National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA) for Friday 10th February 2017 ERTA Final Submission

            07 February 2017

Dear Sir/Madam,

National Infrastructure Assessment (NIA) for Friday 10th February 2017 ERTA Final Submission

Our main propositions and secondary considerations:

1. Northampton-Bedford railway reopening

2. Bedford – Sandy-Cambridge East-West Rail Link.

1. Northampton-Bedford. We and our predecessor organisation (BRTA) have been arguing for this rail route to be protected and reopened for 20 years. Key merits we see:

·         Link Bedford and Midland Main Line South with Northampton and West Coast Main Line/direct Birmingham-Luton Airport arc.

·         Offer rail choice locally (A428) and regionally M1 (Northampton-Luton parallel) and Northampton-Bedford-Cambridge (should be part of East-West Rail) rail parallel end to end A45-A14 Northampton/M1-Felixstowe arc.

·         Revolutionise public transport between Bedford, Olney and Northampton, saving time, boosting frequency and integrated with local buses at Olney.

·         Would cut congestion into existing stations of Bedford and Milton Keynes and demand for parking/land use pressure.

·         Would bring footfall and spend to Bedford and Northampton traditional town centres

·         would link 4 airports (Gatwick, Luton, Coventry and Birmingham)

·         would provide a loop off the West Coast Main Line (Northampton-Bedford-Bletchley) allowing non-time-critical operations which in turn frees up paths and capacity to serve Milton Keynes Central

·         Northampton and points North West and Bedford and points south and east are growing population centres.

·         The volume of traffic and emissions overall is unacceptable. This rail link would help in providing much needed transport choice and cut congestion emissions long and short distances.

Studies have been done hitherto: Handley Report 2001, LSMMMS 2003, Capita Symonds 2004, Laurence Gregory 2004 – all favourable. Route hasn’t been protected very well, blockages at Olney and road threats at Northampton. Needs a champion, backer and agency home. It, with East-West Rail offers more scope to break the roads for everything monopoly from conception to assumption, from design and planning to practical readiness for courting what may be on offer. It is lamentable that lack-lustre performance of Marston Vale units inform unreliability giving a diminished impression and experience of rail when we’re trying to promote a positive image. We know of no one agent seeking pro-actively to foster conditions for line-born freight and Forders Sidings and Bletchley depot lie idle and everything seems postponed for future-future, when need is now and retrospectively. This brings some disillusionment to all but the hardiest of enthusiasts who want more freight to go by rail and believe rail to be better for the land use and environment. Local Councils tend to say they cannot support Northampton-Bedford because they are stretched with East-West Rail whereas an integrated approach would see grades of interest and action informing a consumatory conclusion of real delivery and progress on an incremental scale. Getting a station at Retail Park, Kempston (population 18, 000+) would add considerably to footfall on local Marston Vale off peak services making the case for more and better frequency, Bank Holiday and Sunday services on what is marketed as a ‘leisure line’ and for work (localised commuting). The franchise system here seems to be being used against doing it ‘now’ and abates to 2021 before any improvement can be done, which is rigid and inflexible and doesn’t do justice to hitherto studies making the case (Steer Davis Gleave circa 2000/2001) which said the Retail Station would add 100 extra passengers off peak per day to Marston Vales service – part of East-West Rail.

2. Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge: Part of East-West rail yet blockages and debates on exact route abound amidst walls of silence. We interpret traditional as Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge. This needs to be confirmed and the following ironed out:

Bedford/Bedford St John’s Will a triangle be reinstated at St John’s? The old station is constrained to just 4 coach length trains as London Road Bridge blocks expansion eastwards. The inner route demands trains go into Bedford Midland and out again. Will we be able to sustain 1984 St John’s Halt and reopen the old St John’s? Nothing here is straight-forward and we’re keen to see a design specification from the Consortium spelling out how they intend to tackle these issues. The 1984 St John’s Halt would have to be slightly modified to accommodate the curve into St John’s and a group seems entrenched against any changes or accommodation?	Cardington Road Here the old bridge was swept away and a dual carriageway inserted for Tesco. However you could insert single carriageway fanning out to two east of the railway theatre. However, level crossings are unpopular and making a road bridge given the close proximity of Longholme Way - Rope Walk junction and roundabout, makes the road bridge idea prohibitive. A level crossing would be cheaper than bridges and less intrusive. The other factor is that a Sandy-Bedford rail link could be creaming off traffic along the A603 and cuts queues anyway.	Willington Some have added to their gardens across the old trackbed, Danes Camp bestrides the course of old railway, it is a narrow gap hedged in by the lapping waters of the River Great Ouse. Before you approach Willington, you have the spectrum of a rowing lake and development being threatened to be resurrected as a scuppering technique. Scuppering by default as the training lake rules out an island pillar for the railway to bridge the lake and thus rules out the railway. Outer routes have their blockages especially between Cople and Willington for example and linking with the Midland Main Line even at a Wixams Station, then denies Bedford Town Centre.
Blunham Housing estate blocks old trackbed and old station site. Realignment would require using some land which is currently a garden centre cum agriculture. Realignment then has to cross diagonally over the old River Ivel Bridge and fit in the Sustrans Cycleway. In-keeping landscape practise means that high gradient viaducts may not be in-keeping and so getting the railway through this pinch point remains an issue.	Sandy If you go around Blunham to the north of modern built Sandy, you then have a huge curve to swing back over or under the East Coast Main Line, into Sandy and beyond. Old route via Potton and Gamlingay is blocked and so a railway bypass or new route would be required. This means virgin soils or new blockages have to be tackled and destination Cambridge could help determine best route.	Shepreth v Trumpington If, as proposed the new railway links up at Shepreth, you have to share twin tracks to Shepreth Junction; then share just 3 tracks with the Bishops Stortford lines into Cambridge, through Cambridge to Norwich and Ipswich respectively. To enter Cambridge by the former Trumpington Junction requires either slewing the road space or cut and covering the Guided Busway; and things like bridging the M11, clearing a track through the Trumpington Park and Ride where a new halt could link road, bus interchange and rail.

I submit these two as main considerations and would also like to draw your attention to our Campaigns page which has many other schemes we endorse for further study and assessment. Local Government is strapped for cash, LEP too remote – never answers our emails and letters – and parishes like Olney seem bent on development and dismiss the railway restoration as pie in the sky – but that locks into oil/road/car/lorry reliance and Olney gets via the A509 Milton Keynes radial artery, more than its fair share of traffic and should ideally be rail served and bypassed. Our campaigns page is: https://ertarail.com/campaigns/

I attach a copy of the Handley alignment which shows how a new rail route could have been done to correct existing alignment blockages. Alas, due to nil support and a lack of resources, a new alignment would have to be studied by a qualified consultant. We just lack £30, 000.

I trust this submission accords with what you wish and we remain interested to engage any way we may within reasonable time and resource thresholds.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Pill

ERTA Principal Officer