Opposition to EWR Route E and also details of ERTA’s
preferred route for the line.
Background: English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) and its
predecessor organisations have always supported the advocacy of an east-west
rail link going eastwards via Bedford St Johns site and as was, onwards to
Sandy and possibly new build beyond. However, the passage of time (I started in
1987), the failure by Government of all tiers to protect the corridor and
realignment spaces means that Willington is compromised, Blunham is compromised
and Sandy is now screened off. It was still possible to rebuild as far as Sandy
in 1997, but over the 20 years support for it has been lack lustre and the East
West Rail Consortium (EWRC) has floundered between Government dictate of “go
study and keep studying” and the delay constantly against “get on with it”. Now
we have an East-West Rail Company (EWRCo) and late in the day, are probably
working hard, but the translation for whatever reason is glacial speed as far
as progressing an east-west rail east of Bedford is concerned. Complicating
this, is that they, following a consultation in January 2019, which never
included the original route option out of Bedford, concluded the following two
priorities:
1. It must serve Bedford Midland for connection
with other journey options and
2. Therefore going northwards out of Bedford on
a brand-new route would be logical.
The problems:
However, they seem to have paid no attention to
the following:
1. Tracks into Bedford from the west via the St
Johns area to Bedford Midland need straightening, currently has a speed average
of about 10 mph
2. Bedford Midland Station, platforms and
tracks need straightening and alignment to better accommodate more trains
coming into its compound area and onwards in both directions. Since the new
station in the late 1970’s it has been aligned purely for London related
activity.
3. The new A4280 Bridge has two underpasses,
consisting of two tracks for fast lines and two for slower lines, it is to and
from these slower lines that all trains to and from east-west rail have to
negotiate if going via northern route e.
4. Girder Bridge, all lands are developed to
the east of it until over the River Great Ouse, then you veer off, have steep
gradients to clear the A6 Bypass, old Clapham Road, then enter hilly terrain
including Cleat Hill and whether a 3-mile tunnel or cutting, presents a
challenge for any freight operation and will be both cost and protracted
intrusion to a built-up environment and progressively so. Built up today, 10
years’ time, much more so.
5. Then the other end, you face negotiation
with Chawston and Colesden before the A1/A421 Black Cat Roundabout complex,
then getting over the River Great Ouse to descend to Tempsford Flood Plain
which the EWRCo proposes a station and somehow to go over or under the East
Coast Main Line (ECML) ‘north of Sandy, south of St Neots' and a load of new
housing all to be fitted in.
The via St Johns Route
For ERTA, this seems a fanciful way to go in
every consideration and a lot of time, money, pain and protest could be saved
if all parties including the Mayor and Bedford Borough Council could decide to
support ERTA’s option of the original route with realignment around Willington,
going on a new build piece north of Blunham and entering the Tempsford Flood
Plain from the south west, to have just linking tracks enabling through running
and integration of trains from Peterborough, Huntingdon, St Neots south and
East Bedfordshire, Hitchin and Stevenage north to/from Bedford and beyond via
the Oxford corridor and vice versa.
Yes, our route is not without problems and
engineering challenges. But it is flat land, away mostly from residential
development, probably cheaper and at Tempsford, why would anyone want to pay
more to change trains, wait in the open for a connecting service, probably pay
more and have a commute time of say 30 minutes each way, when getting on at St
Neots or Sandy, they could go straight to Bedford and be there by 20 minutes
direct?
There are no problems which are unsurmountable
via our suggested route and freight, via reinstatement of the triangle at St
Johns would go straight on, avoiding the Bedford Midland Station area
completely.
Conclusion:
1. The EWRCo, Secretary of State and Rail
Minister Messer’s Grant Shapps and Chris Heaton-Harris should command that the
via St John’s option be looked at and included in future consultations to give
choice.
2.
Bedford Borough has a pivotal role and must stop plans for turning the St Johns
sites including Danfoss and sites of the old loco shed west of Bedford into
social housing blocking rail options and locking in restricted parking capacity
for the new station design and access.
3.
We are disappointed that the Borough don’t appear to be listening to us. Very
often we get silence and a sense of indifference, whereas we seek to be working
together on what is best for the benefits east-west rail could offer
regeneration of Bedford and take some of the volumes in normal times, of
traffic, off our regional roads.
4.
Objectors must stick to the facts. I know no agenda wanting 24x7 freight on any
route. I just do not think Route E is practical and Government should call us
to a round-table to go over the issues.
5.
More information is available on our Blogspot: https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/
6.
I attach my original inventory and diagram – please use as you see fit.
7.
This development will be around for decades, so getting it all right is both
critical and a lot in the balance. In short, we fear the worse, but hope for
the best!
Richard Pill
ERTA
Bedford Area Rep./Vice Chairman
https://ertarail.co.uk/publicity/
Following 25-02-21 Brickhill Parish Meeting attended by over 150 people.
1. If the Northern Route E is chosen, and if it commands the intensive passenger and freight suggested, then if going to Oxford direction, will have to get through both Bedford Midland and Bedford-Bletchley tracks (single currently east and north of Sandhurst Road) and apart from anything else, will conflict with Midland Main Line operations beit passenger services or other freight workings. That will affect paths of trains to/from Bedford and any calls from local politicians for more services fly in the fact of this conflict surely?
2. Steep gradients are not ideal for long freight movements. Long tunnels ruin the charm of rail which is to enjoy the landscape.
3. Why the Borough representatives are so dismissive of our 'Via St Johns' option, baffles me. View on the conflict with Sustrans should be checked by the fact that you can slew/amend a cycleway easier than a railway and originally the cycleway in 1988 was intended as a stop gap to help protect the corridor for a railway anyway.
4. If the A421 Bypass is raised to enable a railway to go under it, a wide enough underbridge could with perimeter fencing, enable a railway and cycleway under the road, currently it is a tortuous detour with gradients.
5. ERTA's main focus is Bedford-Tempsford and links with the main north-south line there. Cambridge and access routes is another fight and for them to work out.
6. Lobbying needs to get Rt Hon Grant Shapps, Secretary of Sate for Transport and Rail Minister Chris Heaton-Harris MP for Daventry on board. THEY give the orders and that in turn filters down to what East West Rail Company do or not.
7. It is worth remembering that in 1984, one route for the so called Bedford Road Bypass was via the old St Johns route, that was rejected for what we have now. If this country is going 'green', then rail can play a role, but not at any cost. We support an east-west rail link, maybe more than one, but route e is not it by a long chalk and any common sense can detect it. Suffice to say my suspicion of politics in a bubble and differential as a separate class, has not been ameliorated and sadly, a bit of pragmatism and expediency to go with what the people want would court more respect.
This document also worth a read: https://bbcdevwebfiles.blob.core.windows.net/webfiles/Parking%20Roads%20and%20Travel/Strategies%20and%20projects/Bedford%20Rail%20Strategy%20-%20December%202019.pdf
How what a reverse at Midland work in reality? Does this happen elsewhere?
ReplyDeletePutting 2 new through tracks is one thing, a couple of extra bays is another. I do know trains do reverse in places. Bere Alston, Bourne End and so forth for operational reasons. In the 1960's reversal was not a problem as bays existed, but rationalisation tarmaced over them for more parking. One complaint was that Oxbridge trains did not link with Bedford Midland. Our idea protects the linkage aspect, but does not clutter the through lines unnecessarily.
ReplyDelete