Urgent
Government Action is required now to help keep options open and better steward
potential national assets from ruination and destruction on a grand scale.
Introduction – what matters now
Across the English Regions old railway
trackbeds and routes are being subject to no protection whatsoever in a context
of laissez-fare planning and development pressures. The result is that an
upsurge in bombardments peppering these old railway courses is now visited upon
us. Once lost, unless lands are set aside for realigning railway routes in the
event of reopening, they are lost and the upheavals of compulsory purchase
apart from being expensive are met with objections and much consternation,
understandably. What we wish for is the Government to see that at least some of
these old railway routes are not just passive phenomenon or mundane happenings,
but a potential loss to recovery and realisation of key corridors and assets
for the national well-being. We want the Government to act now to strengthen
the hand of those wanting to protect former rail routes and realignment spaces
where blockages have occurred and indeed to make it a mandatory policy of
planning consideration and practise.
Background – the historical context
informs todays ‘reality’
The closures of the late 1950’s
(pre-Beeching), 1960’s (Beeching and Castle eras) and early 1980’s (Serpell)
was of a dubious nature. Superimposed with very little pre-notice, weakened
organisational ability to resource and galvanise against, they were the
dismantling of what was once the most intense and integrated public transport
system and assets in the world. Indeed, we gave railways to the world as one of
our legacies. The closures coincided with a deliberate post-war government
policy of preferring roads, the M1 in 1959 coinciding with the closure trickle
leading to a wholesale flood. Half a century of neglect for those formations,
encroachment development means many are compromised or lost. The cycle of road
reliance and dependency for passenger and freight transport is that mass demand
has informed side effects like congestion, delays, waste of fuel, air
pollution, land use conflicts and demand for parking outstripping urban or
beauty spot ability to service. Contrast today, what railways remain are
bursting at the seams for want of more capacity, alternative route options and
re-connecting outlying places and regions.
Get the English Regions Back on Track!
Scotland has blazed a trail in rail
reopenings and rebuilds and all reopenings and rebuilds have shown
unprecedented growth and usage beyond predictions making the case for them. The
Borders Railway is a case in point:
Ø Brand-new infrastructure
Ø Some old trackbed recovery
but also new build where necessary
Ø 4 million users in first few
years of operation
Ø Serves rural heartlands and
outlying urban centres
Ø Has brought footfall and
spend minus cars to these areas revitalising their economies
Ø Has informed new job and
commuting opportunities
Ø Has led for calls for more
re-railing including rebuilding back to Carlisle
The English Regions, with even more dense
populations, more congested roads and higher air pollution levels are lagging
behind. There
is probably about 100 reopenings/rebuilds which could wash their face like the
Borders Railway example but the stringency of Government demands, the costs associated
with commissioning studies and working up schemes has to be able to access
capital funds to draw down and if that means taking from capital funding for
road schemes as an investment in modal shift nurture for the sake of the
environmental as well as any socio-economic benefits, so beit. In short, we
wish for:
Ø
Capital funds for incentivising local councils to protect railway
routes and corridors. This does not have to be passive but can interim double
up as linear parks, green spaces, conservation areas and footpaths/cycleways as
long as the conversion to a railway is understood by everyone and alternative
options for relocation of other uses can be designed in to and integral to a
railway.
Ø
For Government to commit to giving the go ahead to one reopening/rebuild
per region per year from now. For example, Skipton-Colne, Bristol-Portishead,
and the Fawley Branch have all been lauded but not given the go-ahead. Other
rebuild schemes like Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge need working up, route protection,
deviation spaces and speeded up delivery wise. Once the movement and rewards of
reopening/rebuilds come on-stream rather than gathering dust on shelves in the
form of umpteen reports, so other schemes can work their way up the chain.
Ø For more
incentives for Local Councils and other agencies to intervene and protect routes
and realignment spaces for and to entertain reopening/rebuild schemes in their
areas and collaborate together to move the agendas from abandonment,
encroachment and dismissal to embrace, nurture and responsible stewardship. A
lot can change in 50 years, demand which may have not existed then, may exist
now. At very least they should be required to make assessment of new flows and
demand.
Ø For
incentives for start-up costs to be partly met by grants. Getting more freight by
rail can require outlay costs of sidings, fork lift/gantry equipment,
reciprocals, sites and wagons/locomotives for example as well as possibly new
signalling and other infrastructure. If we are to reduce the costs of road wear
and tear, cut carnage and reduce the tonnages on our roads, getting more
freight by rail sounds good and is easy to say and quote in a report, but needs
seed corn funding to be apparent to enable small schemes upwards to be
pioneered and grown to longer/bigger operations. Examples are recycling great
and small, pallet-sized consignments to containers, wagon loads to mixed
freight. If it is only economical to send all goods by rail if over 100 mile
distances for example, then the law should say all freight over 100 miles must
go by rail surely, alas this incentive is lacking on the scale required for
majoritively modal shift and main carrier status to be awarded back to the
railways as the staple future means-ways to send goods.
Case examples (not exhaustive):
1. Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge: Part of the East-West Rail
scheme, been discussed in various arenas for over 35 years. Meanwhile nothing
has been done to protect the former trackbed and acutely access to the urban
interface at the Cambridge and Sandy locations as well as Bedford. Default is
not enough. Brand-new routes, because of increasing development going in, also
face problems and spiralling costs. ERTA wants the traditional route with
modest deviations where blockages exist. This cannot happen if the original
route as an option is missing from consultations and is not protected now to
keep that window alive. In short, bypassing Bedford, linking at Shepreth onto
existing lines rather than Trumpington should not be allowed. It should also be
insisted that physical tracks link the radial north-south main lines to the
east-west rail so for example Peterborough-St Neots-Bedford, Thameslink from
Stevenage-East Bedfordshire-Bedford as well as Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge can be
entertained.
2. Great Central South of Narborough and
Rugby: This
route needs recovery and protection as is under threat now. Largely fallow
until the last 10 years it is now bombarded with piecemeal development without
any incentive to consider what re-railing the corridor could do. HS2 will not
provide intermediate stations between Old Oak Common and Solihull, so all in
between growth-wise will be flung to existing roads and rails. Meanwhile the M1
often draws to a standstill, likewise the M40 is busier than ever. Saving land
and offering real rail choice going where these flows also go is what recovery
of the railway could offer.
3. March-Spalding: Closed 1982 this trackbed
was dormant apart from Whitemoor Prison for a long while but now development
pressures abound and the consensus around building homes is high on the
Council’s mind. However, more development without infrastructure, means all on
to the local roads. £millions are going into more bypasses and yet they say
there is no potential demand or justification for a parallel railway. Better
protection mandates and a rolling programme of reopenings/rebuilds as part of
the mix of what Government facilitates for the railways could help strengthen
the call for protection and study to assess whether in fact the railway could
deliver benefits and dividends and be well used. Suffice to say the costs of
the new Werrington Flyover and routeing upsurges in freight by rail the long
way around from March-Peterborough-Spalding shows that efficiency gains by a
direct railway could free up cost and bottlenecking elsewhere.
4. Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham-Shoreham: Over the years whilst a
main part of the route has been protected as a walkway-cum-cycleway,
development blocks the route in Cranleigh for example. A deviation or
compulsory purchase and relocation of the development is required if the
railway is to be rebuilt. Likewise, the footpath and cycleway may either need
to be slewed to share the corridor with a fence separating the two or relocated
alongside off the trackbed to enable the railway to get through, ideally with
double track or long passing loops such as a Cranleigh Station could inform.
Demand and benefit of reopening is in scope from
Reading/Heathrow-Guildford-Horsham, Gatwick from the south, Shoreham for
Brighton and relief to the Brighton Main Line, A24 and sustained town centre
footfall and spend minus the cars keeping town centres vibrant. It would also
open up new employment and commuting opportunities to a wider area.
5. Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton: Development has scotched
early hopes of progressing reopening and now we need Government to demand that
alternative access is identified, laid aside and provide seed corn funds for
studies to work up the case and demand with a real prospect of sanction for
rebuilding the entire line in due course. Benefits connecting the regions and 2
main lines as well as benefits to the ancient location of Ripon should not be
under-estimated and new development if tailored correctly could inform new
demand, especially with commuting for example.
The way ahead:
A rolling programme of line reopenings and
rebuilds is crying out across the English Regions. A level playing field would
inform more schemes can be worked up and investigated. Better and stronger
Government mandatory rules, guidance and laws are needed to stem the rot of
routes being lost beyond reasonable recovery to keep options open, make
development more integrative and sustainable.
Unless Government acts and starts a rolling
programme of delivery even a trickle of one per region now, we are saying
goodbye to sustainable transport options and the conveyance of people and goods
more by rail, which evidence shows is
being used more today than ever before – this on 1/3-1/2 the network which
existed in 1955 for example.
We call on elected representatives and others
to add their voice to our calls and champion them to the highest levels of
Government as an investment in ourselves. Likewise, if members of the public
agree with our calls, why not join ERTA and help us do even better?
For an index of the top reopenings we have
identified please request our Rail Reopenings Pamphlet which lists 32, again
not exhaustive but indicatory that if a fraction were being incentivised to be
protected, worked up and delivered by Government sanctioning a rolling
programme akin to calls for more electrification for example, then in our view,
that would be a very prudent act and investment in our nation’s well-being.
Disclaimer: The English Regional
Transport Association is a voluntary organisation and as such relies on the
generosity of professionals and public for entertaining and supporting our work
and calls. Please help us and be part of the answer to the question of why
reopenings/rebuilds are not happening and help get the English Regions moving
in a healthier way.
"_______________________________________
Tear Off and Send with
Your Subscription or Renewal or go to on-line:
https://www.ertarail.com/become-a-member-or-donate
https://www.ertarail.com/become-a-member-or-donate
Tick if a New Member: o_____
Tick if renewing as an existing member: o_____
Membership of ERTA costs £12 per annum. I/We wish to join o_______
Name
(Please Print): __________________________
Address:
___________________________________________ Postcode: _______________
Tel/Mobile:
__________________ Email ________________________________
I/We
hereby give consent to our data being used and stored for the purposes of
communication with ERTA and its purposes compliant with General Data Protection
Regulation (GDPR) o______
Signed: ________________________
Dated: ____________________
Please send completed
form and payment to ERTA Membership:
ERTA,
24c St Michael’s Road, Bedford, MK40 2LT (01234 330090)
