Open Access could be an asset to local rail expansion projects in addition to regular service patterns?

In the current issue of Rail (2nd to April 16, 2025 page 8) an open access bid includes Nottingham Leicester Bedford to Oxford Bristol is discussed.

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/2025/03/25/two-new-open-access-cross-country-routes-set-to-be-submitted-to-rail-regulator

The railway reopening Northampton to Market Harborough (N2MH) would could bring the rail journey timings further by potentially 20-30 minutes, making your bid potentially even more attractive.

With the support of 2 local MP’s the BRTA is leading a campaign to complete an updated assessment on potentially reopening N2MH, which was only closed in 1982

https://brtarail.com/n2mh/

An incomplete 2020 Network Rail report concluded full reopening was possible and gave a Northampton to Leicester Journey time of 34 minutes (the present rail table is well over 100 minutes and 2 changes)

The BRTA website includes the redacted 2020 Network Rail report, as well as the recently proposed Northampton to Old Oak Common line proposed by England Economic Heartlands

If we could secure support for the N2MH report to be completed and updated that would be extremely helpful.

I would be very happy to discuss further.

We have a public meeting in Market Harborough on April 12th.

Spanner is Government's Great British Railways, will they cater and include Open Access on top of regular services or thwart it on ideological fit grounds? Jury is out, but lobbying is going on. If it can and can be given more credence in the wider regenerative scheme of things like being pegged or associated with a reopening, then that is for BRTA a positive, especially when noone else is taking the lead on reopenings generally? Bideford - GWR interested, Fawley, Open Access by First Group, so N2MH with whoever does Nottingham-Bristol/Old Oak Common, we have that chance too of adoption of projects like East-West Rail was and then they run with the ball.

Our MP's support should be made aware if SLC gives any support and asked to support their proposal as GBR goes through Parliament to have clauses like "if pegged to a reopening, resulting in network expansion, should be given favourable consideration in addition and above local services".

1. Check: https://brtarail.com/events/

2. Join BRTA: https://brtarail.com/become-a-member/

3. Email your local MP and ask for their support/forward to BRT responses: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons

4. See: https://harboroughfm.co.uk/new-campaign-to-restore-rail-link/

Concern Regarding Withdrawal of Paper One Day Bus & Tram Pass by TfL

Hello

I am writing to bring your attention to the recent decision by Transport for London (TfL) to withdraw the sale of the paper One Day Bus & Tram Pass, as outlined in the Staff Guide to Fares and Ticketing (March 2025). This change, which took effect from January 2025, has significant implications for many passengers, particularly those who are digitally excluded, as they now face additional barriers to purchasing the pass.

TfL’s decision to cease the sale of paper passes at Tube, DLR, tram, and railway stations was made without public consultation, and there has been no published Equality Impact Assessment (EqIA) regarding the potential consequences for various groups, including elderly, disabled, and infrequent travellers, as well as overseas tourists. Moreover, the Mayor of London has not been notified of this development, which I believe is an oversight given the potential impact on accessibility.

While the Oyster version of the One Day Bus & Tram Pass remains available at Oyster Ticket Stops, the withdrawal of the paper version disproportionately affects those who do not have access to contactless payment methods, including those without smartphones, bank cards, or Oyster cards. This issue is especially challenging for individuals whose Oyster cards have been lost or stolen and are waiting for replacement cards to arrive, leaving them with no choice but to pay cash for travel. Additionally, overseas visitors, who may struggle with navigating TfL’s digital systems, are now faced with fewer options for purchasing tickets.

The lack of consultation and the absence of an EqIA in this decision are concerning, particularly when considering the potential consequences for vulnerable groups who rely on paper tickets for travel. Furthermore, the decision seems to mirror previous moves by TfL, such as the attempted withdrawal of the paper Day Travelcard in 2023, which also sparked considerable backlash.

This issue has been highlighted by CLondoner92 in a recent blog post, which provides further context on the matter. You can find the post here: https://clondoner92.blogspot.com/2025/03/transport-for-london-quietly-withdraws.html.

I urge you to look into this matter and advocate for the needs of those affected by the change.

Thank you for your attention to this important issue.

BRTA Recommends people write to their MP: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons

Press Release BRTA flabbergasted by Lower Thames Crossing Decision by Government

Press Release

BRTA flabbergasted by Lower Thames Crossing Decision by Government

BRTA expressed dismay at the Government giving the go ahead for the Lower Thames Road Crossing at £9 billion. 

This sends the wrong message out and raises questions not so much on the quest for growth, but the basis of growth and how environmentally sustainable the nature of the route the government is choosing really is?

BRTA would have preferred a 'greener' transport choice and solution, such as a rail-based solution linking Kent with Essex.

CEO Richard Pill says "London badly needs outer M25 orbital rail links, north-south, east-west on all sides to enable the exploitation of more passenger and freight by rail including to and from the Channel Tunnel as well as alleviating roads in the south-east which are heavily congestion, pounding road surfaces day after day and informing huge repair costs including the ever-present pothole agenda, so popular, but which unless traffic reduction strategies are done, will only grow the cost and bads congestion brings."

BRTA has called for:

1. Better rail links to airports including Stansted-Braintree/Colchester new rail linkages

2. Heathrow Southern Rail Link to arc Guildford with Reading and Aylesbury

3. A study into a new Luton-Milton Keynes direct local rail link

4. Reopening the Guildford-Horsham/South Coast rail link and

5. A new rail link arcing the A14, M11 and old Great Central Corridor to relieve busy West Coast Main Line, which HS2 may help, but is not the total solution.

6. In the north, neglected rail aspirations including Colne-Skipton, Woodhead and Peak Rail for example, whilst roads like A628 are upgraded!

When one surveys the M1, M25 and A14, one realises majority is juggernaut lorries, logistics and they should be on the rails, but unless we increase capacity with new and reopened rail lines agendas, not new roads with pollution in such wakes, we are wasting time, money and land and destroying the balance of quality of life with sustainable growth? Instead, the government is going to try and please road and rail lobbies, which are sending the wrong signals and trashing the environment.

End of Press Release

Further comment: Richard Pill 01234 225068 

e. richard.brta@gmail.com

Transport for the South East (TfSE) needs the public to support BRTA's rail agenda!

TfSE - please read and engage. Please email your local MP via 

https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons 

and give support for BRTA's principal calls which are chiefly:

1. Electrification of the North Down Rail Line for Thameslinks semi-fast from East Croydon to serve the town of Guildford (Phase 1), maybe Reading too (Phase 2).

2. Support for reopening/new-building to a modern rail standard the former Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham rail link to enable better rail choices, connections and cut emissions and congestion in a context of growth.

3. A new-build Polegate-Stone Cross rail link for shaving 20 minutes end-to-end Brighton-Ashford journey by rail, competing with A27 which has a lot of upgrades successively whilst rail remains Cinderella.

4. Electrify and double track throughout from Brighton to Hastings to Ashford, no exceptions.

5. Eastbourne to be station upgraded, a new fast service linking London (capital), Gatwick (airport) and Eastbourne (resort).

6. Support a new direct curve from Tonbridge to Gatwick, saving time changing at Redhill, freeing up Redhill for other services more.

7. More integrated bus-rail ticketing, railcards for 18+ to Retirement audiences. If that means longer trains, longer platforms and rejigging track layouts, signalling - we need the agenda going forward now.

Switch funding from new roads, they only deliver congestion to urban areas and pollution elsewhere too. We need our local rail links back and public involvement and accountability built into Great British Railways emergent new set up: https://gbrtt.co.uk/

Thanks very much. Cycleways and footpaths need not go literally on railway courses, but can be put alongside principal roadways as per the A27 in the Lewes area - https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-65921577

BRTA is having its AGM in Guildford this Summer. Please book the date. It is free and open to all, so all welcome.

Membership of BRTA and/or donations helps us produce flyers, hold meetings and we welcome support please including there are opportunities for experience and volunteering, please visit our website: https://brtarail.com/events/

Development and Planning synergies around Bedford?

BRTA is concerned that the government pressure and targets, dire need and weakness of planning systems to avoid cost at all cost including legal issues which can also be protracted, that development infill across our green and pleasant lands is going a-pace without adequate infrastructure, rail-based access public transport to facilities like shops, better buses, social housing for local people mix in both urban and rural locations.

re: https://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/politics/council/plans-for-93-new-homes-in-bromham-submitted-to-council-4696315

We welcome objections to this notwithstanding clarity and confirmation of   a route from former Oakley Junction area off the Midland Main Line going west towards Northampton can be done still and if not, can land be protected to ensure realigned or on new-build alongside, a viable route is do-able please?

Bromham has few shops, chronic High Street constant through traffic and a poor hourly bus service. Contrast Biddenham which has expanded but has no shop at all and Stagsden which is without much if any social housing, limited bus, no pub and has fields between A422 bypass and Village Road which could be developed in-keeping with other des-res developments. Cycle way improvements and better facilities to avoid unnecessary driving all the time, could make an emissions reduction impact.

We do need a Bedford-Northampton rail link anew, with new-build where olf route is lost especially avoiding Olney for example. These development allocations seem to tick-box quotas to be seen to develop housing of a certain des-res type, but are parochial in focus and immediates, rather than the whole A428 corridor, that has sprawling development and where 4 cars per house will end up/want to commute to? Urban interfaces, meaning congestion, more pollution, parking land demand (scarce resource) and costs spiralling on and off the roads.

The pothole issue is partly underscored by heavier vehicles pounding structures and road surfaces daily, add to that weather, salt and other toxins inherent of rubber on hard surfaces and exhaust emissions and costs spiral as well as danger to those few cyclists who actually bother to use roads rather than pedestrian spaces?

Our media and politicians must speak out and help to inform a study into reopening the local rail alternative, free-up urban parking demand and make these growing pockets of development more sustainable.

Please see: https://brtarail.com/b2n/ and also we call for a study, like Wixams into Stations North of Bedford at Oakley and Sharnbrook to cut traffic along the A6 and free up Bedford Midland spaces for other rail users/cut drive-times for everyone?

On another track, if a direct curve or 5th track from either Wixams or Bedford-Bletchley Line is installed with a direct curve onto the fast lines off the local Bedford-Bletchley Railway, ending in a new river bridge and bay at Platform 5 west of Bedford Midland Platform 4, it would be dead-end in all probability and means the Kempston Fire Station may need relocating? I am unconvinced the implications are well thought out and far better to let trains east-west run into Bedford Midland via St John's area, segregating the lines and leaving fast-tracks unimpeded for fast trains or maybe Thameslink if an extra bay on that side was seen as appropriate?

BRTA has called for more and better buses to and looping between the Bus Station and Railway Station as part of the overall journey/routing of issues and problems can be overcome. That it has been an on-going issue for 40 years since privatisation, is curious, and no politicians seem to want to bring heads together to address it as opportune to more direct footfall and spend in town centre outlets including (orbital bus fashion) Tavistock Street, High Street and Bromham Road (new stop outside Wyvern House) and into Hassett Street for outwards from Bus Station.

The new Greyfriars ideal of Woolwich high rise in central Bedford designs, will mean the roundabout goes and a loss of open green space. I am not sure how buses entering and leaving the bus station will cope with a single x2 way traffic light operation and the high rise flats proposed at close proximity will cast a shadow on an area which is less-than ideal for pedestrians and a main walk-way to and from Bedford Midland Station via dingy Alexandra Place and Woburn Road. I think poor links with Bedford Midland and the High Street are missing an economic trick based on car-legs myopia, which is a false economy!

It could be instructional to restore through buses between one end of urban cordons to the other like merge No. 1 with No. 5 for Norse Road to Kempston and back for example, No. 7 with No. 3 and 51 with 9 to/from Clapham and Shortstown? It could shave time wasted baying at the Bus Station, enable more flexible operations and free up capacity for more bus services? At least could it be kept under review? Affordability is a key plank beyond usual usage of buses, so 18+ bus passes to retirement age is something which would give lifestyle choices, greener options, fill buses and save costs on car ownership, when young people need to get to college, work, leisure outlets and save money they do not necessarily have to £3 each time they use a bus on a low income? Leaving home is also a cost and getting public transport right is the difference between idealism and making things work for everyone.

Hope of interest. 

Join our Stations North of Bedford Facebook Page:

 https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61566833106949

That East West Rail does not take into account linking with Northampton or east-north movements for freight, shows how it lacks any true business sense beyond Oxbridge focuses end-to-end, which while a railway is better than none, misses the point of what better comprehensive linkages can do for modal shift more from national to regional to local focuses and vice versa. If the government ever did plum for a 4th London Airport at Thurleigh in North Bedfordshire to 'share the load and rescue the overheated South East'; then the East-West Rail Northern route would not serve it, be in a tunnel under Ravensden and again misses the whole point of integrated transport links. I fear our route east of Bedford via St John's will be built over by housing, locking-in the Northern route, which is a cynical outcome we have battled with since 1987.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

BRTA CEO

https://brtarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/ 

and 

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61566833106949

Write to your MP and ask for Government support for BRTA's ideas and suggestions to make things work for all!

https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons

London Orbital Airports, has the government really thought it through?

The government's push for growth via airport expansion beit Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted and Luton, needs a jolt to ensure they coincide with more and better rail links first as follows:

1. Stansted - needs rail link eastwards to link with Braintree and Colchester.

2. Gatwick, needs a new direct curve from Tonbridge to Gatwick for direct running both ways and the reopening of Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham with a direct curve to run from the south to Gatwick direct via Three Bridges.

3. Heathrow needs the Heathrow Southern Rail Link and the new Reading arm to extend to link with bays and a new tunnel to link with the Chiltern Main Line for Milton Keynes/Aylesbury-Heathrow-Guildford arc, see: https://heathrowrail.com/ and

4. Luton Airport Parkway Station needs a new 8-coach bay on the northern side underneath DART for a new 'South Chiltern Link' linking between Luton, Heathrow and Reading via the proposed for reopening Dudding Hill Lines of North-West London. 

5. If we find the South East is overheating and care about environmental impacts, then we should both welcome more services out of St Pancras to continental places taking off the pressure for short-haul flights and maybe should also study what about Thurleigh Airport as a London 4th in North Bedfordshire? Alas, unless East-West Rail is willing to relocate their Northern Route to serve it and St Neots onwards to Cambridge, the railway would be in a tunnel to the south of the airport and opportunity for 12, 000 jobs (Stansted example) thrown away. 

An airport without rail access generates lots of congestion, pollution and bads and is unsustainable. Has the government thought these things through carefully, or a knee-jerk announcement without thinking through what is involved except as some after thought? If Universal Theme Park goes ahead, 8 million visitors are envisaged per year, the airport could come in handy for that audience?

If we are talking about the exciting Dudding Hill Lines, unsure how it will connect with the new station at Brent Cross? Docklands also needs to extend to Brent Cross via the North London orbital road. These links will be strategic and popular.  on the back of it with a new bay at Luton Airport Parkway for 8-coach trains, would inform a 'South Chiltern Link' on the back of it. But despite putting it out, few backers are gagging for it... all enquiries welcome via richard.brta@gmail.com

Our London Forum will be convened where these and other regional/London-wide issues can be discussed. 

We welcome support and interest in these things. Please join/affiliate https://brtarail.com/become-a-member/  to BRTA. A lot is possible, but we need more people to volunteer and help us and resources to enable more and better.

Bedford East West Rail and Thameslink Meeting 01-03-2025

 Bedford East West Rail and Thameslink Meeting 01-03-2025

Key feedback points were:

1. East West Rail Northern Route leaves much to be desired and a feeling they are not listening. If their route flounders, they have only themselves to blame and by which time, our route will probably be built over. Problems with our route is ORR’s ruling against new-build Level Crossings and a lack of champions at strategic or council level. The southern route bypassing the town centre station, would mainly be Park and Ride and disenfranchise swathes of people who do not drive. However, if it is found Heathrow Third Runway is unpopular and defeated, but capacity and spreading out more from the heated South East is required, any consideration of Thurleigh as a London 4th Airport, would not be served by the current East-West Rail Link which in tunnel would serve no-one but end-to-end users but for Tempsford Station, which without physical rail links, and incremental sprawl development locks out connectivity and optimal operations for winning to rail from further afield like York, Peterborough and in-between from the north and Stevenage, East Bedfordshire from the south. Direct travel is better than changing in the middle of a housing estate bereft of infrastructure!

2. Buses need to loop the bus and rail stations as a part of overall journeys. If the corner going towards Greyfriars off Ashburnham Road is a problem, which the current No. 41 bus manages, then loop out via Midland Road to Ashburnham Road and back via Bromham Road and Hassett Street for example. Not rocket science, but needs a determined effort and lead. Pre-privatisation the 108 to Clapham did for example. But it has been a 40-year gap and orbital buses out of the station to/from rural areas and indeed serving Tavistock Street and the High Street could boost spread of footfall and spend.

3. Concerns at blurring kerbside with pavement space and roads. The St Paul’s Square project may look aesthetically nice, but scooters and bikes on pavements has become a hazard for pedestrians, especially disabled, partially sighted, and elderly people who are taken by surprise, shocked and disturbed at pedestrian space being disregarded.

4. East-West Rail puts a spin on more rail usership coming to Bedford Midland and rightly so. But a new trainshed for passengers of a larger size, more retain outlets for affordable snacks and quality food like St Albans has, buses linking with the railway and better disabled ramps at the front not sidelined and toilets likewise should all be considered. On the railway, Thameslink offers a comprehensive network and was reminded of Pre-Privatisation Network South East used to have a Rail Day whereby people could use the railway free for a day and with the arcing rail link between Bedford and Oxford, could really draw many hearts, minds and users back to the railways. Likewise extending Thameslink to Corby and cascading East Midlands Trains should focus on a. better corridor rolling stock, b. longer trains, c. a seamless single journey between Bedford and Leicester and d. one direct train from Bedford to Leeds. Derby, Nottingham, Sheffield, Leeds and indeed Carlisle should all be served by East Midlands from Bedford without changing trains. Reopening Matlock to Buxton/Chinley for East Midlands-Manchester rail journeys should also be facilitated without change of trains anywhere. Generally, councils have constrained budgets but need to talk and work with us to focus on key projects more. Bedford-Bletchley needs upgrading and better rolling stock, longer trains and good quality facilities. The year-on year fare increases across the rail network is another bug-bear. 18+ ages need concessionary bus and rail cards, as cost of living, acces to court work, welfare curtailments and leaving home arcing’s all means high costs and low incomes leave gaps which cannot be filled easily. So we need outlets bringing together and creatively tackled to enable more and quality of life experiences on and off the rails to be people, places and society cohesively nurtured.

5. Our impression from the meeting was that many are aware and moves to these ends understood. Now the map, plan and implementation carrying people and users with us is also highly desired.