Friday, 19 June 2020

Bedford-Tempsford Central Section of East-West Rail Thoughts June 2020 RP.


Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Further to my email in recent days, I disclose the case officers details and survey being held out for people to engage with. Thank you for those who have responded. My job is to inform and orchestrate for what we believe to be the better option in any given situation. Others can do better and are welcome to join, get involved, take a lead, improve our whatever. Meanwhile we keep doing faithfully what we believe to be a proper act of raising concern on wider impacts and cohesion in the planning in the round. This at a time of lock-down when many are switched off, locked down and unable to engage in such monumentous decisions processes. It is easy to be unphased when far away (time or space or both)  and taking a view it doesn't affect oneself. But getting this land protected is crucial and that does not mean dormancy. Rather it could be made into a 12 carriage washer plant to utilise the land interim off the current Bedford-Bletchley line which has slow speeds and plenty of capacity. Another consideration is that Bedford Midland in the Local Rail Plan is to have segregated tracks through Bedford Midland Station but it is yet unclear whether the new bridge at Bromham Road (A4280) has passive provision for fanning out south thereof from the two slow tracks. Already a long standing issue is commuter trains stopping south of Kempston Road Bridge to wait a clear way to access the platforms at Bedford Midland Station. You have travelled 45 minutes from London and are left standing sometimes up to and beyond 10 minutes.  What with electrification to Corby and Market Harborough and more passenger and freight coming through those very same platform interfaces? Will the problem be exacerbated? Also there is no station north of Bedford for about 20 miles, all that audiences fanning out and growing with incremental development will want to access the nearest and main transport railway station, namely Bedford Midland and where to find a parking slot? That is why lands west of Bedford Midland need to include more parking, ideally a second booking hall and access/exit from a new pathway cum cycleway off of Platform 4 and maybe a one way system from Bromham Road-Ashburnham Road-Ford End Road-Hurst Grove-Bromham Road to make access easier with contra flow being buses, taxis and cycles only? I fear that this and the St John's Plans, understandable the Council is under pressure to utilise brownfield land for social housing, none-the-less have to consider the trajectory of travel. If you want a bigger, beefed up Bedford Midland, it is prudent to save adjacent lands as a part of that expansion. If you don't where are the people to go and what impact on other parking and local roads?

Please have a perusal and I attach some pictures my colleague Simon Barber recently took of the old trackbed and St John's site. It is also another consideration that given support expressed for a Bedford-Northampton rail link being reopened, you have to consider:
a. How it will junction with the slow lines of the Midland Main Line (MML) given 100 mph fast lines won't want facing points (former Oakley Junction) - so how can it be passively included in any designs and east-west rail northern arching route which wants to verge off the same sort of area? Northampton-Bedford trains could come through Bedford Midland and out via St John's heading eastwards, whereas the northern route segregates that potential and that is a concern to us.
b. If we want to get more freight off roads and onto rails, we need the tracks to go where the main places and logistical hubs do. Northampton and its link with onwards to DIRFT and Birmingham is a pivotal link and needs route protection, bids for funding for studies, new route options around Olney and pro-active support from all councils working together now, otherwise again we throw it away with words like:

Bedford Borough Council would be broadly supportive of plans to see the Northampton-Bedford rail line rebuilt and re-opened. However our current focus remains on the delivery of East West rail and improving Midland Mainline journeys to the North and South." Action is required in design now, otherwise when we get to 2030 or whatever, it will be too late.

'Richard,
Thank you for your comments and for your interest in the development briefs. As you may already know we now have a website hosted by our consultants HTA specifically for the development briefs and the link to the website is below.

The presentations given at the virtual presentations held on 5th and 6th May are included on the site and the write up of comments and questions will be published shortly. https://bedfordspd.htadesign.co.uk

Please also find  below links to survey monkey questionnaires which have been developed for both sites. The surveys will be available until May 29th.
Ford End Road
South of the River

If you have any further comments relating to the project, please email
 planningpolicy@bedford.gov.uk or use the contact form on the website.

Carolyn Barnes
Senior Planner
Planning Policy

Bedford Borough Council
Borough Hall
Cauldwell Street
Bedford Borough Council
MK42 9AP

Tel 01234 718568
Ext 47568


End.

Yours sincerely,


Richard Pill
ERTA Chairman
richard.erta@gmail.com

Bedford-Tempsford Central Section of East-West Rail Thoughts June 2020 RP.
1. Bedford St John’s site and trackbed down to Cardington Road in imminent threat for other than rail uses and will be developed over unless an 11th hour recall by a power of on reflection of the Bedford Borough Council. If this site and access is lost, it locks in the route north of Bedford.
2. The traditional route needs a level crossing at Cardington Road, the same at Priory Park entrance, the evoking the clause won at the 1993 Side Roads Order 199 A421 Bedford Southern Bypass Inquiry that DfT would give sympathetic for getting over or under the bypass in the event of a rail being pursued.
3. From east of the bypass you head eastwards at an angle off the old formation at that location adjacent to Willington Woods and cross the River Great Ouse twice veering back to go through the Willington-Great Barford Road (bridge or level crossing) and curve round with bridge or level crossing over the Great Barford-Blunham Road and embankment alongside River Great Ouse, north of built Blunham to curve round and across River Ivel and A1 to the Tempsford plain approaching the ECML from the south western angle with junctioning to allow through services (passenger and freight) south of Peterborough and north of Stevenage including East Bedfordshire to Bedford and the Oxford corridor proliferatedly.  
4. The old route means passenger services reversing at Bedford Midland and whilst it adds time, could be quicker if a. baying is provided for 8-12 coach trains or through tracks segregated to existing tracks b. the lines from 1984 St Johns Halt/Danfoss/old Hitchin arches (currently a NR owned car park) are straightened and upgraded to 20 mph than the current circuitous 10mph. Freight could go through on the reinstated triangle with other operational benefits.
5. The north of Bedford option begs the question where does it leave the Midland Main Line? Field south of the A6-A428 Bypass is now built on. North you have the challenge of bridging over or under the A6 Clapham Bypass, engaging the River Great Ouse, dealing with a perennial flood plain and to do what? Go into tunnel climbing until Ravensden/North Brickhill? Such expense and avarice compared to the straighter and cheaper/less distance land use of the former rail trackbed? From Ravensden you head across to the Wilden/Colesden area, you have to cross both the A421 Great Barford Bypass, the A1/Black Cat Roundabout, descending to bridge the River Great Ouse/Ivel and enter flood plains of Tempsford from a north-westerly direction. This is contra for heading east to Cambourne and the ascent to Shepreth Junction Cambridge.
Conclusion: I appeal to all to think again and consult on these 2 options. Please put on hold any non-rail use development of the St Johns Station site in the strategic interest. If you junk it now and block it, you lock in the northern route which is more problematic and expensive and not without a NIMBY element as well. c/o richard.erta@gmail.com 18-06-2020
We face the imminent danger of the old St John's site and trackbed down to Cardington Road being junked and redeveloped for non rail use. This would throw away the rail route option and lock in getting through busy Bedford Midland to an uncertain at this stage 'how you would do it' northern arcing route which begs many questions.

I appeal to the Mayor Dave Hodgson and the Borough Council, our MP and the Government to call-in this situation for further scrutiny. 1. The original route option was never consulted on, so 'public preference' was always stifled for genuine, inclusive options, however challenging. 2. Tempsford was never hitherto mooted as the location for linking with the East Coast Main Line (ECML). Granted the Sandy access from south of Blunham is lost/screened off with more housing north of Sunderland Road and yet, had the intent of Tempsford of been disclosed earlier, more design consideration could have been entertained. 

Some say my route suggestion is not without problems. Some say level crossings are unpopular. However consider this, Cardington Road was dualled for part access to Tesco and could be made single carriageway at the point where it and the rail interface and fan out eastwards. The road has been bedlam for pedestrians and accidents a plenty along the stretch which is a bit of a fast track. Confusingly signs say 30mph going east (away from town centre) but on the roundabout with Rope Walk (facing west) it says 40mph! Surely a consistent 30mph throughout the built area and 20 mph on side streets would give pedestrians and cyclists more of a chance? 

Wisbech Rail Reopening could command numerous new level crossings. https://www.wisbechstandard.co.uk/news/wisbech-march-rail-link-gets-board-approval-1-6687693?fbclid=IwAR0jFL5K3H1G5Bcc3im1zsIuzRy3pJLbz4c6eB6TpeYLZGK6z5Qjlf2CDik Yet is being considered for pro-affirma reopening.

The rail link could take traffic off Cardington Road if we have through services without changing at any new station at Tempsford, coming direct to/from Bedford and beyond. 

You can see the links to maps from here:

You can read also by scrolling down our Blogspot, more on St John's site or email to ask for a link: https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/

I feel personally, after 35 years campaigning around the Oxbridge Rail Link we are at both the 11th hour and a new dawn with much uncertainty hanging in the balance. Bedford politicians rightly want to build up the status and interchange of Bedford Midland. But by developing the western side of Ford End Road, rather than looking at a second booking hall and more parking/traffic management one-way schemes; are facing pressure for other uses, understandable were it anywhere else. We have one chance to get it right or face locked-in congestion on and off the rails going forwards.

Please write to Bedford Borough Council, your MP and support ERTA as it seeks to build a constructive dialogue and point out helpful options for debunking scenarios of potential misguidedness. Thank you.









Friday, 12 June 2020

Bad week for hope as campaigns hit buffers of resistance!

This is the context these tiers of councils and Government should be reckoning with, not defering and massaging and hoping no one notices!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

Background:
This is why people resort to tearing down statues and mob rule, because the system is not responding, is not spontaneous enough and is negative largely for what people may wish for. The Government award £27 billion for new roads schemes yet places a mere £500 million for the Rail Reopenings Fund. Likewise, many good ideas and popular public interest flounders with the barriers of 'business cases' which cost £millions which ordinary people do not have even if they tick most of the socially mooted boxes of 'normal life'. This is a Climate Emergency, yet our leaders are playing fast and loose with hope. Here's 3 responses this week we thought you may like to consider and any support for us and our causes, are welcome via Mr Richard Pill richard.erta@gmail.com It is all voluntary.

1. Gloucester-Hereford rail link: 
Subject:FW: RE: Gloucester - Ross-on-Wye - Hereford Railway
Date:Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:24:13 +0000
From:NIBLETT, Robert <Robert.NIBLETT@gloucestershire.gov.uk>
To:'simon4barber@gmail.com<simon4barber@gmail.com>
CC:SENFT-HAYWARD, Luisa <Luisa.Senft-Hayward@gloucestershire.gov.uk>, SIMMONS, Dave <Dave.Simmons@gloucestershire.gov.uk>, JACKSON, Karen <Karen.JACKSON@gloucestershire.gov.uk>

Dear Mr Barber

Thank you for your email of 12th May and my apologies for the delay in replying to it.  Policy LTP PD5.1 - Rail Infrastructure Improvements of the adopted Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2015 – 2031 states that:

‘GCC will only support the re-opening of railway lines where a robust business case can be provided by the scheme promoter. The business case must provide clear evidence of benefits to the economy and deliverability’

Consultation on the emerging review of the draft Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan 2015 – 2041 closed at the end of March this year.  The policy position in the draft LTP remains unchanged. Details of the review process can be found at:


The ERTA’s support for rail and better integration of public transport is very welcome.  Gloucestershire County Council is committed to reducing carbon emissions and increasing use of public transport.  However, as you will no doubt appreciate local government finances remain very challenging particularly with the current Covid – 19 pandemic and the priority of the County Council is to focus it’s limited resources on increasing patronage on the existing rail network and improving station facilities. 

Ultimately the reopening of the line between Gloucester and Hereford would be a matter for Network Rail to deliver and they would need to be convinced of the strategic need for such a considerable undertaking.  Progressing schemes through Network Rail’s Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline is a lengthy and expensive process and for the potential reopening of rail lines the County Council would need to make a decision on support or otherwise on a business case produced by a third party scheme promoter.

I hope this clarifies our position on this matter and again I am sorry it took so long to reply to your original email.

Thank you

Rob Niblett
Senior Planning Officer
01452 425695

2. Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham rail rebuild: Dear Mr Pill

Thank you for your additional comments.  As I say, we would agree that this line would have played a useful role had it still been in place today.  Unfortunately, however, even when businesses cases are looked at over a long time frame and in the context of the Climate Emergency, the very high costs of reinstatement (costing hundreds of millions of pounds) means that it is extremely unlikely that this proposal would be achievable.  The scale of development along the route likely to be necessary to fund the level of investment, which would probably be many tens of thousands of new homes, would not be acceptable along this rural route through the South Downs National Park.

We are not actively discussing this proposal with other councils as we cannot foresee how a business case generating good value for money could be generated.  Although I realise that this response will be disappointing, we need to focus our attention on other priorities for attracting investment to improve the rail network where there is a much clearer and stronger case for major levels of investment.  This includes Network Rail’s current proposals to unblock the Croydon bottleneck on the Brighton Main Line, and proposals that we expect to emerge through the West Sussex Continuous Modular Strategic Planning study considering the West Coastway and Arun Valley Lines in West Sussex.  

Yours sincerely

Roger Elkins

Cllr Roger Elkins | Cabinet Member for Highways & Infrastructure and Member for East Preston & Ferring Division,
West Sussex County Council, Room 102 First Floor, County Hall, West Street, Chichester, PO19 1RQ
T: 033 022 23699 | E: roger.elkins@westsussex.gov.uk

3. Don Valley and Woodhead rail rebuild/reopening campaign:
Subject:RE: Woodhead Rail Route
Date:Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:14:45 +0000
From:Finnegan-smith Tom <Tom.Finnegan-smith@sheffield.gov.uk>
To:simon4barber@gmail.com <simon4barber@gmail.com>
CC:transport@sheffield.gov.uk <transport@sheffield.gov.uk>, Harrison Kelly (CEX) <Kelly.Harrison@sheffield.gov.uk>, O'shaughnessy Lisa <Lisa.O'shaughnessy@sheffield.gov.uk>, Partridge Caroline (CEX) <Caroline.Partridge@sheffield.gov.uk>, Jockel Cate <Cate.Jockel@sheffield.gov.uk>


Dear Mr Barber

Thank you for your email of 23th May, sent as a representative of the English Regional Transport Association, to SCC’s Interim Chief Executive Charlie Adan, and relating to the Woodhead rail route between Sheffield and Manchester.

You raise a particular issue around the proposed new underground cables. I understand that Sheffield City Region (SCR) did raise some concerns about the cables: however, the application is currently with Barnsley MBC and it is unlikely that any considerations about the future of the railway will provide grounds for refusal as there isn’t sufficient materiality behind any reopening.   

You also raise an issue around a housing development at Deepcar. This was considered at the City Council’s Planning Committee in May and was approved there. There is some protection provided for a future rail halt on the rail line to Stocksbridge. You can find the minutes of the meeting and the full report on the application at -

More generally, you will know that Transport for the North (TfN) is leading development work on a Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) network. This has aspirations for Sheffield to Manchester services which partners across the north, including SCR and SCC, have supported. Locally, the South Yorkshire Districts and SCR have all signed up to the Sheffield City Region Integrated Rail Plan which you can find at this link https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/irp/ This does include the option of a new line between the two cities.

It is TfN which will take forward the NPR network and it is continuing to work on the evidence and business case for this. The NPR work is now being brought together by central Government with HS2 work under a banner of High Speed North and it has asked the National Infrastructure Commission to investigate. The NIC report is now keenly awaited.

You can be assured that SCR and SCC have regular contact with TfN (NB SCR is the constituent member and not SCC or the other South Yorkshire Districts). We put forward the case for the Sheffield elements of NPR at every opportunity.   
Best regards
Tom

Tom Finnegan-Smith
Head of Strategic Transport, Sustainability and Infrastructure
City Growth
Sheffield City Council

* Floor 5, Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield, S1 2SH
(  07787268905

Please join ERTA and give us your support: 



Friday, 5 June 2020

Cambridge needs a rail-based solution to ease congestion, cut pollution, sustain footfall and spend more.

Comment: For a seat of learning, the Cambridge 'mess' epitomises the health of campaigning but also the power of superimposition. #ertarail fully supports the East-West Rail Link Central Section from Bedford-Cambridge and is opposed to proliferated Guided Busways and developments which would make that rail proposition harder to deliver or implement. Please join our email loop and help usher delivery sooner than later. Cambridge is congested, bus solutions have only taken us so far, roads solutions have locked-in congestion and given rise to more by road compounding the congestion, land use parking demand when land is premium and pollution takes a toll also. Trams/LRT has been mooted, but all costs and where's the funding coming from? Tolling motorways and trunk roads and allowing local transport agencies a share of takings could be one answer, but their plans have to be sustainable and on the right lines = rail based transport, not rubber on hard surfaces emitting particles. Send email requests to our loop to richard.erta@gmail.com


5th June 2020

Press Release

 

Cambridge needs a rail-based solution to ease congestion, cut pollution, sustain footfall and spend more.

 

The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) supports the proposed East-West Rail project between Oxford, Bedford and Cambridge. A new route was proposed earlier in 2020 and we await to see detailed designs. However also, that corridor needs protection and conservation to ensure the railway has a viable corridor. It is intended to serve both Cambourne and Cambridge South Stations (alias Addenbrookes).

 

We deeply regret the touted go-ahead for a Guided Busway across country to Cambourne and possible associated infill development. Development without a rail foundation is unsustainable and could cause more problems than it solves. Over the decades, Cambridge has had a plethora of road initiatives, Guided Busways but rail schemes have not had their fair turn in what they could offer, alleviate local and regional roads more!

 

We call on all tiers of Government and associated agencies to speed up delivery of the East-West Rail especially between Bedford and Cambridge and call for re-doubling efforts to re-rail Wisbech and Haverhill as well. If routes are lost, new routes need to be found. But it is a fact that rubber on hard surfaces produce particulates we all have to breathe alongside congestion which exacerbates the health issues associated with locked-in road transport solutions.

 

People are welcome to join our email loop and work with us to support rail alternatives across the English Regions. Send requests to Mr Richard Pill via richard.erta@gmail.com

 

End of Press Release

 

Further comment: Mr Richard Pill, Chairman of ERTA and Media Spokesperson 01234 330090 or richard.erta@gmail.com