast majority of people in Fenny Stratford wanting to use the train are going to London, and presumably a lot of them walk/drive/bus to Bletchley.

 

[Magdalia]

The discussion upthread does suggest that freight loops are proposed.

Why is Stewartby a good place for loops?

The loops proposed in the current consultation are primarily to provide paths for freight. A key factor in location of loops is so that they can help to manage traffic flows through the most congested areas, and one of those is Bedford. The Stewartby and Colesden loops (Technical Report section 9.2) are close to Bedford for this reason. Similarly the Hauxton Junction loops (section 12.3.1) are to help to manage traffic flows through Cambridge.

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

The key factor for the turnback platform at Stewartby is housebuilding within commuting range of Cambridge.

I don't see much evidence of why 19/20 is a really bad year to baseline against. Overall usage had fallen a bit, but aside from Stewartby, but it still provides a reasonable answer to the question of "which stations are busy, and which are not?"

I agree, though the 2024/25 data is going to be interesting.

It would be interesting to know what the methodology is.

The Office of Rail and Road Quality and Methodology Report is here:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1917/station-usage-quality-and-methodology-report.pdf

Estimates of station usage Quality and methodology report 21 November 2024

 

[zwk500]

It would be interesting to know what the methodology is.

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/media/1903/station-usage-and-origin-destination-matrix-steer-historical-methodological-changes.pdf

The ORR (and Steer, the company that does most of the number crunching) publish their methodology alongside the numbers. It's always been primarily ticket sales (pre-2003 was CAPRI, since 2004 has been LENNON) with then various adjustments based on estimates of things like split tickets and so forth.
Over the years things like PAYG taps and mobile phone data have been added as data sources.

I don't know if things like short-faring or doughnutting are sufficiently signficant to need adjustment, but then I'd also suggest that people not paying proper fares shouldn't really be considered as part of the service strategy. The biggest challenge for the methodology is allocation of group tickets (e.g. Travelcards, or 'ANYTOWN STATIONS' correctly, and split ticketing.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

I don't know if things like short-faring or doughnutting are sufficiently signficant to need adjustment, but then I'd also suggest that people not paying proper fares shouldn't really be considered as part of the service strategy.

On the contrary, the service strategy should take fare-avoiding passengers very seriously and therefore include plans to prevent fare evasion. The opening assumption should be that if forced to choose between either paying or finding an alternative means of transport, fare avoiders will decide that paying is the better option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the contrary, the service strategy should take fare-avoiding passengers very seriously and therefore include plans to prevent fare evasion. The opening assumption should be that if forced to choose between either paying or finding an alternative means of transport, fare avoiders will decide that paying is the better option.

But not the strategy of surveying passenger numbers. Fare evasion is a separate matter.

Given the above information I indeed suspect the lower figures since COVID are a combination of the shoddy service and of ticket checks being very rare (what it is with Bletchley guards?) aside from the two gated stations at the ends.

 

[WolvertonWorks]

A lot of the Bow Brickhill passengers were children going to fee-paying schools in Bedford - when there was a small car park at BB station and one passed at the appropriate time it would be full and there would be more cars parked nearby too.

With the prolonged temporary closure of the line and the RRBs the majority of these children found alternative means of transport - and I wonder if less parents have chosen to send their children to schools in Bedford because the transport options became less viable.

The car park was also sold to RedBull so there is no convenient parking to attract people to use the station now.

But there is a sign saying "Bow Brickhill for Caldecotte and Tilbrook" on the platform - I'm assuming paid for buy Red Bull to show they are encouraging their staff, and those to the (as yet empty) newly built huge warehouses on the other side of the line, to ditch the car and travel by public transport.

And the plans for developing more of MK include building in the fields along the line from BB to Woburn Sands which should generate more potential passengers for both BB and WS assuming both still exist by then.

We are going to look at the latest plans when they are available for viewing in Woburn Sands on Friday next week (17th Jan).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Woburn Sands will be - it's the busiest intermediate and if I recall rightly intending to be served by all EWR trains.

 

[InTheEastMids]

It would be interesting to know what the methodology is. If St John's is heavily used as a ticketed destination kind of fair enough

The ORR (and Steer, the company that does most of the number crunching) publish their methodology alongside the numbers.

Thanks, looks definite that methodology as a passenger count was done in 14/15 that determined a 96:4 split of "Bedford Stations" tickets in favour of Midland.
There don't seem to be any fares to Bedford St Johns only (except from Bedford Midland).

But obviously 4% of a big number is still quite a big number, so that's why St Johns saw a big jump that year.

 

[jfowkes]

I went to the EWR consultation event in Comberton this evening. I asked about discontinuous electrification and whether it was the "a few small sections under bridges" kind of discontinuous or the "large sections several miles long" kind.

Unfortunately it's looking like the second. They don't know which sections, but the design will be for basically as little electrification as they can get away with given constraints like rolling stock/battery performance, feeder station location etc.

This will be the case even for the new section between Bedford and Cambridge. It will be built with necessary clearances for future electrification, but that section will have parts that are not electrified at the outset.

This was explained to be basically a cost driven decision. Cheaper capital cost and cheaper operating costs.

Personally I think this is a terrible idea. Firstly I'm not at all convinced the operating costs will be lower. BEMUs will need more energy to accelerate and charge and they will put more wear on the track compared to pure EMUs.
Secondly at some point they'll want to electrify the rest and the railway will have to be disrupted while that happens.
Thirdly, reducing carbon emissions should be the overriding concern and OLE being the most efficient way to power trains, this should be the choice of traction power.

I'm pretty much going to copy-paste this rant verbatim into the consultation webpage.

(As an aside, Comberton is basically anti-EWR central. It was very busy. One guy said I was only the third person who was at all positive about the project. When I jokingly said "build it, build it now, electrify it all, four track the lot" I got an evil look from someone who overheard me.)

 

[Magdalia]

I went to the EWR consultation event in Comberton this evening.

Thanks for your report.

the design will be for basically as little electrification as they can get away with given constraints like rolling stock/battery performance, feeder station location etc.

This will be the case even for the new section between Bedford and Cambridge. It will be built with necessary clearances for future electrification, but that section will have parts that are not electrified at the outset.

This was explained to be basically a cost driven decision. Cheaper capital cost and cheaper operating costs.

Personally I think this is a terrible idea.

On the other hand I think this is excellent news. Here's why.

Here in the Fens we benefitted hugely from the electrifications of the 1980s and 1990s, notably Royston-Cambridge in 1988 and Cambridge-Kings Lynn in 1992. Both of these were "cheap and cheerful" schemes which got the wires up quickly without the need for expensive new infrastructure. The lack of new feeder stations was a big part of that, but meant restrictions on the number of trains that could be run, and everything had to be 4 cars only. Improvements to the electricity supply and longer trains came later, once the electric service had become established and produced rapid traffic growth.

That's in contrast to the last BR "gold plated" electrification to Royston, completed in 1978, having been planned nearly 20 years earlier.

I see discontinuous electrification as the 21st century equivalent of the "cheap and cheerful" approach that served so well in the 1980s and 1990s. I am quite content for East West Rail to have discontinuous electrification, because it means that we will get trains to Cambridge more quickly, rather than possibly dying in a ditch through insisting on having wires all the way. In particular, in discontinuous electrification it is the easiest and cheapest bits that get wired, and the most difficult and expensive bits are what gets left out. From what I've read here, 50/50 electrification is already feasible for bimode electric/battery trains: the costs of 50/50 electrification, and the time taken to do it, can be cut by more than half, compared with doing everything.

I suspect that if EWR goes for discontinuous electrification, then, once it gets started nobody will be much worried about filling in the missing bits. That's because battery technology will probably have made further advances in the meantime.

What I've said here applies for railways that are all or mostly passenger traffic. For routes heavily utilised by freight the considerations are different. If an east to north curve at Bletchley ever happened, with lots of container trains to/from Felixstowe going via EWR, that would be the time to fill in the missing bits.

I wrote that a month ago in the speculative discussion on discontinuous electrification. The full discussion is here:

Discontiuous electrification: is it really the best way forward?

I had a look at some of the other Q&A's around that point and very disappointed to see that Peter Hendy apparently believes the unelectrified Bath and Temple Mills branches are satisfactory and that discontinuous electrification is the right answer to EWR. By contrast, I'm impressed about how...

www.railforums.co.uk

I jokingly said "build it, build it now, electrify it all, four track the lot"

Given the developments in the international bond and currency markets this week, I'm now even more more convinced that the most important thing is to get the Bedford-Cambridge line built quickly, and that means driving down the capital cost, to make sure it doesn't meet the same fate as HS2.

 

[12LDA28C]

Thirdly, reducing carbon emissions should be the overriding concern and OLE being the most efficient way to power trains, this should be the choice of traction power.

Just another example of why economic considerations take precedence and much-vaunted so-called Government environmental aspirations such as Net Zero are, rather ironically, nothing more than hot air.

 

[fishwomp]

[.]
Given the developments in the international bond and currency markets this week, I'm now even more more convinced that the most important thing is to get the Bedford-Cambridge line built quickly, and that means driving down the capital cost, to make sure it doesn't meet the same fate as HS2.

Sadly the direction of this project has been entirely the opposite direction. Countless decisions have pushed the cost upwards by billions - it's got its own bat cave, .. and I expect that electrification is a tiny cost relative to everything else. Even redoubling Bedford-Bletchley is looking like forever away.. Ian Walmsley described it all as a Mini-HS2.. sigh..

 

[12LDA28C]

Sadly the direction of this project has been entirely the opposite direction. Countless decisions have pushed the cost upwards by billions - it's got its own bat cave, .. and I expect that electrification is a tiny cost relative to everything else. Even redoubling Bedford-Bletchley is looking like forever away.. Ian Walmsley described it all as a Mini-HS2.. sigh..

Redoubling Bedford - Bletchley? It's already double track throughout, apart from just a short section at each end of the line.

 

[jfowkes]

On the other hand I think this is excellent news. Here's why.

Ok yes given the realities of the situation I find it hard to disagree that this is probably the best way to get EWR built in a timely manner. Everyone there was keen to stress that it was essentially the treasury forcing them to go this route. I just think that's... bad. It's just a bad situation to be in.

I don't know what the cost savings will be, but the Bedford to Hauxton Junction section isn't that long. Some of it will be wired. So really, we're probably talking maybe 10 to 20 miles of unelectrified section, at a guess. We're saving on that relatively small amount of OLE, but in my opinion will pay a hell of a lot more later.

I can understand not wanting to wire up the existing railway, that's disruptive, it requires demolition etc. But not wiring up the whole of the new bit, given that they're wiring up most of it anyway... That's unacceptable in my view. It's an unacceptable state of affairs that this is a necessary compromise to build a railway.

 

[Magdalia]

Sadly the direction of this project has been entirely the opposite direction. Countless decisions have pushed the cost upwards by billions - it's got its own bat cave

The Barbastelle bats are just one of five reasons for having a tunnel at Chapel Hill, and the tunnel doesn't entirely push the costs upwards. As a result there will also be savings from not building the Great Wall of Cambridgeshire in the Rhee Valley because the line will be at a lower elevation. It is a different solution for getting through a hill and across a valley, with some bits costing more and others less. Neither you or I know the overall net impact.

The proposals for Cambridge in the current consultation are also designed for reduced cost, increased speed of construction, and reduced disruption during construction. At the consultation that I attended, one useful thing I learned is that Cambridge and Bedford determine the critical path for the whole construction project.

and I expect that electrification is a tiny cost relative to everything else.

But it is still the case that discontinuous electrification costs less, and can be done more quickly, than continuous electrification.

I don't know what the cost savings will be, but the Bedford to Hauxton Junction section isn't that long. Some of it will be wired. So really, we're probably talking maybe 10 to 20 miles of unelectrified section, at a guess. We're saving on that relatively small amount of OLE, but in my opinion will pay a hell of a lot more later.

Electrification isn't just OLE. If Bedford-Hauxton could all be done from existing feeder stations, and it was only cost of OLE, then you would have a point. If Bedford-Hauxton needs a new feed for continuous electrification, then that can wait until later.

 

[edwin_m]

Electrification isn't just OLE. If Bedford-Hauxton could all be done from existing feeder stations, and it was only cost of OLE, then you would have a point. If Bedford-Hauxton needs a new feed for continuous electrification, then that can wait until later.

Discontinuous electrification will have the same service operated by the same number of trains, but slightly heavier and with some of the energy lost through being fed into a battery and out again. So the total power demand will be somewhat more with discontinuous electrification, and the total feeder capacity to the network is therefore more likely to have to increase under that option.

Hence, if extra feeders are needed for continuous electrification, it will only be because some of the route is considered to be too far away from an existing feeder. Looking at the distances between feeders elsewhere on the network I think that it unlikely.

Also, if discontinuous electrification results in sections of OLE that are isolated from the existing electrified railway network, then these will need either an "extension lead" 25kV trackside cable or an additional feeder for that section. This can be a relatively small SFC rather than a full-scale version, but will need redundant supply and duplicated equipment for reliability.

So the saving for discontinuous is essentially limited to the OLE itself on the sections where it can be omitted, plus any existing structures on those sections that don't need increased clearances. This is set against a certainty of extra cost for battery trains and a possible extra cost for upgraded or additional supply infrastructure.

 

[Trainbike46]

Sadly the direction of this project has been entirely the opposite direction. Countless decisions have pushed the cost upwards by billions - it's got its own bat cave, .. and I expect that electrification is a tiny cost relative to everything else. Even redoubling Bedford-Bletchley is looking like forever away.. Ian Walmsley described it all as a Mini-HS2.. sigh..

It does not have a "bat cave" - During the consultation their view on the best solution for a hill near Cambridge has gone from going over said hill to tunelling under it. This is for a combination of reasons, including lower impact on nearby nature, but also reduced visual impact (no great wall of Cambridgeshire), less steep inclines (especially useful for freight), etc. I am also not convinced the tunelling option is more expensive than the previous option that was very heavy on earthworks.

I went to the EWR consultation event in Comberton this evening. I asked about discontinuous electrification and whether it was the "a few small sections under bridges" kind of discontinuous or the "large sections several miles long" kind.

Unfortunately it's looking like the second. They don't know which sections, but the design will be for basically as little electrification as they can get away with given constraints like rolling stock/battery performance, feeder station location etc.

This will be the case even for the new section between Bedford and Cambridge. It will be built with necessary clearances for future electrification, but that section will have parts that are not electrified at the outset.

This was explained to be basically a cost driven decision. Cheaper capital cost and cheaper operating costs.

Personally I think this is a terrible idea. Firstly I'm not at all convinced the operating costs will be lower. BEMUs will need more energy to accelerate and charge and they will put more wear on the track compared to pure EMUs.
Secondly at some point they'll want to electrify the rest and the railway will have to be disrupted while that happens.
Thirdly, reducing carbon emissions should be the overriding concern and OLE being the most efficient way to power trains, this should be the choice of traction power.

I'm pretty much going to copy-paste this rant verbatim into the consultation webpage.

(As an aside, Comberton is basically anti-EWR central. It was very busy. One guy said I was only the third person who was at all positive about the project. When I jokingly said "build it, build it now, electrify it all, four track the lot" I got an evil look from someone who overheard me.)

Glad to hear there were at least some people there in favour of the project! Thank you for updating us. While I agree that full electrification is preferable, I think it is good to see that the project is moving in the correct direction (from no electrification to some electrification). Full electrification was my second focus, after the focus on getting the thing built, when I filled out the consultation, and I hope it will be for many others.

 

[jfowkes]

Electrification isn't just OLE. If Bedford-Hauxton could all be done from existing feeder stations, and it was only cost of OLE, then you would have a point. If Bedford-Hauxton needs a new feed for continuous electrification, then that can wait until later.

The consultation technical report indicates an indicative need for a supply at Little Barford, derived from the existing ECML supply:

Technical Report Chapter 14, Page 397

At Little Barford there is an existing UK Power Networks 132kV substation supplied from Eaton Socon that provides power to the East Coast Main Line (ECML). It has been renewed recently and early indications are that there is spare capacity that could supply additional transformers for EWR. The substation would need to be extended to support this and cabling would need to be installed to the EWR route.

 

[Magdalia]

Discontinuous electrification will have the same service operated by the same number of trains, but slightly heavier and with some of the energy lost through being fed into a battery and out again. So the total power demand will be somewhat more with discontinuous electrification, and the total feeder capacity to the network is therefore more likely to have to increase under that option.

This is a static analysis, that does not take account of growth, economic growth, housing growth and hence traffic growth.

Look back at the Royston-Cambridge/Cambridge-Kings Lynn examples. The original electrifications did not include any new feeds and the existing feeds could only supply limited power for a low frequency service of 4 car trains. The power supply upgrade came later when higher frequencies and longer trains were needed.

That's what will also happen with East West Rail. The indicative service, set out in this consultation, will reach a point of inadequacy as consequence of economic growth, housing growth and hence traffic growth. More power is not needed when the line opens, but will be needed, say, 10 years after, to cope with traffic growth, unless technological advance comes to the rescue.

The consultation technical report indicates an indicative need for a supply at Little Barford, derived from the existing ECML supply:

Thanks, I hadn't spotted this, though it was my assumption from knowledge of the local geography. If that happened then neutral sections would be needed between Bedford and Little Barford, and between Cambridge and Little Barford. For sake of debate let's say they are near the proposed Colesden and Cambourne loops. The way I would do discontinuous electrification would be to put the wires up from Bedford and Cambridge to the prospective neutral section locations at Colesden and Cambourne, but leave the middle bit unelectrified. When the power upgrade became necessary, say in the mid 2040s, then put in the supply at Little Barford, the neutral sections at Colesden and Cambourne, and fill in the bit in between.

Most 21st century manufacturing operates on "just in time" delivery of components. Discontinuous electrification is a version of that. The Little Barford supply, Colesden and Cambourne neutral sections, and the OLE in between, are delivered "just in time" not years before they are needed.

 

[Class 170101]

This is a static analysis, that does not take account of growth, economic growth, housing growth and hence traffic growth.

Look back at the Royston-Cambridge/Cambridge-Kings Lynn examples. The original electrifications did not include any new feeds and the existing feeds could only supply limited power for a low frequency service of 4 car trains. The power supply upgrade came later when higher frequencies and longer trains were needed.

Royston to Cambridge was 8 cars rather than 4 cars I think. North of (what is now) Cambridge North was 4 cars maximum.

That's what will also happen with East West Rail. The indicative service, set out in this consultation, will reach a point of inadequacy as consequence of economic growth, housing growth and hence traffic growth. More power is not needed when the line opens, but will be needed, say, 10 years after, to cope with traffic growth, unless technological advance comes to the rescue.

But will require disruptive access to upgrade it as the line will be open in this scenario.

 

[Magdalia]

Royston to Cambridge was 8 cars rather than 4 cars I think. North of (what is now) Cambridge North was 4 cars maximum.

I was commuting at the time. At first, everything split and joined at Royston.

But will require disruptive access to upgrade it as the line will be open in this scenario.

But that is much much cheaper than the finance costs of investing assets 10 years before they are needed, especially at the interest rates that the government is currently having to pay on long term borrowing.

 

[Class 170101]

But that is much much cheaper than the finance costs of investing assets 10 years before they are needed, especially at the interest rates that the government is currently having to pay on long term borrowing.

Assuming they come down of course in the future and nothing about the future is guaranteed.

 

[Magdalia]

Assuming they come down of course in the future and nothing about the future is guaranteed.

I'm making no assumptions on future interest rates, and don't need to.

The key factor is time. The longer the elapsed time between when the cost is incurred and when the asset starts to deliver a return, the more interest needs to be paid to service the debt, irrespective of the interest rate.

 

[Wyrleybart]

I'm making no assumptions on future interest rates, and don't need to.

The key factor is time. The longer the elapsed time between when the cost is incurred and when the asset starts to deliver a return, the more interest needs to be paid to service the debt, irrespective of the interest rate.

Pretty much like HS2 phase 1 which, IIRC, was supposed to open next year under the initial sales pitch. Pretty sure 2026 was originally spoken about

 

[MadCommuter]

East West Rail should not build six tracks at Bedford - council

Bedford Borough Council are worried about the potential demolition of 37 homes.

www.bbc.co.uk

Councillors have voted to oppose part of a major railway line being built through their district.

Bedford Borough Council wants the East West Rail (EWR) line to be made up of four tracks, rather than six, in the Poets area north of the town.

Thirty-seven homes would need to be demolished in order to accommodate the two additional tracks.

However, in their full-council meeting on Wednesday, members agreed to support other parts of the project, such as the relocation of Stewartby station and the closure of Kempston Hardwick.
Councillors were deciding on their official response to an ongoing consultation, external from EWR about the project.

The line will run between Cambridge and Oxford, travelling through Bedfordshire and Buckinghamshire, and the section between Oxford and Bletchley is due to open this year.

The government has said trains between Bedford and Oxford will run from 2030.
An EWR spokesperson said it was committed to working with local communities.
A map of the proposed East West Rail route. The line is indicated in red. The following stops are labelled, from east to west: Cambridge, Cambourne, Tempsford, Bedford, Bletchley and Milton Keynes, Winslow, Bicester and Oxford.
An EWR spokesperson said: "We remain committed to working hand-in-hand with the local communities that we will serve.

"Constructive and frequent dialogue with the council and other stakeholders is central to this process."

They said "we remain confident" the current route was the best option for Bedford, providing fast and frequent services.

The 10-week non-statutory (meaning it is not legally binding) consultation on the plans is due to end on 24 January.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2025 ==



So if the council doesn't support 6 tracks, is planning permission needed or is that just a way to say the support the residents but with no actual power to stop the 6 tracks?

 

[mwmbwls]

East West Rail should not build six tracks at Bedford - council

Bedford Borough Council are worried about the potential demolition of 37 homes.

www.bbc.co.uk

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Jan 2025 ==



So if the council doesn't support 6 tracks, is planning permission needed or is that just a way to say the support the residents but with no actual power to stop the 6 tracks?

.
EWR is an NSIP (nationally significant infrastructure project) rather than a local matter. Consent/Dissent on building the Bedford-Cambridge section will be given by the Government (DfT) following a statutory hearing run by the Planning Directorate (PD). The Council can and undoubtedly will challenge the evidence given at the hearing but they they have no power to stop the six track solution.

 

[WolvertonWorks]

Went to the E-W rail consultation event at Woburn Sands (WS) yesterday - and had to queue for ten minutes to get in! The hall was full and we had to wait for some to leave before they let us in. Lots of people I know from WS there - they are still not happy with the proposals!

Interested to see the proposed route of the bridge over the line at Bow Brickhill (BB) crossing. Didn't look at it in detail but at first glance it looked like they would need to acquire land from Red Bull.

Had a conversation with one of the engineers who couldn't give me a good justification for closing BB other than the existing stations are too many and too close together so they want to rationalise them.

I pointed out that they were retaining Ridgmont, possibly in a new location, which is a public transport option for workers at the big warehouse complex by junction 13 but proposing to close Bow Brickhill, which currently is encouraging workers at Red Bull and other employers on Tilbrook, and the huge new warehouse units going over to Watling Street once they are in use, to use public transport - which seemed counter-productive from an environmental perspective.

I hope they do retain Ridgmont in its current location with the tearoom and heritage centre but upgrade the facilities to encourage people to use it.

 

[Magdalia]

The deadline for responses to the current consultation is today.

East West Rail | Consultation 2024

East West Rail's consultation was open from 14 November 2024 until 24 January 2025 and is now closed.

eastwestrail.co.uk

The consultation will be open from 14 November 2024 to 24 January 2025.​