The ERTA Feedback:
Dear Sir/Madam,
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
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
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/
· 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
No comments:
Post a Comment