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