Northampton Umbrella Fair - Environmental Fair

re: https://www.umbrellafair.org/

Northampton Umbrella Fair

Northampton Racecourse

Sat 21st and Sunday 22nd September 

Midday to late

Free entry/ All welcome.

BRTA is having a stall there too from 12.Noon Midday on the Saturday and possibly the Sunday too!

Please see the attached poster. Please come and give BRTA your support!

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

BRTA CEO

richard.brta@gmail.com

Detrimental implementations by H.M. Government on LNER and elsewhere on the railway network.

FAO: British Regional Transport Association

Monday the 2nd. of September, 2024

Dear Mr. Pill,

RE: LNER’s and the Labour Government's announcement that LNER's Simpler Fares pilot will, in October of 2024, be extended to additional railway stations

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/8cdBVNxx1nM6nAM6/  (Hyperlink to an article on negative implications).

In despite all of the glaringly obvious sticks-out-like-a-sore thumb evidence that all of this simplification is a terrible thing, which actually increases travelling costs and decreases convenience, politicians have been seduced by the word 'simplification', and have allowed LNER (LNER is the worst culprit by far) and c2c to get away with fares-and-ticketing changes which are profoundly detrimental. Single-Leg Pricing and simplification are, and persistently and consistently have been, profoundly bad for the travelling public, but the blinkered or naïve politicians have let this all happen unopposed rather than challenging the Government.

Usually, when the powers-that-be put forward proposals for changes to fares-and-ticketing on public transport, or ANY proposal on public transport, non-Ministerial politicians and their allies will forensically scour the proposals for any the-Devil-is-in-the-detail negative implications of the proposals, and will relentlessly hound the powers-that-be until those the-Devil-is-in-the-detail negative implications are recognised and addressed.

The authorities have been able to get away with all manner of detrimental implementations because politicians and many members of the general have been seduced by the word 'simplification' and have been too obsessed by the fact that Returns cost only slightly more than Singles; obsessed by the belief, the huge misconception that millions of citizens are put off of rail travel for no other reason than that Rail Fares In This Country Are Complicated.

People are not put off by fares being complicated; they are but off by fares being expensive.

Those politicians who would usually fight against negative changes/negative proposed changes have been seduced and distracted by sleight-of-hand red-herring distractions.

These changes and simplifications are a terrible thing, something which needs to be fought against. A problem is that there are two battles needing to be fought:

(i). the battle against these negative changes;

(ii). the battle to get our elected representatives in Parliament and the devolved regional and national bodies to realise that there is a battle which needs to be fought.

The proposals for ticket-office closures were defeated because so very many recognised a problem, rallied around, got vocal, spread the word far; mobilised and lobbied.

What will it take for those public representatives who support all of this to finally realise that these changes on the railways (particularly exemplified by LNER, but appearing elsewhere, too) are awful and highly detrimental?

Labour has been waxing lyrical about intending to reduce travelling costs and increase convenience, yet one of the very first specific actions regarding the railways which Labour has taken is to increase fares and decrease convenience.

LNER is government-owned, under the Operator of Last Resort, which is part of state apparatus, under the auspices of the Department of Transport, therefore the decision to extend the scheme would have been (and can only be) taken with the approval of H.M. Government, and could not have happened without Secretary of State for Transport Louise Haigh's ultimate authorisation. H.M. Government has knowingly and wilfully increased fares in despite of everything which Labour has said in recent months and recent weeks.

Return fares, Super Off-Peak fares, Day Singles, Day Returns, Off-Peak fares, railcard discounts, to-boundary-zone fares: simplification puts them all at risk (and LNER already has de jure vanquished or de facto vanquished almost all of them), these so-called 'complicated' things which simplification has simplified away are actually what facilitate the availability of cheaper options. If you take a sledgehammer to the behemoth you bring down the cheaper options which lurk within the behemoth.

Already, fares-and-ticketing changes on LNER have massively increased fares and travelling costs, and reduced convenience and reduced flexibility; the October of 2024 extension of the Simpler Fares pilot makes it even more so on all counts.

For round-trip travel, Single-Leg Pricing means that two tickets have to be purchased where previously you only had to buy one ticket; therefore, you have to carry out two transactions when previously you only had to carry out one: that is a loss of convenience and a loss of flexibility.

In some cases, it is a de facto abolition; in some cases, it is a de jure abolition: the June of 2023 introduction of Single-Leg Pricing and the February of 2024 introduction of the Simpler Fares pilot have, in some cases, abolished open tickets, in other cases made open tickets and turn-up-and-go tickets so prohibitively expensive as to effectively render open tickets as no longer available: that is a loss of convenience and a loss of flexibility.

The abolition of all but the (ultra expensive) Anytime Single—even the Anytime Day Single has been abolished—means that turn-up-and-go tickets, tickets which allow for breaks-of-journey, have been made to become so prohibitively expensive that they have effectively been removed—a de facto abolition. One no longer has the wonderful option of making breaks-of-journey: that is a loss of convenience and a loss of flexibility.

These damaging fares-and-ticketing changes on LNER and c2c need to be reversed. The retention of Return fares, Day fares, Super Off-Peak and the full range of turn-up-and-go fares needs to be protected; where any of these things have been abolished already, they need to be reinstated.

Single-Leg Pricing is the Emperor's New Clothes; the abolition of Singles is not required to resolve the current situation with Returns costing much the same as a Single. Keep Returns, and keep them at the current price, then halve the price of Singles. Halving the price of fare X does not necessitate the abolition of fare Y. Price is not the only factor, Returns offer convenience, security and certainty.

How can anyone sincerely argue that these changes on LNER (and, to a lesser extent, the changes on c2c) are beneficial to the travelling public financially or practically, or both?

(additional material). Detrimental implementations by H.M. Government on LNER, 2 and elsewhere on the railway network

That there is a formal distinction between LNER's Simpler Fares pilot and LNER's introduction of Single-Leg Pricing needs to be understood.

The Simpler Fares pilot (launched in February, 2024) and LNER’s introduction of Single-Leg Pricing (introduced in June, 2024) are completely separate and distinct entities which should not be treated synonymously. LNER's introduction of Single-Leg Pricing is not part of the Simpler Fares pilot; the Simpler Fares pilot is not part of the introduction of Single-Leg Pricing.

They are separate and distinct entities. If LNER were to fully abort the Simpler Fares pilot, and fully revert to the how things stood on the day before the Simpler Fares pilot came into effect, Single-Leg Pricing would still exist on LNER, because Single-Leg Pricing was introduced separately and distinctly from the Simpler Fares pilot, and does not form part of the Simpler Fares pilot's remit and provisions.

I am not certain that this distinction is widely appreciated, even by industry observers.

 

(DURATION OF THE PILOT SCHEME):

The duration of the Simpler Fares pilot is suspiciously long, it is a two-year pilot. Not only on the railways, but in society in general, trials/pilots are typically of a period of up to six months. Even a period of one year would be considered long.

It feels that H.M. Government/Department of Transport/Rail Delivery Group mandated such a lengthy duration in order to engineer a situation whereby it is a fait accompli that the provisions of the pilot will become permanent. Two years are a very long time, far longer than pilots typically are. After such a long period of time, provisions have become 'baked-in', leaving it difficult to unpick, disentangle and revert. After such a long period of time, the ordinary member of the general public becomes accustomed to things, and somewhat forgets that things were not always previously thus.

Now that the Simpler Fares pilot has been extended to more stations, it feels as though the Department of Transport is consolidating efforts to ensure the aforementioned fait accompli.

The chosen duration of the Simpler Fares pilot is suspiciously long, and that should not be disregarded.

Anon. 

Any support we suggest you:

1. write/email your MP

2. Join BRTA and be a volunteer

3. help with getting a better deal for all rail users - quantity and quality experiences and value for money, people before profit.

Enquiries via richard.brta@gmail.com

BRTA Guildford Forum – Saturday 14 September 2024 2pm lunch – 3-5pm business

BRTA  Guildford Forum – Saturday 14 September 2024 2pm lunch – 3-5pm business

Venue: The Rodboro Buildings, 1–10 Bridge Street, Guildford, Surrey, GU1 4RY
Website: https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/pubs/all-pubs/england/surrey/the-rodboro-buildings-guildford Phone: 01483 306366 Email address: simon4barber@gmail.com Phone(landline): 020-8940-4399 Phone (mobile): 07522-374740
1.                 Appointment of a chair (David J. Start or David Ferguson)
2.                 Apologies for absence
3.                 Introductions – who are you, your name and fill in attendance list if a visitor
4.                 Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham rail reopening goal (explain)
a.      Cranleigh leafleting
b.      Donations/pledges for more flyers to be printed
c.       Offers of volunteers to help with David and Simon leafleting and avoiding duplication.
d.      Getting councils and MPs on board
5.                 Dunsfold Oil – who, what, why and how (introduction) and how the Guildford-Horsham rail link can help: reduced demand for oil, rail choice to congestion and impact of associated development without a new local modern rail link?
6.                 Arundel Curve, plan, progress and who will do what.
7.                 Horsham-Shoreham: Protecting remaining route, getting councils/MPs on board.
8.                 Wey & Arun Canal threat – any news.
9.                 Heathrow Southern Railway with east and west curves to communicate with them and invite to meetings.
10.            North Downs Line (Reading-Guildford-Redhill/Gatwick Airport-Tonbridge): Electrification ‘third rail’ and Thameslink from East Croydon to Guildford at least and Gatwick Airport-Tonbridge avoiding Redhill
11.            New stations - Guildford Royal Hospital (Barn Park) and new County Hall (Merrow)
12.            Guildford Town Centre: How to make pedestrian friendly. Getting from Station to Portsmouth Road is hazardous.
13.            Any Other Business

14.            Date, Time and Place of Next Meeting (February 

URC Room, Portsmouth Road Saturday – with invited speaker/s 

Dunsfold Oil campaign and/or Heathrow Southern Rail or both. 

12 Noon lunch at Wetherspoons, 13.00 Set Up 14.00 Business. 

Finish 17.00

Bedford-Cambridge Rail Link - need to get Tempsford right

The BRTA approach: re: https://www.biggleswadetoday.co.uk/news/politics/council/tempsford-new-town-flooding-fears-raised-as-central-bedfordshire-council-voices-concerns-over-proposal-4762186 It is BRTA's contention that all development should be curtailed until the route of the new rail link between #Bedford and #Cambridge via the #Tempsford area is settled once and for all. We have our views of a preferred route, not Northern Route, but 'east of Bedford via St John's' is the flattest, quickest and easiet to recover and do if a determined political will can be achieved? The local MP for Tempsford is Richard Fuller, who seems bent on outright opposition to the rail link, even our route, and yet the equivalent road A421-A428 is being dualled as we write, with no objections except belatedly! The penny drops these roads will deliver urban congestion, air pollution, ill-health and blight, yet with a rail link traffic proliferation on the back of regional development 'happening now' will be held in check and balance. #Oxford-Bedford 2026 onwards, Bedford-Cambridge 2035 is lucky. I may not live to see it, but is the government in a listening mood? If so, local politicians need to grasp our rail route now and promote it. Failure to sing from the same hymn sheet, means investment that may be done, going elsewhere and East Anglia remaining virtually an isolated rail network with existing links via North London and #Peterborough being overheated and defaulting more to roads like gridlocked A14. Join BRTA and add your voice: richard.erta@gmail.com

Northampton, a central place bereft of rail link stewardship!

re: https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/politics/plans-approved-for-525-homes-to-be-built-on-land-the-size-of-34-football-pitches-in-northampton-4761619

We have called for protection of radial rail routes into/out of Northampton. Northampton; 200, 000 population and growing, is geographically central, yet has the poorest rail links and services of any comparable sized place in the country arguably, akin to Bradford, dwarfed by Leeds?

The corridor from Bedford into Northampton Castle Station is critical to protect adequacy for 25KV electrification and noise/vibrations must be sufficient length from new flimsy housing to avoid objections. We have no confidence that safeguarding is active here. 

Even if the majority of these houses are away from the old trackbed, the impact without the railway on local single carriageway roads with congestion gridlock now, will be horrendous.  It seems to us the Council, eager to please housing quotas, is just arbitrarily identifying tracks of land and allocations without serious consideration to 1. what conventional rail could offer and 2. impact on existing highways and air pollution levels without rail choices.

Please write to West Northants Council and Cllrs and demand a better deal for reopening local rail links including Northampton-Bedford and Market Harborough to mitigate rising population and traffic levels impacting everyone. 

https://www.westnorthants.gov.uk/councillors-and-committees/find-your-councillor

The majoritively middle class, rural idyllic is dictating to the compact, urbanised less well off audiences and dumping around the periphery with driving and roads impacting on less well off areas who cannot buy in or out of what constitutes a transport and environmental crisis.

BRTA has spoken with elected councillors over a considerable time and they seem completely not to care about these things. Indeed, they would pit a walkway over a modern local rail link, latter which handles bulk people and goods, and a pathway/cycleway can be slewed in any case, not so easily with a proper railway, yet the gains majoritively more. That is the dilemma facing Northampton, and its people and ideally, Northampton Borough, should have been made a Unitary Council in its own right. Alas, it is being abused by people who are not engaging to get these rail links restored to rebalance development with adequate rail-based transport solutions.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

BRTA CEO

01234 225068

Ps. Don't scapegoat or blame the messenger, but consider the impact of these piecemeal developments in the round more please.  

Northampton, UK should have radial rail links, not be putting development on top of former rail junctions and corridors! Please help us.

I wish to say that I am saddened by the inadequately funded Local Rail Reopenings Fund and its withdrawal. 

We need more modal- shift back to rail in this country for many good reasons. 

We need local-based rail reopenings to enable more by rail. For that to happen, we need a pro-active vision and plan for protecting select former rail routes and ensuring all tiers of government are doing just that, not the hotch-potch of aspirations and blue-sky thinking, whilst Rome burns with blockages at the local planning level. New towns are all very well, but without new and accessible rail infrastructure (we think of growing Brackley without a rail link) but also this planning application as an example: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cly952732jeo 

It potentially impinges on the former shared access route into Northampton from both the Bedford and Wellingborough corridors. Space must be for adequate clearances and minimising vibrations and noise impact on development, enabling 25KV electrification and ensuring the rails can be put back. 

This is far from the case and in the example of Northampton-Market Harborough, despite a Network Rail Study done in 2020, we only got to see it due to 2 FOI applications and even then redacted. We need Local Government on board with us, but somehow that does not seem to be the case. Northampton says it wants to link with the forth-coming East-West Rail, but that is only a change at Bletchley, Cambridge and Bedford-wise, direct rails for passenger (Thameslink) and freight, makes more sense direct to Bedford. 

On East-West Rail, we object to the proposed Northern Route E as hilly, not fit for purpose and in our view, it would be far better for the old route, 'east and of Bedford via St Johns' to be looked at for reopening which is shorter, flat and direct to either north or south of Station Road, Tempsford with physical rail linkages for North-South to/from East West Oxford Arc Corridors interaction for passenger and freight usage/market potential.

If you wish to meet with a delegation, I am happy to discuss and explore. 

I have been campaigning since 1985 on these related issues and believe the whole country, the issues, models and challenges replicate, due to a lack of joined-up and through thinking of procedures. We make high-sided fences and barriers demanding studies, costs which rule out lay people and yet, if Government were to for environmental, land use, efficiency and other benefits select a move towards more by rail and follow-on from such a modal shift policy, engagement could align and plan-implement more to achieve this. 

Haverhill is an example of a new town, no rail/closure coinciding and that is a missed opportunity and repeats across the country. 

I appeal for you to look at these things again and work constructively with us. Thank you. Join our loop via richard.brta@gmail.com

BRTA Leicester Public Meeting

 

BRTA Leicester Public Meeting
Saturday 5^th October 14.00 

Leicester Quaker Meeting House 16 Queens Road, Leicester, LE2 1WP

Guest Speakers:

1.    Andrew Playford, Account Manager, 

Energy and Industrial from GB Railfreight Limited – more freight by rail!

2.    Professor Andrew Williams, a briefing on efforts to reopen the 

Northampton-Market Harborough-Leicester rail link, to give direct rail access between Leicester/East Midlands and Northampton, Milton Keynes, and Oxford and vice versa for people and more freight off roads, back on rails. Both talks will be followed Questions and Answers (Q&A)

Light Refreshments, Mini second-hand railway book and magazine stall, light refreshments and possibly more.

Admission Free. All Welcome. Bring cash for sales, donations and joining. Contacts: Mr Simon Barber: T: 0208 940 4399

E: simon4barber@gmail.com or Colin Crawford T. 07836693977

E. colin.crawfordhp4@gmail.com