Report on Brackmills Meeting, Northampton 26-02-2022 by Richard Pill

Report on Brackmills Meeting, Northampton 26-02-2022 by Richard Pill

The Brackmills meeting was intended to discuss matters pertaining to the re-railing of the Northampton Castle Station to Brackmills Industrial Estate as a rail link for better public transport, freight by rail and general accessibility more than the current situation informs. In a background of growing developments of various sorts across the whole Northampton area beit business, warehouses and residential estates, the direct linkage to increased traffic and associated congestion is a major local problem and ever apparent.

Northampton has a reasonable north-south West Coast Main Line (WCML) railway but a lack of east-west radial rails and a lack of a direct rail link with its regional partners in the East Midlands like Leicester, Nottingham and Derby for example, means all north-south movements tend to go by road including the congested M1 and A508 for example. ERTA dearly wants to see the Northampton-Market Harborough rail link put back with deviations where blockages exist and new build where necessary. The end-to-end linkage and benefits should not be under-estimated. However, the way ahead to get it delivered is equally as challenging and Government seems to be sending mixed messages to say the least on road and rail. Road has a much, much greater budget for expansion than rail and yet, despite COP26 and the concerned about a need for modal shift, cutting emissions and the sheer inefficiencies of congestion, Government panders to the construe of a roads-based society with rail as a nicety, but acting as if expendable commodity and approaching it as a middle-class play thing, whereas it should be mainstay for most freight and local-regional people movements. It once was, the closures secured the trend towards roads locked-in and only reopening can rebalance our transport infrastructure and inform more modal choices for all.

The meet, the first of its kind, attracted some 12 representatives and was generally a constructive and outward looking event. It covered yes, the Brackmills Branch Re-Rail Project, but also other rail issues across Northamptonshire specifically but reaching out for partnerships where common support could be found. So items included taking Brackmills Re-Rail forward and the technicalities involved like Northampton Station layout, capacity, reconnecting the branch to north-south lines and through running into platforms. The road bridge could be reconfigured/replaced, platforms could be reconfigured, and these issues serve a wider purpose than just Brackmills interest, it could create more tracks and capacity for current and future other growths including serving DIRFT and Northampton Freight Depot, trains to Market Harborough and Leicester northwards and Milton Keynes, Oxford, Swindon, Aylesbury and Old Oak Common southwards.

Other highlights were in sum:

A, Daventry: Harry Burr is pioneering a new station and/or new rail link to the Daventry area

B. David Ferguson flagged up a new station for Roade to catch growing development and the A508 south of Northampton saving people driving into the town centre if they wish to travel to places like Milton Keynes and London for example or indeed visiting further north beyond Northampton with less drive-time.

C. Northampton-Market Harborough serves multiple linkages and could enable, with a north-west curve at the Northampton end direct running to DIRFT.

D. On the Northampton Loop Line, a third track could be looked at for more freight by rail. HS2 is supposed to free up capacity, but more by rail needs more tracks on existing lines and reopenings for greater connectivity as to what rail can provide/tap into new markets.

E. Stations on the Midland Main Line, now electrification to Corby and Market Harborough has/is happening. Places like Oakley, Sharnbrook, Irchester (serving wider Rushden), Burton Latimer, Desborough and Kibworth should be looked at. The slow lines can provide separate local services to fast-lines which only stop at principal stations. Spacing stations out at 5–10-mile distances enable even distribution of patronage and spreads the load with the gains.

F. Brackmills needs better public transport for people and goods options. The No. 41 bus service linking Bedford and Northampton has been cut to 1.5 hours interval frequency and takes 1.5 hours journey duration. This is unacceptable for courting regular usage and serving the potential commute, business and visitorship the two towns could be doing with each other if a new faster end-to-end service was fostered. Spiral up or down, it is down currently and for those who want more flexibility, X5 Bedford-MK Central and train to Northampton is the best option it appears, albeit more expensive!

Conclusion: Oh, that all Under 65’s were given concessionary bus and rail passes if on £20, 000 p.a. or less and Government backed a drive to greater usage of the public transport system. What will it take to inform modal shift? A lot more than the spiralling down of public transport and the ability to make public transport much more amenable, affordable and accessible. Currently this is not the case and whatever it takes, should be where Power, Authority and Resource Stewardship should be leading from the front. Meanwhile, incremental line and station reopenings, offer a life-line for optimising the getting more people and goods back on the rails in greater and lesser volumes. We can all do our bit and ERTA will do what it can as well.

https://ertarail.co.uk/ For a copy of the notes from the meeting, please email richard.erta@gmail.com

People at the meeting:

Guildford-Horsham rail corridor threat by a canal planning application - object now and support local rail reopenings!

Agenda for Horsham Public Meeting Saturday 26^th March 2pm at the Meeting Hall, Horsham Unitarian Church, Worthing Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1SL

https://horshamunitarianchurch.com/how-to-find-us/ This agenda is approximate.

1. Chairman’s welcome and any health and safety guidance

2. Speaker Mr George Bathurst with questions and answers after 20 minutes (approx.)

3. Second speaker to be announced around Guildford-Horsham rail/trackbed protection

4. Colin Crawford on the Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham rail link and associated threats.

5. Discussion

6. Drinks, sales stall and networking/banter

7 Pack up and exit safely.

For more information on ERTA, please check our website: https://ertarail.co.uk/

For a reader around some of our campaigns, please check our Blogspot: https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/

We have a free email loop for updates requests to richard.erta@gmail.com

Add your contribution and join the association. We are stronger together!

Re: Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham Rail Link Route Protection and re-rail promotion.

I apologise for a bad copy (received) of a letter from Waverley Council regarding a re-run of a Planning Application for a canal along part of the former railway corridor which already doubles up as a footpath/cycleway. ERTA has long called for and has a view that re-railing the corridor would serve the greater good in terms of alternatives more to road usage, cut congestion, reduce emissions, free up land for other things to meet ever more parking demand and so forth. I have produced a basic template letter and invite people to either do their own, print and send and/or fill in, scan and email or email, whichever you prefer. This is a golden opportunity to call on councils and other agencies to support the rail option, canals, cycle paths and footpaths can go along a widened 'green' corridor and/or be directed elsewhere, railway links between principal towns are not so easy and using former routes make some practical sense and does not necessarily exclude others, but others exclude/make harder re-railing the corridor.

Please also find our diagram, which gives a rough guide to connectivies the rail link offers, freeing up wider on/off road and rail capacity. If you need any more information either contact the Council direct (Waverley Borough) or our lead member who undertook to liaise and represent us on the matter via Mobile 07836 693977 or email him via colin.crawford@btconnect.com It is not very often we have a chance for a second bite at the proverbial 'cherry' but this is a window of opportunity for the rail link. Our events page shows we have a public meeting scheduled for 26th March and all are welcome to compare notes. https://ertarail.co.uk/events/ Please give us your support, however remote you may feel - it is our nationwide interest, reach and range which makes ERTA significant to mobilise for more and better rail and select other public transport matters. We welcome people to join if not already and add their weight. It is amazing what people-power can achieve sometimes, despite the odds. So there can be a hope for the rail option if enough support can be found. Thanks very much. For relevant docs, please contact me via richard.erta@gmail.com and also see Waverley contact page: https://www.waverley.gov.uk/Services/Council-information/About-Waverley-Borough-Council/Contact-us

Closing date I believe is 21-02-2022 - there is time is we can act 'now' please and together can make an impact. Act now please.

Waverley Council contact to object to Canal Threat to Rail Corridor is e. kate.edwards@waverley.gov.uk 

Reference: WA/2020/0004

Below is original letter for perusal and if inclined, support the railway as other options for the canal do exist. Meanwhile, a timely reminder if we do not re-rail Britain: https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/70604/-pause-english-roads-programme-too-says-goodwin

Email from Surrey County Council says: "From reading the documents you kindly sent me, I believe that you are seeking to make a case to object to the diversion of the Wey and Arun Canal on the premise that it will prohibit the potential reopening of the former railway line between Guildford and Cranleigh, and potentially onward to Horsham and Shoreham. I am afraid that the reopening of the railway is not supported by the County Council, which means I cannot support your case. As I am sure you will be aware, the original Guildford to Horsham via Cranleigh line was opened in 1865 by London Brighton and South Coast Railway. It was a single-track railway with passing loops. The line was never very profitable and the 1963 ‘Reshaping of British Railways’ report (Dr Beaching’s report) indicated a flow of under 5,000 passengers per week. As a result, the Guildford to Cranleigh line was closed in 1965. In pre-Covid, the A281 suffered with peak time traffic congestion and all the problems that brings; pollution, frustration and delay to commuters, negative impacts on businesses, etc. The County Council and the rail industry have looked in detail to see if it is viable to reinstate the former line between Cranleigh and Guildford. Work has shown that an engineering solution is feasible, although it would come with some environmental impacts as construction would affect many walkers, dog walkers, horse riders and cyclists. Locally it may not be supported by all, or indeed a majority. In the mid and late 1990s, the Council commissioned work looking at rail improvements in the County, including detailed work on a few specific projects, which included the Guildford to Cranleigh line. The economic analysis suggested that the reopening of the line would not be feasible. The first-year income was estimated at only 3% of the capital cost, even without taking into account operating costs. Research also showed that only 12% of trips made from the area were to Guildford or London, with 60% of the trips made to other parts of Surrey, many of which would not be accessed by reopening the line. More recently, our 2013 and Surrey Rail Strategy notes that reinstatement of the Guildford-Cranleigh line... “was rejected because of the lack of a viable business case. Previous detailed feasibility studies into the scheme carried out for Surrey County Council concluded that patronage would be insufficient to justify the significant cost of rail line re-opening. There is no evidence to suggest that the fundamental drivers of demand have changed substantially since these studies were carried out in the 1990s. The County Council therefore decided to undertake no further work on this proposal. However, it supports the retention of the track bed of the old railway as part of the “Downs Link” transport corridor for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Substantial improvements to the quality of the Downs Link have been made and this has resulted in considerably increased use of this very popular local facility. The new Rail Strategy for Surrey published in 2020 does not support the reinstatement of the railway for these same reasons. Critically therefore, detailed studies have shown that a reinstated railway would never cover its operating costs, let alone repay the capital cost of construction, even with the new homes coming into the area. A further problem is that (pre-Covid) Guildford Station is at capacity, so there would be nowhere for a new rail service to go. Even if Guildford Station could accommodate an extra train service from Cranleigh, it would be for an interchange only, given there are no train paths available for onward to travel to London. We have previously looked at guided bus and trams as a solution using the former track bed. Whilst less costly in terms of infrastructure costs, the local impacts are similar and, again, there is no business case to deliver them in terms of potential patronage. This is compounded by the need for these alternatives to fight for road space on the approach to Guildford. I strongly support the former railway line being used as a transport link for walkers, horse riders and cyclists. However, whilst reinstating the railway is an interesting idea in principle, significant work has shown that it is simply not feasible, and it is not supported by the County Council." My response is: Para 1. He doesn't support the rail link and likewise the county council at Surrey. Local elections in May, could change their complexity Para 2. History can inform lessons, but we are not bound by history per se. What of now and the future short-medium term? Long term is a luxury we cannot presume with Climate Emergency. Para 3. If the corridor cannot be widened for a railway, fence and a pathway/cycle way, how much less a canal? You have said other options are available? The 'majority' are not always right, even if votes in it. However, this local railway could be part of a wider net-work and larger dynamic appeal e.g. Reading-Brighton 'not via cluttered London', save on changing and much more. Para 4. Again wider rail network and regional scales of traffic, not just parochial. The through route to Horsham, rather than a branch to Cranleigh - was that looked at in scoping terms? If not why not look at it now before throwing it away forever, locking in a growth of road usage with implications? Para 5. A widened 'green corridor' could encompass walking/cycling fenced off. The railway does not have to use every inch of the old route, some realignment, deviation or new stretches witha dditions like a link to the Horsham-Shoreham line direct and also the Arundel/Chichester line. Para 6. Deadlock but puts all growth on the local and regional roads. That is detrimental and corrosive. Para 7. Guildford capacity - we raised in Zoom meetings but was played down by some locals. By depositing and going elsewhere clearing the tracks, it lets other people in and enables more. If capacity has and remains an issue, constraints means growth of existing services require more platform capacity, why has this not been planned for re: town centre/bus station redevelopments etc? Para 8. Guided Busway is no panacea or cheaper than conventional local rail. Examples of Cambridgeshire and elsewhere bear this out: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway) If no business case and preference is for walking, cycling and canal over 'this' route specifically, why both looking at Guided Busway? No good for freight movement, taking lorries off local roads. Para 9. Business Cases are expensive and beyond what a voluntary group such as ERTA can do. If you want to know more, please email richard.erta@gmail.com and help us defend keeping and supporting the rail alternative to a roads only future.coalitions to share costs and seeking optimum rail potential including reviving other lines like North Downs, this seems remiss. Is cost an issue making a negative reaction easier behind the excuses? These are my views, hope of interest. We need ambassadors to take up this and other similar rail causes and challenges. It only defaults to more on the roads if we do not!

17 March 2022

Press Release

Notice is given of Horsham Public Meeting – All Welcome – on Saturday 26^th March 2pm-4pm 2022. It is with Guest Speaker Mr George Bathurst, on the Windsor Rail Link and possible others.in the Meeting Hall, Horsham Unitarian Church, Worthing Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1SL https://horshamunitarianchurch.com/how-to-find-us/ To discuss the rebuilding of a Horsham – Shoreham and Guildford rail links and associated matters. All enquiries and offers of help like pre-event leafleting please contact Richard Pill richard.erta@gmail.com See https://ertarail.co.uk/events/ for details/other events too.

Route/corridor protection is crucial to keep Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham rail options alive. Other uses like walking, cycling, canals must go either alongside a widened corridor or elsewhere respectively.

We feel some councils have under-estimated the potential the re-railing offers in local and regional modal choices and shift back to rail. Links with Guildford, Reading

and Heathrow - Horsham, Shoreham and Brighton and vice versa would commend themselves and carry people and goods off the roads and provide more capacity

on the heavily used Brighton Main Line. In short it is a win, win and should be studied further with calling on Government support very much in mind.

End Press Release

Further comment: Any comment is welcome to entertain via Richard Pill 01234 330090 or Colin Crawford

(Mobile 07836-693977).

Addendum: The Canal project which threatened to block the railway corridor has been thrown out, but may be subject to an appeal. We welcome people to write to respective local councils, MP's and the Department of Transport to support re-railing the corridor and slewing cycle/walkways alongside with suitable fencing and sound barriers. It can be done and for example, direct Reading-Brighton 'not via London' would be a huge benefit for end to end as well as intermediate public transport choices and getting vehicles off the roads whilst relief to the capacity Brighton Main Line to boot! Join us and help us win this battle please. Enquiries via richard.erta@gmail.com and visit our Facebook site: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Brighton2Guildford

Reopen part of the East Lincolnshire railway with caveates where necessary.

If you live in or around the Lincolnshire (UK) area and/or are supportive of an idea to rebuild a terminal branch link to re-rail part of East Lincolnshire, please don't carp from the sides or nit pick but join ERTA, donate, offer to help and campaign for it. It does not have to use every inch of former line, realignments, deviations may be needed or a like HS2 'here's the cheque, move please' with relocation packages built in. But the greater good, the benefits of rail connectivity with the wider country and people/places, must be such as to court widest support and ideally, if Government tiers ever listen, to get them sufficiently galvanised to move it towards a delivery in a timely manner, to plan ahead to nurture conditions for delivery and ensure win, win not losership is the order of the day. Please join ERTA and help us help others. https://ertarail.co.uk/become-a-member/

Meanwhile, a timely reminder if we do not re-rail Britain: https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/70604/-pause-english-roads-programme-too-says-goodwin

ERTA Ampthill and Flitwick Forum: Saturday 30 April 2022

Agenda for Ampthill-Flitwick Forum: 

Saturday 30 April 2022, 1pm food, 2-4pm business, The Swan Pub, 1 Dunstable Road, Flitwick, Bedfordshire MK45 1HP T: 01525 754777 E: steph@theswanflitwick.co.uk It is adjacent to the Thameslink served railway station and with ample parking and bus links too. https://www.swaninnflitwick.co.uk/menus/ Everyone is responsible to pay for their own food and drink.
 
1. Introduction and welcome by Chair of the Meeting
2, Apologies for absence
3. The pros and cons of an additional Wixams style station on the slow lines for Ampthill with foot-cycle access off of Froghall Road, motor and bus access from both Industrial Park entrance and from the west off Fordfield Road (linking A507 west with Steppingley and Flitwick West side of Midland Main Line for parking and foot/cycle access). See: https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/preferred-design-of-wixams-train-station-revealed-with-2024-completion-still-on-track/ For an idea of what a new station like Wixams could look like.
4. Local needs and issues: public transport, better access, footfall and spend, connectivity with elsewhere and equal spread of opportunities.
5. Environmental considerations: traffic versus wider journeys by public transport
6. Growth of development for the two towns and how that is best managed in terms of wider impacts
7. Commutes/commuters, landscape constraints and better links for cycling and buses between the two towns and principal others like Milton Keynes and Silsoe/Shefford A507 corridor?
8. Any other transport-related business.
9. Next steps: Forum facilitation, canvassing support for updated studies, Area Rep/Join ERTA and raise public support generally.
10. Date, time and place of next meeting, ideally in Ampthill
To help with leafleting or general enquiries contact either Mr David Ferguson –

E. daferguson1212@gmail.com Mr Simon Barber – E. simon4barber@gmail.com T. 0208 940 4399

Write in support of a new station to:

1. Ampthill Town Council: https://www.ampthilltowncouncil.org.uk/contact

2. Central Beds Council: https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/directory/14/a_to_z/B

3. MP for Mid Beds: Ms Nadine Dorries https://members.parliament.uk/member/1481/contact

https://www.ampthilltowncouncil.org.uk/council/categorised-document-archive?category=18

Please seek a skype meeting and sound out on station, a. any objections, b. what and why details, c. have they read the report and other stuff on our website? d. what are their solutions? e. Wixams example of twin track slow line station could be made to work and feed local buses more. f. If local buses go, rail is likely to be more permanent. g. Housing comes to A507 now, so immediate and wider commute/P&R possible. Safer cycle/walk to Engine and Tender Pub/High Street via Station Road and/or along bypass to The Parklands, all possible more for any so minded. Town centre about 10-20 minutes walk for most people. Connecting bus loop for wider area not impossible. h. Wider catchment, Flitwick is in a part valley, all lands built around, so expanding parking a capacity issue with growth including commuting to London from Marston Vale as well as access to Centre Parcs. i. These combinations makes me feel land protection, investment in studying further and supporting the aim, goal and principle is worthwhile courting support where it counts surely including a public survey? j. the putting Ampthill on the railway map would bring footfall and spend, more kudos to the location and boost options for residents in access terms. 

These pro-points should be born in mind surely/are they?

Support, join our loop and help us make progress: richard.erta@gmail.com

Ampthill delusions and exclusions! The saga for keeping options open remains our quest!

On the 2^nd March 2022 we received the notice of deliberations of the Ampthill Town Council regarding the station idea for the said town. It had a well-used station until 1959 and was closed due to economy more than usage. Population has doubled since then even locally and 20 years ago, when a study showed it could be done still, the objection was too far from the town centre! Now subsequent development has filled in the gaps so that it is continuous development between Town Centre and A507 former bypass onwards to the industrial estate. The town council’s views were:

·                    Ampthill is adequately served by Flitwick Station,

·                     Active travel and public transport links to Flitwick exist, and ATC’s priority is to support and work towards improving these,

·                     ATC is concerned about encroachment onto Greenbelt land beyond the mainline,

·                     Current railway development proposals (such as East West Rail) are towards fewer stations well supported by active travel and public transport links.  A proposal for a station at Ampthill is contrary to current trends and therefore not a good use of council time or investment.

·                     If you support the railway station lands being protected to keep the option open, the station idea being studied further and pursuit of reopening please write to:

1.Ampthill Town Council, Ampthill Town Council, Park Lodge, Ampthill Great Park, Woburn Street, Ampthill, MK45 2HX.

2. Central Beds Council, Priory House, Monks Walk, Chicksands, Shefford, Bedfordshire, SG17 5TQ 

3. For emails and elected councillors see websites: https://www.ampthill-tc.gov.uk/ and https://www.centralbedfordshire.gov.uk/directory/14/your_councillors/category/67

The ERTA Response:

1. Ampthill and Flitwick are close to each other, but that is not unique on the rail network. Luton and Luton Airport Parkway are just one local example.

2. The railway station at Ampthill would provide more capacity for rail usage, parking and riding which Flitwick, due to the fact the lands around it are all built up with non-railway development, cannot expand more. So as growth returns to the network post-pandemic, these issues and that of local aggravations through on-street parking will be exacerbated more.

3. Buses are being cut left, right and centre and are not a fixed asset. Whereas railways, especially a main line are more permanent notwithstanding a complete outburst of Government folly! The railway station, serving all south of Wixams, Marston Vale, Milton Keynes, M1-A507, Centre Parcs to the west and A6/Wrest Park/Silsoe to the east would serve about 15, 000 catchment, leaving Flitwick with an equivalent amount. People tend to drive south in the commute to London, as it saves fuel costs and gives drive-time which many value for time to themselves.

4. Land west of the Midland Main Line to Fordfield Road, was tabled as to be developed by 2030, so ideas of Greenbelt seem at odds with that intention? Relocating the Industrial Estate in part to the west with road access from the west, enables more and a station which could benefit all, not least year-round footfall, spend and visitorship as well as employee access minus land-use parking demands.

5. The comparison with possible proposals to close stations on the Bedford-Bletchley Railway as part of as plan by East-West Rail are hardly comparable with the spread of distance or demand for stations on the Midland Main Line served by Thameslink’s on the slow lines which could, at 4-5 each way per hour could be staggered in any case to ensure a good half hourly or thrice hourly frequency.

Great Central Corridor Re-Railing is essential to avoid default congestion on roads more!

ERTA's schemes and calls are of local, regional and nationwide interest and impacts - re-rail is positive, to not re-rail default to roads more which is wholly negative. Not anti car, but be pro-choice is a better policy command generally. 

We invite your support and help us find champions for our causes please. Use what power you may have, we need you to help take our ideas on to a next level. Timescales of Government and agencies seem too long given the Climate Emergency, however informed. 

Great Central Re-Rail Corridor Conundrum

Given HS2 takes the whole land take of the current and former Great Central alignment and beyond in width terms, that translates to a scuppering of the former Claydon Junction where GC fed onto the Oxford-Bletchley rail line. Therefore, any new re-linking of an Aylesbury-Claydon-Milton Keynes arm, will need a junction further east unless a new spur from north-east could be done at Bicester? Therefore, some have suggested any new rail link north towards East of Brackley (Brackley East) would have to either take more land east of the proposed Aylesbury-Milton Keynes arm or wherever the link is made, to have a northern curve making a crossover junction. It needs studying. But before even that, we need a universal or specific buy-in to the idea of a new domestic line north of Claydon to serve places formerly served by the Great Central rail corridor, not served by HS2 and which are growing catchments. Places like Brackley/A43 interception with links by bus with Silverstone from a station (rail head) interchange, Woodford Halse, which has an estate built on the former GC line (bad stewardship!) and onwards via new alignment to serve Willoughby, Barby and links to the West Coast Main Line and/or Northampton Loop Lines for running a. into Rugby LNWR, b. running towards Northampton and c. going further north possibly. If a backer could be found to the idea and principle, it could be studied and fine-tuned to a credible proposition. Thinking aloud here, but as these and associated areas grow and HS2 will not cater for them, all traffic will go by roads and that means more congestion, hazards and impact, not least air quality and environment. So, all to play for, no use moaning after the horse has bolted! Today is the day for decisions, actions and consequences, positive or negative. 

If someone got to former Rugby Central and made a park and ride southwards from there, would that be so bad? Numerous places, Bicester being a local one, have 2 or more stations and beit bus, LRT or other linkages have been fostered. Why are we so reticent about 2 stations? Worcester has 2 stations and now a linking junction station. There are probably other examples people can think of. 

Born of 19^th century private enterprise to get railways built for commercial reasons, competition and own-brand mattered and rivalry between rail set ups did not help. Ditto what land was available, remember many were reticent or hostile to railways. Post nationalisation, BR spent time and money to try and reconcile these diverse stations with links and/or closures and running trains (where possible) to merged hubs. Leicester, Manchester and Birmingham are larger examples, growth informing now that more than one station is needed and spread gives room for footfall and spend and enjoying the place accessed by rail. Rail bypasses of major urban areas also need looking at and Sheffield and Leeds should not be destinations of themselves, but a recognition people want to seamlessly travel beyond major places to other locations. Come the day when direct running from Nottingham-Glasgow via Leeds-Carlisle railway is ‘normalised’ rather than changing and segregated railways? ON GC Corridor, there’s good reasons to sort a rail corridor out and back is and avoid the fall out of abandonment. 

Whether local, national or regional government and/or agencies, were needed to come away from ‘weather man’ sort of general drift analysis of ‘corridors’ without defined specifics of what rail reinstatements will go/new builds too where. Avenging planning blight was once a no, no, now we have planning allowing development without rail-based infrastructure defaulting to roads more, hardly environmentally savvy. England’s Economic Heartlands (EEH) seems arbitrary, remote and lacking hands-on specifics beyond the set up of East-West Rail and associated being seen as a model of threshold set up for being taken seriously. What of EEH having its own rail-based agenda beyond existing lines or works in progress, to become champions for our GC Corridor Re-Rail scheme? Can local authorities and MP’s support such? ERTA has an idea, but lacks a champion for it. 

Time is running out as piecemeal development after piecemeal development scuppers corridors plethora of former alignments and possible deviations – Olney being the classic example! A new build on a new route is possible, with less pain if not cost than trying to negotiate with Olney in relocation terms, but a little more beefy support from councils, agencies and Government generally, could have informed development with accommodation of the rail link. Armchair critics say “once closed, can never be reopened” knowing full well closures of the 1960’s were rigged and put-upons and leave default if we don’t reopen, to roads, fossil fuels and losses not least locked-in disenfranchisement creep on a comprehensive scale. They have no real solution and lecturers or not, should be challenged – who can and will? Doing something different is one such possibility and GC Corridor Re-Railing seems to be a good example where ‘something rail-wise, just needs to be done’. The future belongs to us all, but powers have a special responsibility to care and take an interest. Please do.

A reader - the electric car revolution, does not tackle the volume of traffic and wider impact and implications. We do need closer and more modal chocies like local rail can deliver if treated equitably. https://sourceable.net/we-cant-build-our-way-out-of-traffic-congestion/

Agenda for ERTA Aylesbury Forum: Saturday 9th April 2022, 1pm food, 2-4pm business
The Bell, 40 Market Square, Aylesbury, Bucks. HP20 1TX T. 01296-388080
https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/pubs/all-pubs/england/buckinghamshire/the-bell

1. Appointment of a Chair for the meeting and minute taker (come prepared!)

2. Calvert Scenario: HS2 takes the land former GC railway and associated Claydon Junction took, so any new domestic Aylesbury-Milton Keynes link will need new alignment alongside or further east of HS2.

3. Junction off East-West Rail and linking with Aylesbury ‘arm’ to east of Brackley and beyond. This is not reinstating the Great Central, rather a new domestic rail extension to serve the former GC corridor which HS2 will not cater for (provide a station between Solihull and Old Oak Common). Growing development and associated road traffic impacts and floods to existing and Winslow stations. The corridor could extend to link all south of Aylesbury with Rugby, Northampton, Magna Park, Lutterworth and Narborough for Leicester-Nuneaton (see diagram overleaf.

4. Aylesbury-Princes Risborough-Old Oak Common domestic (is Calvert-Grandon lost due to HS2 land take?). Benefits of terminal bays at OOC for Chiltern as terminal capacity into Marylebone is premium.

5. Beyond Old Oak Common (Denham-LSWR lines) and (OOC-Heathrow – Woking-Guildford and beyond) and vice versa.

6. On a new Aylesbury-Milton Keynes arm, should be in proximity to HS2 and a new station for domestic access and another at Claydon to share the load more?

7. Any Other transport-related business.

8. Day, date, time and place of next meeting. All support welcome, stay in our loop/join ERTA.

All offers to richard.erta@gmail.com please. ERTA contacts generally:

Mr David Ferguson – E. daferguson1212@gmail.com,

Mr Simon Barber – E. simon4barber@gmail.com T. 0208 940 4399