Mis-Guided Busway is no substitute for a proper local railway!

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

This news story may be of some interest. Our predecessor organisation with RDS and others fought a hard fight to try and get the tracks reopened - they were still dormant - but the Cambs Authorities u-turned from 1992 supporting of the rail option to Guided Busway and here's the result! Those buses could be redeployed elsewhere like the lack of links other than Cambridge Cambourne has for example. 

Our meetings and fixture continue, please try and support them if you will, they are good networking opportunities.

We need donated books and magazines for our stalls, if you wish to donate please email me back. Thank you.

Please peruse our updated website: https://ertarail.com/events/

We continue to fight the good fight for an East-West Rail Link which serves Bedford via St John's and Bedford Midland Stations, not bypasses the town centre as some have argued! People won't drive and park and ride to go to Cambridge when they would be half way there by the time they boarded a train if it lands at Wixams. Likewise an Oxford-Bedford rail link must link to Bedford-Cambridge for a fully integrated east-west rail link. Yet we have yet to see a diagram with east-north curves into Bedford and the Midland Main Line North via St John's or Wixams, so ruling out freight unless it is implemented. 

Here's the news story... in a time of for some of us 'austerity'!

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cambridge-news/flawed-busway-scheme-127-million-13387301

Rebuild the Derby-Manchester direct 'Peak' Line

https://www.facebook.com/Reopen-Derby-Manchester-Rail-Link-106090603393347/

Derby-Manchester: ERTA supports the rebuilding of the missing link from Matlock-Buxton/Chinley for through passenger and freight workings. It would create a much-needed direct rail link between East Midlands and the North West and vice versa and bring much needed footfall and spend to the lower Peak District area minus the excessive traffic and land-use/parking allocation conundrums which bedevils many a local authority. We welcome people to join ERTA and offer to be Area Reps to help us with:

A.      Convening meetings

B.      Encouraging supporters to join ERTA and offer their time and talents matched to what is needed.

C.      Keep an eye on the old trackbed, log blockages now and threats going forward, help organise objections to Councils against development threats and blockages and any further erosive actions against reopening the route as a railway for daily use.

All further enquiries and news, feedback and support can be directed via richard.erta@gmail.com

https://twitter.com/ReopenPeakRail

East-West Rail Consultation 17-07-2017

http://ewrconsultation.co.uk/consultation

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/have-your-say-on-plans-to-transform-east-west-rail-services#

The ERTA Feedback:

Dear Sir/Madam,

On this planning and consultation process I would like to make the following comments please:

1. I object to the proposed singling of the Bletchley Flyover creating a bottleneck to superimpose a station at height for Bletchley. Far rather to reinstate the old curve off the flyover from the west to ground level, clear and relocate current Platform 1a Staff Mess and Offices to across the road from the station on a new site - former social club - and make 1a and 1c a though single platform interface for quicker access to fast and slow lines for accessing quickly Milton Keynes Central Station. This would also integrate with Bletchley and Bletchley Station better.

2. I note there is no east-north curve from the Bedford-Bletchley line to the WCML into MK Central only a reversal out of Platform 5. This reversal should be common to platform 5 and 6 for multiple usage and operations and ideally bolting on a east-north curve to the flyover should be kept under review.

3. I note your consultation is silent on the need, market potential and benefit of opening a new station at the Kempston Retail Park? Kempston has 18, 000 + population. The Retail Park has over 1500 car parking spaces filled several times over x7 days a week. Steer Davis Gleave said circa 2000 that the provision of a halt would attract over 100 extra Marston Vale users, not to be sniffed at. Surely it makes sense to have a proper halt and connecting foot cum cycle bridge at that location and put rail at the heart of local planning and thus should be flagged up/talk to the owners of the site - it is a business case not basket case!

4. If you extend the current 1984 (despite mis-information) St John's Halt to 8 coach length trains, you block the old St John's Station. How will that assist the reopening of a Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge (preferred route including your own asking x30 years ourselves) rail link? We need to plan for the future and think strategically. Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge is a part of the wider success of the Oxbridge Railway Renaissance and should be accommodated in the design stage now as part and parcel of the Western Route, otherwise you blight it and make reopening that much harder. 

5. I object to any outer route for Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge railway bypassing Bedford via Wixams (Central Beds Council circa 2017) seem to be advocating this which is detrimental to the Bedford (population excess of 170, 000 people and growing and of which Bedford Midland boasts some 9000+ people per day through it's doors) - how can you ignore such an interchange as Bedford Midland and think it savvy? Baying capacity as well as enhanced direct rail reinstatement for accessing east-north (Cambridge-Bedford-Midland Main Line) needs to be factored in and so working with Thameslink and other players, a new redesigned Bedford Midland Station needs to be worked in tandem with the Oxford-Bedford scheme going forward inclusive of Cambridge - Bedford, otherwise you prolong the agony of waiting and chances of disjointed and disorganised endeavour.

6. You should include scoping for a new Bedford-Northampton rail link as even with Oxford-Bedford only, it would enable:

• Thameslinks currently sitting on 2 tracks per hour to be sent off to Northampton clearing those tracks for other trains and operations
• Informs a Bletchley-Bedford-Northampton loop which creates capacity through MK Central Station - itself with too few baying capacity facilitation's witness Southern West London rail services restricted to one per hour when demand would suggest 2 per hour would be prudent given all the contra-commuting it attracts.
• Feeds 200, 000 Northampton population into the East-West matrix at Bedford which bolsters Oxford and Cambridge aspects.
• Enables with the east-north curve at St John's (tracks need slewing) for freight from Felixstowe -Bedford-Northampton-DIRFT/West Midlands not via London freeing up at least 35 paths into, across and out of London per day which can be utilised by other passenger and freight growth corridoric services, currently inhibited stifling the capitals reach and range by rail.
• Protecting a rail route around Olney is much in Milton Keynes Central's rail operations interests. That works back to Oxford/Aylesbury workings and more, so should be looked at and included in EWRL/Consortium's brief now going forward, ditto Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge.

7.  I wish the Oxford-Bedford rail link and services could be hurried up. 2024 seems a huge time to wait for what is a reopening, not reinstatement of a railway surely? If with Network Rail (hence the delay) you should be bringing forward the definitive Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge route for consultation and protection amidst development plans being brought forward by respective local councils so that the route can be protected and planning with confidence around it's route can be done with confidence. This uncertainty erodes the route recover-ability more and makes for a hard landing than softer one. If bypassing Network Rail, we should expect timescales to accelerate and more speedy and tandem delivery with Oxford-Bedford for one integrated railway corridor, not a Oxford-Bedford and Cambridge-Oxford not via Bedford rail scheme which does not relate except for fantasy stops like Ridgmont being seen as the centre of the universe - which is as remote and rough as you can get.

I wish the project well but find the attitude and walls of silence in some quarters unprofessional, inhuman, discriminatory and wanting in joined-up-ness delivery terms, which may give it some credence. I wish to see the public service ethic retained and restored, not a professionals network of impingement partying/exclusive at the public's expense whilst austerity bites and harms the very poor for whom this railway could do so much to support and assist access to better commuting fortunes. Thank you.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Pill

ERTA Chairman

richard.erta@gmail.com

Letter indicating the freight aspect may well be advantageous to consider bearing in mind the wear and tear costs of A14 parallel end to end: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/start-of-construction-on-15bn-a14-scheme-gets-thumbs-up-from-across-cambridgeshire

Response from East-West Rail:

Thank you for this. I’ve passed the letter to our sponsor team to forward to the DfT to consider in any route planning in the future.

I am able to respond to you on the points/queries you made in your original response:

1. I object to the proposed singling of the Bletchley Flyover creating a bottleneck to superimpose a station at height for Bletchley. Far rather to reinstate the old curve off the flyover from the west to ground level, clear and relocate current Platform 1a Staff Mess and Offices to across the road from the station on a new site - former social club - and make 1a and 1c a though single platform interface for quicker access to fast and slow lines for accessing quickly Milton Keynes Central Station. This would also integrate with Bletchley and Bletchley Station better. 

The East West Rail route across the Bletchley Flyover will be twin track throughout, offering the same functionality that exists at present.  The proposals for two new platforms on the east side of Bletchley station do not impact the projects ability to deliver a twin track layout through this area.  Introduction of East West Rail services to the west side of Bletchley would create a difficulty of having to cross the WCML fast lines so as to arrive at the slow line platforms at Milton Keynes Central.  This operational issue further rules out the introduction of such a ‘Bletchley west’ layout.

2. I note there is no east-north curve from the Bedford-Bletchley line to the WCML into MK Central only a reversal out of Platform 5. This reversal should be common to platform 5 and 6 for multiple usage and operations and ideally bolting on a east-north curve to the flyover should be kept under review. 

There is no plan for an east chord at Bletchley as the current train service specification received from the DfT does not require one.  We are seeking to introduce services between Oxford to Bedford, Oxford to Milton Keynes and Aylesbury and Milton Keynes – each of which can be delivered without provision of an east chord at Bletchley.

3. I note your consultation is silent on the need, market potential and benefit of opening a new station at the Kempston Retail Park? Kempston has 18, 000 + population. The Retail Park has over 1500 car parking spaces filled several times over x7 days a week. Steer Davis Gleave said circa 2000 that the provision of a halt would attract over 100 extra Marston Vale users, not to be sniffed at. Surely it makes sense to have a proper halt and connecting foot cum cycle bridge at that location and put rail at the heart of local planning and thus should be flagged up/talk to the owners of the site - it is a business case not basket case! 

The current station stopping proposals between Bletchley and Bedford have been developed in conjunction with local authorities and the local enterprise partnership through the East West Rail Consortium.  The current scheme proposal is for the new Oxford-Bedford services to call at the existing Marston Vale line stations at Woburn Sands and Ridgmont, rather than at any stations along the route. 

4. If you extend the current 1984 (despite mis-information) St John's Halt to 8 coach length trains, you block the old St John's Station. How will that assist the reopening of a Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge (preferred route including your own asking x30 years ourselves) rail link? We need to plan for the future and think strategically. Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge is a part of the wider success of the Oxbridge Railway Renaissance and should be accommodated in the design stage now as part and parcel of the Western Route, otherwise you blight it and make reopening that much harder. 

There are currently no proposals as part of the East West Rail Phase 2 for an extension in length to services using Bedford St John’s station.  Bedford St John’s is currently served by a (max 2 coach length) Bletchley to Bedford service, which would remain the case following the East West Rail upgrade.

5. I object to any outer route for Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge railway bypassing Bedford via Wixams (Central Beds Council circa 2017) seem to be advocating this which is detrimental to the Bedford (population excess of 170, 000 people and growing and of which Bedford Midland boasts some 9000+ people per day through it's doors) - how can you ignore such an interchange as Bedford Midland and think it savvy? Baying capacity as well as enhanced direct rail reinstatement for accessing east-north (Cambridge-Bedford-Midland Main Line) needs to be factored in and so working with Thameslink and other players, a new redesigned Bedford Midland Station needs to be worked in tandem with the Oxford-Bedford scheme going forward inclusive of Cambridge - Bedford, otherwise you prolong the agony of waiting and chances of disjointed and disorganised endeavour. 

The Central Section of East West Rail – from Bedford to Cambridge, is at an earlier stage of design development and Network Rail are currently developing a number of possible route options within a preferred geographic corridor (Bedford area-Sandy area-Cambridge) in collaboration with local authorities and rail industry stakeholders; consultation on the route options will take place in 2018. There will be a number of public consultation events which will be publicised in due course via the Network Rail website and via the East West Rail Consortium website.

6. You should include scoping for a new Bedford-Northampton rail link as even with Oxford-Bedford only, it would enable:

Thameslinks currently sitting on 2 tracks per hour to be sent off to Northampton cleraring those tracks for other trains and operations

Informs a Bletchley-Bedford-Northampton loop which creates capacity through MK Central Station - itself with too few baying capacity facilitation's witness Southern West London rail services restricted to one per hour when demand would suggest 2 per hour would be prudent given all the contra-commuting it attracts.

·        Feeds 200, 000 Northampton population into the East-West matrix at Bedford which bolsters Oxford and Cambridge aspects.

·        Enables with the east-north curve at St John's (tracks need slewing) for freight from Felixstowe -Bedford-Northampton-DIRFT/West Midlands not via London freeing up at least 35 paths into, across and out of London per day which can be utilised by other passenger and freight growth corridoric services, currently inhibited stifling the capitals reach and range by rail.

·        Protecting a rail route around Olney is much in Milton Keynes Central's rail operations interests. That works back to Oxford/Aylesbury workings and more, so should be looked at and included in EWRL/Consortium's brief now going forward, ditto Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge.

These are not currently part of the Train Service Specification we have been issued by the DfT and has been agreed with industry stakeholders.

7.  I wish the Oxford-Bedford rail link and services could be hurried up. 2024 seems a huge time to wait for what is a reopening, not reinstatement of a railway surely? If with Network Rail (hence the delay) you should be bringing forward the definitive Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge route for consultation and protection amidst development plans being brought forward by respective local councils so that the route can be protected and planning with confidence around it's route can be done with confidence. This uncertainty erodes the route recoverability more and makes for a hard landing than softer one. If bypassing Network Rail, we should expect timescales to accelerate and more speedy and tandemed delivery with Oxford-Bedford for one integrated railway corridor, not a Oxford-Bedford and Cambridge-Oxford not via Bedford rail scheme which does not relate except for fantasy stops like Ridgmont being seen as the centre of the universe - which is as remote and rough as you can get.

2022 is the current target timescale for services between Oxford and Bedford to be introduced.  The Central Section will be consulting on their own DCO proposal with consultation set to take place next year.

I hope this response addresses your comments. Please contact me again if you have any further queries. We will progress with TWAO application and hope to make a submission in Spring 2018.

Regards

Sophie Moeng

Consultation Manager

4th Floor | One Victoria Square | Paradise Street | Birmingham | B1 1BD

Mob: +44 (0)7710 961 355

Email: sophie.moeng@networkrail.co.uk

Central Beds Council Draft Local Plan 2035 - Have your say

http://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/planning/policy/local-plan/local-plan.aspx

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to say the following:

1. Transport. I object to the proposed new East-West Railway around Bedford via Wixams. What I want is the railway to follow the traditional route via Bedford St John's as much as possible please. The reasons apart from obvious benefit to Bedford itself, is that you'd have Oxford-Bedford and Oxford - Cambridge not via Bedford which in my view is daft. Your route also puts the trajectory of the outer route on alignment with Bedford Bypass north of River Great Ouse which puts it on a hill overlooking Great Ouse and Ivel Valleys, which if you want to get to Sandy in any shape or form - as time and again all surveys point the traditional route is preferred - means coming down a hill. Moreover it has to come via Sandy as Shepreth is the likley meeting point with rails into Cambridge as old route is obliterated and Cambridge-St Ives is now Guided Busway and expanded A14 artery. 

2. Whilst I support a Wixams Station for commuters to get to London, I also support a station at Ampthill to serve the wider area. I doubt people off M1, Milton Keynes and Marston Valley's will drive to Wixams and north of Bedford is to be appeased with an Oakley Station for Twinwoods, so all that traffic will still be heading towards Flitwick which has a poor road configuration and needs a bypass. It also, station-wise stuck in a valley doesn't command the land-scope for masse parking and on-street parking is a real menace even reaching Ampthill and walk/cycle.

3. Cycle-path-pedestrian widening and blue sign share between Flitwick and Ampthill needed.

4. New Zebra Crossing needed on road bridge on station over-bridge footpath to enable people to cross busy road and get to The Swan Pub and row of shops, community centre and market (Fridays) via Dunstable Street. The paths and crossing bias Tesco currently and it is a dangerous and hazardous bridge to cross.

5. Better signposting to needing a spruce up shelter for buses to Ampthill, RTI needs installing and late buses up to 10pm between Flitwick Station and Ampthill Centre required for night life market growth/cut car dependency lifestyles.

6. Cyclepaths off road between you various towns need to be planned and built akin to a rural version of the MK Redway - Greensands Ridge could be one following into the Clay Walk.

7. Round House needs reparation to a Civil War visitor centre and a cafe, picnic site and caravan park for panoramic views across Bedford alias Marston Vale - accessible by rail at Ridgmont - better signage and pathing needed with drains.

8. Water could be creamed off and piped along M1 corridor from Olney to Marston Vale/Canal, cutting North Bedfordshire flood potential.

9. Coventa and other similar waste incinerator compounds should be made to be served by rail from day one to bring regional waste in and also a recycle centre at Forder's Sidings - cars, fridges and bulkier for recycling by rail and all wastes including incinerator ash should be carted out by rail for redeployment not 500 lorries per day pounding and adding to congestion, wear and tear costs of local roads.

10. Support and evaluation should be given for Bedford - Northampton as part of a Luton Airport-Central Beds - West Midlands arc. Bedford-Northampton railway is the missing 21.5 mile piece for integrated Thameslink rail network and would cut Luton-Northampton M1 traffic and A6-A428.

11. Consideration of extending Bedford-Hitchin/Luton Stagecoach buses from Luton Town Centre to Luton Airport and Hitchin Town Centre to loop via Hitchin Station. Other buses, National Express interchange and airport/rail would boost bus usage and feeder patronage roles. Coach link from Luton-Ampthill/Clophill-Bedford-Northampton - few stops end to end to make more of Northampton-Luton as a public transport commuter arc. Current buses esp. No 41 Bedford-Northampton tends to be slow and puts commuting for jobs options into the long grass as a serious time-distance consideration = a missed opportunity.

12. Serious consideration of better parking and all day safe parking pounds at Stewartby, Millbrook, Ridgmont and elsewhere needs to be given to make more of the commuting potential of the line as well as a new station to serve the Retail Park which Steer Davis Gleave Report circa 2000 said would add an extra 100 off peak passengers per day to the under used rail service = boosting cases for further investment.

13. Support for Sunday and Bank Holiday services over the Bedford-Bletchley railway should be given and hastened. Leisure lines with key leisure days closed does not make marketing add up.

14. Your Wixams map does not show how trains would do an east-north turn at any point to access Marston Vale into Bedford or Midland Main Line. It misses not only Bedford out, but the crucial east-north access - how can it take freight from Felixstowe-West Midlands without such a curve/link? Your idea seems not to have been very well thought through and the silence of Bedford on it, seems crazier still. The call is think again.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Pill

ERTA Chairman

richard.erta@gmail.com

Bedford Times & Citizen 13-07-2017 Page 10

Dear Friends & Colleagues,

I enclose attached article. 

This is daft as:

a. Does it mean Bedfordians must catch a train to either Wixams or Ridgmont and change to come back and across to Cambridge?

b. Bedford is bypassed?

c. Oxford-Bedford one railway, Wixams to Cambridge another?

d. As for using Midland Main Line, surely it is a folly as Thameslink trains sit a-plenty on existing tracks awaiting a path into Bedford, sometimes beyond 10 minutes - what will extra passenger workings from the east do? 

e. If you have a two tier railway with lift shafts at Wixams and a curve onto the MVR going into Bedford and coming back out on same said tracks = a 20 minute delay on over-all Oxford-Cambridge rail transits - still faster than road, but less-than an integrated modern fast railway can and should be delivering into the 21st century?

I think Bedford Borough or a power should charge the Consultants to work the definitive rail routes but also charge Central Beds Council that the favoured route following extensive consultations consistently over 30 years of asking is Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge. It can be done, it must be done. Realign where blockages exist - Willington and Cardington Road main nuts to crack, but if you go north of Blunham and swing round to a new Sandy Station on the ECML I can see the logic - avoids the Blunham pinch points and eases the curvatures on an 'S' on it's side.

I wish our Council vies for the railway to come into Bedford via Cardington Road / The Inner Route and then we can get behind their campaign. Currently the Consortium is focused on Oxford-Bedford but if no joined-up-ness at the planning stage - hence we need to see the design map of route/routes which serve Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge - not options other, then we can again get behind and support more. The undisclosed 'secrecy' of the current situation serves no-one and Government funding must be pegged to definitives alongside Government support whereby they cover mitigation costs on any blight or compulsory purchases. 

Cardington Road can be resolved by making the road back to single carriageway from Longholme Road roundabout to 100 metres short of Tesco Cardington Road - one lane a turn off for Tesco anyway. Then install a level crossing bearing in mind if you serve Sandy, East Beds commutes for County Town are highly likely to lower A603 traffic anyway and if Thameslink work their loop from St Pancras Thameslink - tracks exist there currently not used - A600 Hitchin-Bedford via East Beds integration usage could also lower A600 traffic too in commute terms. So there's congestion reduction gains if we plumb for Bedford Town Centre to be served by the railway.

It is note-worthy that the railway from the West can access north-south main lines at Bletchley and Bedford, but unless we reinstate the curve at St John's or similar access from the East - again remember the bottleneck that is Bedford Midland tracks currently for through services - the railway will only be able to cater for passenger use. However the whole point apart from passenger is to transfer freight from Felixstowe - London-WCML-West Midlands runs to the quicker cross-country line Bedford-Cambridge offers saving time and money and freeing up vital capacity and paths for more trains into, across and out of London in radial and portal interface terms, let alone growth. It seems - in the absence of consultants talking to us or anyone official else, that these matters are not being thought through if we plumb for a Wixams solution. Bedford also needs the footfall and spend, Wixams may justify a main line station for London commuting (or Ampthill?) but Bedford stands to gain more, sustaining small shops and cutting the empty premises syndrome the town centre suffers from - witness Church Arcade, Harpur Street, Broadway and elsewhere/Greyfriars - change of use by all means, but there should be some plan and action to address this, as it brings down the ambiance and sense of well being.

Great Central Article

Introduction: ERTA has like others (see: http://www.bettertransport.org.uk/re-opening-rail-lines and https://ertarail.com/campaigns/) its own list of ‘other-plethora’ wish list of reopenings but owing to low active members and little in the way of resources, we are focused mainly on East-West Rail (Oxford-Cambridge via Bedford) and Bedford-Northampton and we’re seeing the strategic gains of a Guildford-Brighton line via Cranleigh and Horsham, Great Central south of the Leicester area to Old Oak Common (OOC) and the bit linking these two lines that of Old Oak Common – Heathrow (tunnel and sub-surface station and concourse)-the Feltham-Woking-Guildford line – 2 way junctioning for Waterloo or South London Lines and/or via Woking – Guildford. Leicester – Brighton via Heathrow/West London and Guildford makes approximately 150 miles of new railway with some bits already there (principally Calvert, Grendon-OOC, Feltham (or adjacent area) to Guildford and of course Shoreham into Brighton.

The benefits are numerous like: a. more north-south capacity, b. more London seats, c.  better access direct to Heathrow from East Midlands and vice versa ‘not via London and change’ d. Oxford-Reading-Guildford exists, quick, direct access to Brighton without changing at Redhill or Gatwick and vice versa for example. Protection now is vital work to do by all.

Why we’re going to need Great Central tomorrow…

The reality is London terminal capacity is at a premium and in the example of St Pancras, there is not the capacity for the intense East Midlands trains and Thameslink 12 coach electric trains to share the same platforms. Thameslink sub-surface is a through route, a twin track solution which has no terminal baying capacity in the design. Therefore, with growth in development, population and the concentration of jobs relative to demographic spread, commuting has a tension of demand, supply and demand management via pricing regimes which are eye-watering. A day return to London sets one back some £30 odd and for many pockets the train is becoming an anti-social cost to a daily requirement – to court a living relative to time, effort, argie-bargie and reward.

Something must give... what? Then turn to the roads, gridlock congestion bedevils buses, the drive to and from a railway station, parking and costs and on-street access and the “yes, we have a cycle network” P.R. of many a local authority, but the hidden “…but it does not join up.” Is often found out in experience of trial and error. In short roads and rails are congested and so any new or growth must have a new corridor to go to, engage with and branch out from. Enter our Leicester-Heathrow-Guildford-Brighton main line run. 125 mph, limited stops, twin track, realignments where blockages exist. This is on a larger scale than our branch-line jaunts of Bedford-Northampton, important as they are; this is a big push. We have produced a dossier which has been widely circulated and summarised in an article in the national fortnightly publication of Rail Issue 829. Oh, yes, we’re making tracks, we’re making the media and branching out, reaching out and raising the game for re-railing the English Regions. Others do elsewhere and their own particulars. Railfuture, Campaign for Better Transport (CBT) and ERTA could be accused of being rivals, but we agree on far more than we disagree on and the fact we’re coming to the same conclusion quite separately in a call for a rolling programme of rail reopenings and new builds is telling. This, however minute and miniscule the Treasury, Department for Transport and Government may allocate priority and funding, none-the-less the adage of “you have a network, ensure it is well used and not closed first” has had its day and retention with growth is what is required now going forward. This is if we want society and individual partnership with market capacity to offer comprehensive employment and access to be working properly. Otherwise it is dysfunctional and structurally deficient.

See our campaigns page on our website for other ideas and suggestions and email any feedback and support to richard.erta@gmail.com and indicate if you would like to be on our email loop - free and no obligation.

Guildford-Brighton Rail Rebuild-New Build ERTA Call July 2017

Guildford-Brighton Rail Rebuild-New Build ERTA Call July 2017

ERTA calls for the protection of the former rail route between Guildford-Brighton railway line via Cranleigh, Horsham and Shoreham and adequate lands for realignments where blockages exist to keep the option open for reopening this corridor as a railway corridor with cycle paths and foot paths being slewed or added on a widened platform alongside with a fence in between for a transport-leisure corridor which can cut congestion, reduce road traffic, save land, make modest development more sustainable and offer many new rail direct journeys currently laboriously lengthy, costly or inconvenient or non-existent. For example, Oxford-Guildford-Brighton fast and vice versa, Brighton- Heathrow via Guildford and vice versa - the reopening of this railway could enable such journeys with overall benefit. Bringing places like Cranleigh back onto the railway map would also make access and visitoriship a more attractive proposition and a new parkway station could be made available intersecting the A24 so people could have more options in their travel and commuting habits. It would also free up seats on the direct London - Brighton line and enable people to commute to and from Gatwick by rail from north of Guildford via Horsham and Three Bridges-Redhill and back informing a loop. This would cut wait-over and clear through tracks at Gatwick, keeping trains on the move and utilising existing stock, saving costs. Due to blockages, a railway bypass is required at Cranleigh to the west but the gains of a railway and a station there should be obvious to most discerning people and places. ERTA seeks people to join and help act as trackbed watchers, object to threats and blockages and call for the reopening and further study of reopening with a view to taking the proposition forward. https://ertarail.com/membership/ gives details on how to join ERTA, it is simple, painless and every member can help make a difference between re-rail or a non-rail desert with overcrowded roads, parking blight and rising air pollution. There are choices to be made and we can vote with our feet and wallets. Thank you.

Link: https://www.facebook.com/Rebuild-Guildford-Brighton-147211122497086/

Great Central Dossier - free pdf via e. richard.erta@gmail.com

The current M1/M40 arc and Midland Main Line and West Coast Main Line are congested arteries and future growths will require a new corridor to be identified and ideally the railway put back in situ to serve it. Our dossier seeks to open the window on this problem-solution conundrum and calls for route protection policies, realignment spaces where blockages exist and a commitment to club together with neighbouring councils and organisations to invest in feasibility studies and help table the project further towards GRIP status with Network Rail and the Department of Transport. They insist it is Local Authority initiative upwards and outwards. However, they in turn should have a pro-active list and a rolling programme of reopenings/rebuilds for the English Regions, they do for roads, but these deliver traffic to urban centres which then grind to a halt. 

We need a Treasury commitment to a more balanced transport approach and that includes re balancing. Some cite that if we cannot afford to do it, we cannot afford not to do it. What other choices are there? More stations on existing lines, longer trains, faster trains and so forth only results in overcrowding and where they will terminate – places like Euston only has a limited number of platforms for example.

If we want more freight by rail, then we have to consider schemes like Great Central revival and I commit this dossier to you in the hope you will, in a 20-year framework, set your council to outline support the idea and work towards it. HS2 will at best create seats but at what wider cost? The Great Central idea would be a much cheaper option yet ironically deliver wider gains – more passenger and freight diversity, links with other conventional rails like East-West Rail and key hubs like the East Midlands.

East-West Rail Consultation - have your say "Get Delivery Implemented"!

http://ewrconsultation.co.uk/consultation

https://www.networkrailmediacentre.co.uk/news/have-your-say-on-plans-to-transform-east-west-rail-services#

Friday 30 Jun 2017

Have your say on plans to transform east-west rail services

Route:

 

London North Western

The views of residents, businesses and passengers are being sought on the next stage of plans to continue the transformation of cross country rail services in Britain.

The consultation on Western Section Phase 2 of East West Rail, starting today (Friday 30 June), is an opportunity to discuss and comment on initial plans to help shape its future development.

The East West Rail project will make cross country travel easier, re-establishing a rail link between Cambridge and Oxford to improve connections between East Anglia and central, southern and western England.

Phase 2 of the western section of the project will introduce direct rail passenger services between Bedford and Oxford, Milton Keynes and Oxford, and Milton Keynes and London Marylebone via Aylesbury. It will mean passengers and freight services can make the journey between Bedford and Oxford without having to travel in and out of London.

The work is being funded by the Department for Transport with a contribution from the East West Rail Consortium*.

Dominic Baldwin, Network Rail’s project director for East West Rail, said: “We want as many people as possible to engage with our plans which will make travel across Britain easier. There are many different ways the public can participate including drop in events, a dedicated website and an app which can be downloaded straight to their phones. I would urge anyone who has an interest in this investment in the railway to make their voices heard.”

How to engage:

There are a number of ways the public can have their say on the project.

• Visit the websites: http://ewrconsultation.co.uk/ or  www.networkrail.co.uk/east-west-rail

• Download the free app for iPhone, iPad and Android phones and tablets
• Email: ewrconsultation@networkrail.co.uk
• Send a letter: FREEPOST EAST WEST RAIL CONSULTATION (must be in capitals)
• Come and speak to a member of the team in person at a consultation event:

Location	Date	Time	Address
Bicester	10 July	12-8pm	John Paul II Centre, Henley House, The Causeway, OX26 6AW
Bletchley	11 July	12-8pm	Scots Sports and Social Club, Selbourne Avenue, MK3 5BX
Winslow	12 July	12-8pm	Public Hall, Elmfields Gate, MK18 3JG
Launton	13 July	12-8pm	Sports and Social Club, Bicester Road, OX26 5DP
Waddeson	14 July	12-8pm	Waddesdon Village Hall, Baker Street, HP18 0LQ
Newton Longville	17 July	3-7pm	2 Paradise, MK17 0AQ
Bedford	18 July	12-8pm	Harpur Suite, St. Paul’s Square, MK40 1SJ
Marston Moretaine	19 July	12-8pm	The Forest Centre, Station Road, MK43 0PR
Charndon	20 July	3-7pm	Community Centre, Charndon Playing Fields, Steeple Claydon Road, OX27 0BL
Princes Risborough	21 July	12-8pm	Elim Church@Risborough, 9 Bell Street, HP27 0DE

Contact information

Passengers / community members
Network Rail national helpline
03457 11 41 41

Latest travel advice
Please visit National Rail Enquiries

Journalists
Media Relations (London North Western route)
0330 854 0100
mediarelations@networkrail.co.uk