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 19th 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.
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
No comments:
Post a Comment