Memories - what could have been.

Trawling through my remnant archive, I found this picture of us at St Mary's Hall, 1988 Huntingdon Public Meeting - left to right Richard Pill, Steve Wilkinson, Peter Wakefield, Peter Hayman, the late John Clark and Colin Franklin. Well attended meeting I recall. Now we have a new route, passenger only specification (?) but a railway in the pipeline non-the-less. Hope of interest. Second picture is Blunham looking east over being built Station Court and west towards Bedford old trackbed to the right.

ERTA Update and North Downs Line Theatre

We may not be able to meet anymore, but we can liaise and do on-line work and use spare time/capacity to get jobs done.

Rail Magazine Issue 901 page 15 offers this link: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/sussex/upgrading-the-brighton-main-line/reigate-station-upgrade

Network Rail offering to implement a turn back off the Brighton Main Line to Reigate. Laudable - frees up waiting on through tracks/creates paths and capacity. But whilst I would urge you to write and add your support, please consider the bigger picture and advocate that also:

1. Electrify the North Downs Line to Guildford and

2. Semi fast Thameslinks to Guildford

3. Include Reading electrification as a Phase 2

- frees up changing twice and taking Underground from St Pancras to Waterloo for example.

4. Sandford - restore direct curve and track to Cranleigh and it could clear and cater for trains from both Guildford and Redhill directions, clearing tracks for other services.

5. We want rebuilding of Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham. One project, but may have to be done incrementally?

Please interject your views and where you feel able, give support via the Network Rail consultation.

Feel free to email and exchange/chat with your Executive Committee any of our work, projects, ideas and aspirations and for example on project work, if you feel able to make a contribution beit pretty diagrams, data gathering, photos or whatever, feel free to contribute/offer. There's no need for splendid isolation and boredom! We can keep in touch if we wish via email and so on. e. richard.erta@gmail.com

https://www.ertarail.com/become-a-member-or-donate

East-West Rail Bedford-ECML Section

I have put a mini paper together for consideration please. The consultation and working up procedures should look at pros, cons and costs of both route options and let the people decide. Ditto a junction versus a station with the drawbacks a station would mean. We need to optimise scope of the physical re-railing theatre, not restrict to passenger only and then changing trains,. waiting time and costs contrast direct, cheaper and competitive end to end timings of buses for example. 

Please work with us and liaise. There is a sense that the Borough is ignoring us and our contributions and has gone for a golden bullet option only which is 'as long as it serves Bedford Midland we don't much less care on anything else' which misses the point. Understandable, but we have a once in a lifetime chance to get this railway right and need to weigh the wider context carefully. No-one is saying 'go back to the drawing board' but for example, our southern route avoids the new Black Cat Roundabout and new road work configurations north of Little Barford/St Neots area, whereas the new route would have to cross the A421 / A1 and face gradients into/out of the Great Ouse/Ivel Valley. Once again, from Clapham-Milton Ernest to somewhere north of Ravenden to Tempsford, people get all the intrusion of a railway but no gain as their beef is a direct road arcing the north of Bedford for A1/A421-A6 transits without a 16 mile drive around Bedford via Kempston and Biddenham et al.

It needs dialogue and an inclusion in the frame of what we are suggesting is a more advantageous option. If Government cannot rule dispensations for level crossings where sensible to have them, then that needs looking into. They work perfectly fine with standard rolling stock triggering automatic engagement. In this respect, we should be looking at lengthening platforms of numerous halts along the Bedford-Bletchley line with some borrowed Turbos from Chiltern, to send these ex London Underground stock elsewhere. They seem unsuitable for the safe operation and reliability of the line, the exact same issues bedeveiled the former Railbuses on the Bedford-Hitchin line and we know what that led to - diminishing numbers and pre-Beeching closure and the rest is history!

We need to put Kempston Town on the Railway map (Bedford-Bletchley with a connecting footbridge to the Retail Park with extra parking off Southfields Road, Kempston. Likewise, were the southern route to prevail, trains could come through Bedford Midland from the north including a rebuilt Bedford-Northampton rail link and go off east or west on segregated tracks post getting through Bedford Midland either way.

Kempston Retail Park Station needed now please!

Kempston Hardwick needs a car park for kiss and ride and could have a picnic site or some housing developed for more footfall. However it is ages away from the Retail Park Kempston and that is where a new station serving it and Kempston Town should be picked up on and if you have any influence, please feed this into their hub:

a. 2001 circa Steer Davis Gleave 100 extra off peak rail users per day

b. 1500 car park full x7 days a week all day long

c. Kempston is 18, 000 population

d. cycle network can be developed

e. made design planning stages -circa 2006- but lost to a few votes for fear of local election back-lash - some in Magnolia Close fear its rammifications

f. Owners were okay to share costs in a study, Borough not apparently keen/forth-coming yet found capital funds to try and broker a deal for MML Wixams

g. Parking could be expanded south of Southfields Road with connecting foot-cum-cycle-bridge linking town and Retail Park

h. Retail commands 2 buses an hour, busy roads, long delays (Ampthill Road)

i. Loads of potential

Happy to discuss further, but conquer the Retail Park conundrum and numerous gains on and off the rails. Shuttle should be seen as temporary - lengthen halts to 4 coach and electrify medium term?

If you agree please let the East West Rail Company know your views and join our email loop richard.erta@gmail.com and/or come to our local forum via Richard Pill 01234 330090

https://eastwestrail.co.uk/get-in-touch#general-enquiries

Wey and Arun Canal Threat to Trackbed wanted for rail reopening

07 March 2020

Press Release

Canal Threat to former Guildford-Horsham rail trackbed – ERTA leads to effort for route protection

The Wey & Arun Canal had recently submitted a planning application(with very little consultation) to enable the canal to take over part of the Downs Link, which is a footpath and bridleway connecting the North Downs near Guildford and the South Downs near Steyning in West Sussex .It is used by people such as walkers, cyclists, joggers and horse-riders. The Downs Link utilises the former track-beds of two disused railway lines, which used to link Horsham with Guildford and Shoreham respectively.

If the canal extension goes ahead, the section of the Downs Link would be sacrificed for its users, particularly local people who live in the village of Bramley. More significantly, the Downs Link protects the track-beds of the former railway lines which the ERTA would like to see re-opened following several new housing developments and population growth along the track-bed corridors. The increased population will increase road traffic which is already horrendous at times along the A281 Guildford - Horsham road. The re-opened railway would also provide a direct link between Brighton and Guildford (and beyond). The Downs Link therefore could be slewed beside the re-opened lines being separated by appropriate fencing (including a hedge) to keep out children and trespassers accessing the railway.

Several objections have already been made to this planning application to Waverley Borough Council (Planning ref. no WA/2020/0004), including some from organisations such as Sustrans and the Ramblers. and comments can still be received up to 31 March 2020 to consultation.planning@waverley.gov.uk. Alternatively, write to Waverley Borough Council (Planning and Building Control), The Burys, Godalming, Surrey GU7 1HR ". Further information and liaison Mr Simon Barber: simon4barber@gmail.com T. 0208 940 4399

End of Press Release

Further comments via Mr Simon Barber simon4barber@gmail.com T. 0208 940 4399

We may have been over the benefits before and through our engagements have learned of the problems associated but remain hopefully problems can be seen as challenges and challenges can be overcome. For example, some see the reopening in isolation, whereas we see it in the context of improvements to the rail network in the round such as electrification of the North Downs Rail Link (see inside newsletter) with a new curve from Shalford direct into the Cranleigh line would enable an East Croydon-Redhill-semi-fast to Horsham via Cranleigh and loop back via Three Bridges to Gatwick and back (see map attached). Likewise electrification of the North Downs Line would enable semi-fast Thameslink Trains to access Guildford and save changing and trekking to Waterloo for people coming from north of London for example. 

Through trains exist from Cambridge to Horsham, why not Guildford as well? Likewise the Brighton Main Line is like many local roads, full and needs relief lines. Our Guildford-Horsham-Brighton via Shoreham rail link would enable access to and from the South Coast to Reading for wider diasporas, direct and 'not via London'; freeing up seats and saving people cost as well as time. It is all good for the environment and could inform an all year footfall and spend minus the land use demand for ever more parking spaces if you opt for a roads only option and doing nothing to support these rail options is precisely what that delivers. Some have raised the issue of same corridor used by a canal, a cycleway and footpath meaning no room and a conflict with calls for a rail link. However, could the canal interest be sent by an upgraded river course, could the trackbed of the railway be widened in places to accommodate more - a 'green' corridor than mere remnant trackbed? Likewise footpaths and cycle tracks can be slewed and re-worked to make way for a rail link, whereas railways need formations in-keeping with their engineering requirements.

What we wish for is an accommodation, policies commensurate to protect the route and widening and a formation of a consortium of councils and other organisations to pool resources, apply to the Government's Rail Reopenings Fund and commission a study which could include looking at these seeming conflicts and how an accommodation could be rendered as part of an overall vision, plan, leadership and direction of travel.

At Cranleigh and elsewhere, could a deviation around the town be planned to ensure the passage of the railway and a new station to give ease of access on and off the railway? These things need to be looked at, mere passivity leaves them hanging in the balance whilst population, infill development and impacts on communities go unchecked and roads only outcomes; which is bad for conservation, air quality and the environment we all would proffer to want to protect and cherish. It should not be seen as a threat, rather a chance for renewal and the benefits of a railway and local access. This can be true elsewhere also.

I therefore would encourage support for this rail link and associated schemes to upgrade existing lines to enable more by rail. The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) hopes to (when unlock occurs) table forums at various places to more engage the public and grow a consensus following to help inform more and better pressure for supporting this rail link. We believe it should be supported and kept as a live option and welcome your kind interest to that end please. Thank you.

Copies of our Brochure PDF can be obtained via requests to Mr Richard Pill via richard.erta@gmail.com

Getting an integrated Bedford-Cambridge rail link on right lines?

An alternative option or second route for freight and consideration of a proper linking junction at ECML interface, forget station, they exist at St Neots and Sandy already, so people can travel direct by rail to Bedford if the physical junctioning rail links are done. The angle of approach is wrong from the northern current EWRL route option, whereas from Willington following the southern side of the River Great Ouse trajectory you approach north of Station Road, Tempsford and South of Little Barford - a flood plain - from the south easterly direction, for onwards to Cambourne and so forth. A new station is wrong and not needed. We want a railway able to cater for freight and passenger trains. Reversing into and out of Bedford Midland can happen on segregated lines. Please wave it to others and invite them to think again or go for a dual route option - but put a junction, not a station at ECML interface? Just a thought.

If people agree, please write and make and support the suggestion: https://eastwestrail.co.uk/?msclkid=70acdb0aa2c91cb4cb1c8568ada6aa2f&utm_source=bing&utm_medium=cpc&utm_campaign=_Brand%20-%20EWR&utm_term=east%20west%20rail&utm_content=Generic%20-%20Exact

You can disagree, but have to accept passenger only and ask the question will people from East Beds/Peterborough-St Neots really change at another station and wait with cost for a train to Bedford, than integrated with Thameslink direct to Bedford for example from the East and vice versa?

I received the following from the DfT. It makes little sense to me as anything south of High Field Road Oakley would clash with Clapham surely? Personally, whilst I welcome a new railway it is likely to cater for passenger services not freight. That is disappointing. I thought if it went north of Oakley to somewhere in the Milton Ernest area, you could resurrect the idea of a station to serve the villages of North Beds and as a junction station could do north-south and east-west. In about 1989 Milton Glebe was mooted - should the idea be refloated? It will be interesting to see the plans and how it will configure. At Tempsford it will have an interchange station with the main line, but will people from East Beds and St Neots want to change trains, taking time and money when buses do both direct? Rather would prefer physical rail links so Stevenage and Peterborough to Bedford were possibilities as well as the Cambridge link. Likewise at Cambridge following a south easterly direction from Cambourne it is a 160 degrees curve to join a north-south main line heading towards Cambridge and a 10 mph curve from Cambridge to the single bore tunnel Newmarket line. Working back, it is vital Northampton-Market Harborough reopens for freight via Peterborough and Leicester. If we want to declutter paths on the Midland Main Line, alternative route options need to be revisited. For my money, eastwards of St John's Bedford and to the north of built Blunham to approach Tempsford from the south westerly direction and head off to Cambourne via a north easterly direction with physical rail conenctions for diverse services - passenger and freight. We get one chance at this and unless Thurleigh Airport is to be revisited, a comparative to the old route into Bedford should be explored on practicability, cost, gradient and optiumum usage/usefulness.

Bottom line is a railway is better than none, but it won't be all singing and dancing unless these things are thought through. richard.erta@gmail.com 

Getting the Brackmills Branch Moving towards re-railing

Although the local paper gets our title wrong (!), it is a good article none-the-less: https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/people/brackmills-ceo-says-she-will-do-anything-she-can-get-northampton-shuttle-train-plan-track-2051097

ERTA Newsletter March-April 2020 available by request pdf email

I attach the newsletter and a final chance for pre-booking to come to our conference which is filling up, but still has plenty of spare places. Please support this event as if it goes well, it bodes supportively for more and helps us get our message across, encouraging others to take an interest.

ERTA continues to need more resources in the form of reliable people coming on board and donations are welcome via our bank account: HSBC ERTA Sort Code: 40-45-27 Bank Number 92086808

These help us with production of flyers, brochures, venue hire and practical things - all geared to highlight and bring to the fore our core values and requests towards better public transport.

It is for local people to get organised and determine what they wish for and set about fostering it unto fruition. ERTA can be an agency banner to do that work and it helps us and by wider promotion and reification of principles, aim to connect the grassroots with the powers, authorities and agencies of funding to bring to fruition beit route protection measures, reopenings, rebuilds, better bus links between principal bus and rail stations (Bedford is an example) and much more.

On Bedford-Cambridge, whilst we welcome a route, we still believe there was much merit in going east of Bedford via St John's and diverting before or after Willington, approaching maybe via North of Blunham in the Grange area Tempsford from the south and having physical rail linkage, not just a station making people from Stevenage, East Bedfordshire and Peterborough change whilst meaning no passenger or freight trains can come to Bedford off or onto the East Coast Main Line out of Kings Cross. This seems short sighted and Bedford Borough, English Economic Heartlands right up to Government would do well to keep options open and remember strategic contingency planning, passively design in potential and maybe for example St John's Halt to Cardington Road could be made a cycle-cum-walk-way and keep the old platforms for picnicking for example, rather than block off the route with housing later to regret this loss to the Sustrans Cycle route to Sandy for example from the railway interface. 

Elsewhere development pressures abound and we are seeking to protect routes and engage, but unless strategic ratcheting up of route and deviation protections is forth-coming from Government with incentives to local councils, we may see the spectacle of Government with one hand rolling out funds to nurture reopenings, whilst through negligence, allowing very same routes or others to be lost with the other hand, nullifying the whole endeavour!

So interesting times and the work continues. Thank you.