Ampthill-Flitwick Forum for 10th September 2022

ERTA Ampthill and Flitwick Forum:

Saturday 10^th September 2022, 1pm food* 2-4pm business.

Venue is The Swan Pub, 1 Dunstable Road, Bedford MK45 1HP

​It is adjacent to the Thameslink-served railway station and with ample parking and bus links too. https://www.swaninnflitwick.co.uk/menus/ 

Write in support of a new additional station for Ampthill 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

All welcome. If coming please email richard.erta@gmail.com

Any offers with reliable leafleting around Ampthill and Flitwick ahead of this event are welcome. Please let us know. All offers to help, assist and lead are also welcome to entertain please. Make it your campaign and endeavour too! It is all voluntary.

*Everyone is responsible to buy and pay for their own food and transport costs.

Apologies were received from a Mr Steve Anderson of Centre Parcs and Nadine Dorries MP for Mid Bedfordshire Constituency which includes Flitwick and Ampthill.

We followed an agenda and there were many questions and discussions. Some ranged from the inadequacy of Flitwick Station in a context of growth and demand for more parking over coming years. Others that Ampthill would be both a relief station and compliment Flitwick as well. 

Bus integration, cycle-pedestrian access, lowering speed and installing either a footbridge or crossing at the junction of Station Road Ampthill and A507 and the station access road which currently serves as an industrial complex. Some relocation packages would need brokering as per protection of lands west side of the Midland Main Line, which we understand is under threat of development in coming years.

It was admitted the population in a 5-mile catchment has and is expanding and Flitwick Station alone cannot cope beit lack of land for expanded parking, the road layout and single bridge over the railway and congestion and parking in local streets all would be partly resolved with the addition of An Ampthill railway station.

Action Stations:

It was explained that ERTA is a stretched voluntary outlet which is in the business of planting ideas. It needs public, elected representatives, all tiers of governance to support those ideas and in turn commission/access funding pots to work up the case and formal credentials with a view to courting Government support and ultimately a permission towards delivery. Landowners, leisure outlets, councils of all tiers, agencies and many more could contribute to a pot with studies in mind to find answers to questions, see what needs to be done and through policy and action, set about moving the agenda towards delivery.

Summary of key points:

1. It needs funding for a study

2. land retention to keep western approaches and other access routes viable

3. Relocation packages

4. May only be a half hourly frequency of Thameslink’s, but given plethora of frequency, it should be perfectly possible to absorb into a timetable.

5. Buses and inter-rail/bus-train ticketing could retain viability of bus networks more.

6. A need to get tiers of governance on board and in particular the Central Bedfordshire Unitary Council to help and work with us and be instrumental in gathering people, resources and round-tabling in a view of a good idea, not dismissing it.

7. The growth means something needs to be done or retained as a viable option.

Next meeting: same venue The Swan Pub, 1 Dunstable Road, Bedford 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/ and will be 1pm food, 2-4pm business on Saturday 10^th September – all welcome to come, meet and join as members and offer to assist or lead accordingly please.

Meeting closed 15.10pm and it was felt as a first post-pandemic, it was a useful exercise and potential still to build on towards getting local people to help more and give the vital support, holding elected representatives to account and take an interest. 

All enquiries and expressions of interest via richard.erta@gmail.com and keep an eye on our website: https://ertarail.co.uk/

Let's hear it for a fresh investment in study and delivery of an East Lincs Rail Link!

The closures left East Lincs mainly bereft of its core main line, the East Lincs line and associated loop with Mablethorpe. Since closure some 52 years ago, population has increased, the need of regeneration also with pockets of poverty. The rural landscape means that inter-local-regional transit times that only rail can offer means that to enable more footfall and spend in places like Mablethorpe, Louth and Boston for example, we need better north-south rail connectivity. Yes, the A16 has been allowed to take former trackbed spaces, but the case for road upgrades is inflated due to no rail alternative. Rail has seen aggregated increases in usership - both passenger (before Pandemic) and freight even in Pandemic times. The potential demand for more rail and more by rail is there, freight-wise from small consignments to large containers, likewise off and peak travel, visiting, commuting and casual travel, if rail exists it can be used, if not, those people and places are that much disenfranchised and alienated from what may be on offer.

Some Points to consider:

1. Government has declared a Climate Emergency: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-48126677  This is not a casual government! This is no arbitrary window dressing, it is a real thing visited upon the planet and we need to respond and act responsibly. The moves to electric vehicles all very well, but only rail alternatives can offer modal choice and shift in volume terms. Tyres also inform pollution particles which harm people as they breathe: https://blog.greenflag.com/2019/tyre-particles/ Land used for parking demand, is land which cannot be used for more necessary things like housing, employment, farming and conservation. It is land lost, you cannot service or build your way out of congestion. It stacks up in urban interfaces causing mayhem and a blight on tranquility and ambience, which we are trying to promote for visitorship increases. Likewise busy traffic arteries damage pro-affirma cycling and walking as busy roads cause hazards and blight.

2. We would welcome studies to be commissioned to build up the business case for a hypothecated restored rail link both south of Louth to Firsby (see attached) and/or north of Louth to join the current Grimsby area rail network somehow. The study could be commissioned by a round table of councils, agencies and Government contributions to fund it looking at besides business cases, engineering, how slewing a road or railway alongside might be achieved, what service patterns either side of Louth could be and what new business to rail could reasonably courted. 

Skegness is a long siding, a link direct from Louth/Mablethorpe into the resort and out in triangular fashion could be looked at. The Borders line is a long siding and carried (unexpected by many professional cynics) millions in its first few years: https://www.railstaff.co.uk/2018/09/06/borders-railway-more-than-4-million-journeys-since-it-opened-3-years-ago/ and the Borders Railway Campaign wants to see it progressed to link with Carlisle for more traffic still as a through route: https://campaignforbordersrail.org/ A sort of study was done, unsure why, but none-the-less points to a strategic and wider nationwide interest investor potential for East Lincs: http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Connecting-East-Lincolnshire-Greengauge-21-FINAL.pdf But surely this could be developed pro-rail-positively if the will can be found for equality or indeed, favouring rail's turn?

3. The positive Werrington underpass north of Peterborough enables many trains from March - Peterborough-Spalding-Doncaster to avoid pathing conflicts with the East Coast Main Line (ECML). Freight by rail is growing and volume out of and to East Anglia likewise. Given local trunk roads are being progressively upgraded at cost and land take, could it be that there's a case to study again, whether a 'west of March to west of Spalding direct rail link curve' could be done? A reason to keep this option open is that the twin tracks between March and Peterborough are in heavy demand by passenger trains for Norwich, Cambridge and Stansted (major employer areas) and now via the new Soham to Ipswich; and also increases in freight for the West Midlands via Leicester and Peterborough, means pathing will become acute as time goes by. March-Peterborough-Spalding is a great way round to get anywhere and finding a means-ways to new-build a new direct rail link could free up paths on existing rails as well as shave end-to-end timings off services, enable quick passenger access from East and South Lincs to and from East Anglia with all the benefits and regeneration that could offer. 

ERTA wants to recruit support in East Lincolnshire who in turn will, with those already like Jamie Mascall, advocate these rail ideas until they gain traction where it counts, with councils, agencies and government to take it forwards to delivery and interpretation of delivery. Please help us. There is a Facebook page for those so interested: https://www.facebook.com/ReRailLocalRailsLincolnshire The good news of a possible station at the Littleworth area close to Deeping St Nicholas area bodes well: https://www.spaldingtoday.co.uk/news/high-hopes-for-services-at-village-station-9249916/ Could a new rail link direct from west of March arc to link up in that area with passing loops/quadrupling, to enable more trains to pass and ultimately with electrification infill as well? These options may be realised now, in 10 years, development may scupper it locking-in road dependency, pollution and associated issues. Rail can reduce road wear and tear and bring other savings including the cost of goods and logistical flexibility currently lacking. Please take an interest, ask the Government for support and work together to re-rail East Lincolnshire. 

Join ERTA: https://ertarail.co.uk/ and offer to help us with reliable, negotiated assistant volunteering and team building. Join our email loop via richard.erta@gmail.com Thank you. 

Putting Milton Keynes Central at the centre of things more

Milton Keynes has many attributes to it and as the East-West Rail scheme progresses linking Oxford/Aylesbury to Milton Keynes Central we are reminded of capacity issues and that of accommodation of more trains. These, of course, are not the only ones vieing for more access to platform interfaces at the main station:

1. Bedford-Bletchley extension - £20 million spent to enable reversal out of Platform 5 and yet nil delivery over many years.

2. West London Trains, only 1 per hour, heavily used for contra and other commuting and ideally could double to 2 per hour.

3. Existing services between London and the North as well as local services

4. Freight by rail, in these days of congested roads, environmental concerns and modal shift nurture, you would have thought this a major consideration in generating new flows and home-grown supply and demand, not just aggregate for roads and buildings, but things like recycling by rail, parcels more by rail and long haul anything within reason. 

Question is will all this be able to be done with current station capacity and that between the flyover and MK Central and beyond?

Terminal trains are one thing, but running onto elsewhere is another.

ERTA wants to see a Northampton-Market Harborough rail link restored with select pieces of new build where the former route was compromised. Indeed to this end we believe, if not already, that neighbouring councils should be consulted on anything which would block such a rail reinstatement in the wider interests as this strategic rail link could be taking on A508 and M1 traffic for example in choice terms. It offers Oxford/Aylesbury-Northampton and Leicester/East Midlands to and from synergies and puts MIlton Keynes centre stage. This means a proposed new road link across the old rail route north of Northampton should be called-in and the case, policy and collaborative 'wider interests' taken more into account in keeping a viable rail reopening 'open' going forward.

It has had some studies done out of Harborough District Council and these showed some potential. More are needed and a joint effort required. 

On stations, a station north of Wolverton either at Roade or Castlethorpe should be included in such a wider range study, as with growth of housing, the land constraints on MK Central parking capacity and growth of demand for travel to and from, means sharing out to cutting drive time from 12 miles to 5 makes a lot of sense.

The Bedford-Bletchley rail link needs to have semi-fast services and the local shuttle mixed and matched accordingly. I fear that local halts may be culled for speed end-to-end efficiencies and local communities disenfranchised from accessing rail in some cases. Likewise at Bedford, accessing capacity issues of platform interfaces for trains heading north is a bottleneck and needs addressing. The ERTA view is that a line east of Bedford St John's via the old route with deviations and new build further east of Willington offers a better design than a proposed North Bedfordshire route on virgin territory knocking down houses and having to tackle the A1 upgraded Black Cat Roundabout. Speed off the Bedford-Bletchley line to/from Bedford Midland is an issue as is single track working. Those who support Route E North of Bedford, should consider what provision for east-north turning by trains for accessing the Midland Main Line north and vice versa and our route proposal would enable east-west freight by rail to bypass Bedford Midland platform interfaces and declutter the whole theatre 'box'. 

Bedford-Northampton could help the arcing corridor of A428, but would not go anywhere near Olney as development has scuppered that proposition. Unless we plan now for a new alignment somewhere north of Olney, in 10 years time, that option too could be lost. That locks in road dependency and a drive culture which is unhealthy. Buses struggle and retaining a healthy bus timetable remains a challenge. The X5 has new double decker buses, but with the withdrawal of the coaches lost toilet provision, cycle carriage and a through seamless journey between Oxford-Milton Keynes-Bedford and Cambridge. Despite being double deckers, these services do not serve any of the principal rail stations apart from Milton Keynes Central. This seems two steps forward, one step back!

Happy to compare notes, but I hope you will bear these things in mind and make representation for the emergent rail network to be supported by neighbouring councils and Government too please. 

Join ERTA! https://ertarail.co.uk/become-a-member/

ERTA calls on the Government to be held to account to deliver on Reverse Beeching Agendas

ERTA wants a rolling programme of both route identification, protection and reopenings, rebuilds and select local-regional new builds to better enable a net-work robustness of local, conventional rail delivery year-on-year please. If you support this please join or donate to ERTA https://ertarail.co.uk/

Bedford-Sandy Rail Link; can we learn lessons for elsewhere?

 Bedford-Sandy Rail Link; can we learn lessons for elsewhere?
In 1987 I called a meeting at The Bell Pub in Sandy, opposite the railway station and out of it came an association to advocate reinstating a rail link between Bedford and the East Coast Main Line at Sandy. Since the line originally closed in 1967 and during the 1970’s, development had encroached the old trackbed, first a school and then a few houses including at Blunham from 1985.

Apart from this, the reopening was suggested to go to the south of the Blunham houses and swing to a new link to the north of built Sandy; to have a new link with the north-south main line, north of Sandy. This was understood, but mocked and ridiculed by some who you would have thought would be more charitable, but of the rail fraternity itself, who were the leaders in generating clouds of cynical opposition, masking their jealousy that they lacked the courage to step out and think the much talked about, but not made public thought that closure was a mistake and reopening the only answer and justice to that mistake. Questions of interim damage to bridges and old trackbed, were found to be over-come-able and these rudimentary apprehensions were picked up by the later East-West Consortium who took these very ideas and found a systematic professional evaluation in the 1997 Steer Davis Gleave Report.

A point of lessons transferable is as follows maybe:

1. Just because a closure has happened, it does not necessarily follow that it cannot be reversed.
2. You can’t turn the clock back; you start where you are at and work out solutions to challenges and problems.
3. There was a time when land abounded and deviations/realignments were plausible and became by-words to leverage support for the belief in the do-ability of a conceptual process.
4. Now we have a largely built environment, routes have not been protected much in many cases if at all and so now the question is more-like a. do we want the railway back? b. what audit of obstacles and possible solutions and costs accrue? c. is it expedient to consider new route options alongside a traditional core route and d. if a new Network Rail styled daily use railway, it would be a railway of 21^st century construe, not a Victorian rail interpretation with the baggage of semaphore signalling, gated crossings and lots of paid manual labour!

Speed is not so much the issue. Yes, there’s a view if you have speed, you can put more trains down a line and carry more. But then you get into 3-mile braking distances, limited station stops/areas served and delineation of passenger and freight, whereas the sort of railway I believe in is one which caters for all using the same tracks. By all means have fast and slow lines, but all means ensure all large communities and distances between areas get their fair share of station access. Please bear in mind freight and passenger line growth plans can nurture business as once the line ir reinstated, new built or mix and match of the two usage grows through sheer choice. Keeping people moving is what matters, serving communities too, not just end to end considerations.
 
Some say you can’t rebuild for example a terminal branch alongside the A16 between a new triangle junction at Firsby in Lincolnshire and Louth for example and the usage case would be negligible to warrant the £billions outlay. Not only has Greengauge produced a report saying what a worthwhile thing it would be to do precisely this, (http://www.greengauge21.net/wp-content/uploads/Connecting-East-Lincolnshire-Greengauge-21-FINAL.pdf) but there is a campaign for this ‘reopening/new build’ with some council interest. It failed to court Government funding for continued study, but for an area where poverty is significant, a rail desert thanks to the closures abounds and the promise of all-year-round footfall and spend to regenerate local incomes seems a win, win. Yet, still some deny all this and ridicule those who raise it. Supporters like me point out that the Borders Line between Edinburgh and Tweedbank has carried over 4 million people in its first few years and has been a success promising more like the through benefits of linking with Carlisle could offer; but opponents in East Lincs say “the model is not transferable” – on what grounds they do not seem clear, but these head-in-sands swathes of viewpoint, do nothing for the environmental benefits of re-railing, of social inclusion and integration and the benefits of rail connectivity.

On Bedford-Sandy, the debate has moved on to other routes than the original. Even our own ERTA takes the view as do I, that the old route between Bedford St John’s and east of Willington could be recovered (everything comes at a cost!) and thence via a new route on embankment north of Blunham/South of the River Great Ouse, across the River Ivel and A1 respectively to approach and link to the north-south main line north or south of Station Road Tempsford on what we call the ’Tempsford Plains’. If we wait 10 years this option will be lost. Mid Beds (now Central Beds) seems to have had a covert policy of destroying former railway trackbeds and scuppering hopes of recovery, ditto South Cambridgeshire! It is worth remembering cycle and footway courses on old trackbeds can be slewed/re-directed easily enough. 

Likewise, canals (Guildford-Horsham) and as for tunnels (Woodhead) a new bore could do the job and gain from modernised design methods. Now the politics are cowardice from facing up to what needs to be done and a third party to hide behind which bridges or tunnels to avoid levels crossings and has as a third party with anonymity built-in and thus unlike politicians unelected, but has avariced powers and legal construes which give license to in not so many words say to barriers “here’s the cheque, move please!” You may agree or disagree, NIMBYISM has legitimate voice on the one hand but can be head-in-sand as well. Discernment, differential impartiality and declaration of interests all helps pin-point where things are at and more scrutinising journalism could be useful/academic researchers who publish widely likewise. 

If we wish to reduce road-based traffic and foster choice and modal shift, re-railing the nation is essential. We must have a pro-active plan now and onwards for fostering more passenger and freight movements by rail and ensure the net-work is robust and comprehensive enough to cater for it. Reading is a pinch point for Southampton-West Midlands and how ridiculous for deep sea landings at Southampton to be heading north of West Midlands, but taking road and rail capacity all those miles to and from, when Hull/Liverpool and a new Woodhead could be just the ticket for cutting transport miles, time and cost? Yet this, by some rail media journalists is denied with an overplay on cost, case and the past glories of a different age. 

They fall short of making the leap to what was called for in the run up to closure of Woodhead 40+ years ago, that it should be integrated with the rest of the network (25KV rather than DC electrification) and enable diverse operations and capacity, not just coal. Now a combination of passenger aspirations, containers and other extra capacity utilisation of diverse trains could really benefit from Woodhead rebuilt as well as declutter the A628 which with other trans-Pennine roads are being called for progressive upgrading based on a false premise, that the rail alternative was crushed and 40 years of deficit been allowed to build up to a congested problem in the heart of a National Park! The report conclusion is ‘can do better’. Inland Roll-on, Roll-off, should be created and laid out from Channel Tunnel-Orbitals of London and Edinburgh/Glasgow and Cardiff and Exeter for example. Yet there is no plan as I am aware of such. Crossrail saved money on conventional tunnels rather than Continental Loading Gauges, which could have allowed Channel Tunnel/Europe – Birmingham through services. Tinkering plans for redesign to enable North London Line-HS1 and HS2 access arcingly for a joined-up-railway all well and good if can be done, but misses out Heathrow with a need to change trains at the emergent Old Oak Common (OOC) interchange station. 

As one former manager said in the rail industry “we don’t do joined up in this country”. That sadly does not have to be the case, but seems to be. Hindsight is a wonderful thing, but given the closures of local railways are systemically a root problem historically underscoring so much of todays transport, environmental and logistical issues, rectification as much as possible or even a year-on-year start using indirect taxes of nudge psychology a bit like taxes on sugar and plastic for example, to encourage behaviour change would be a start. What we end up with (cynically) is tax for Chancellor’s empty bucket and less-than a trickle of select reopenings, rather than a full-blown ‘Reverse Beeching’ agenda RT. Hon. Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport promised early after his appointment. The public give and get fudge, but government finds £billions for new roads, but not the same for local-regional rail reopenings either direct or in grant funding or specifically let other councils/agencies ‘get on with it’. 

We need a speedy delivery, a concise transport focused policy in rail’s favour and built in to it a design and accessibility which covers all pockets and addresses hard-pressed families and matters around transport and affordability. Bedford-Bletchley if reliability issues and bustitutions could be resolved once and for all in rail-based operations favour, is relatively cheap cost-wise. How the local shuttle service will sit with the East-West Rail without selling out of total reformation remains to be seen. But the principle of local railways for local people and places in connectivity terms remains a principle to be cherished. One church tried to sit on a ring road but the larger numbers did not materialise. It relocated to a community hall next to an estate and it worked, with people identifying it as ‘their’ church.

On Bedford-Sandy rail link, we started off wanting more-or-less an extension of Bletchley-Bedford running on to Sandy as a minimum with connections to the north-south main line as an interchange. Cambridge as a nodal place of magnetic proportions loomed always in the background with past and future aspirations always ‘there’. Means-ways were mooted, found but came to nothing. 

A vision for 10 miles of partly reinstated and new railway, were blown out of all proportions to astronomicalism, and now at £4.5 billion budget and many professionals engaged as in a rugby scrum half, the fight is ‘on’, but Northern Route E creates as many problems as it purports to solve and at the Cambridge end, South Cambs District Council objects all the way having done nothing to protect the old route or realignment space alongside it. There are no panaceas. The old route at Cambridge is severely blocked with M11 looming large and the list after that is monumental by our standards. More is the pity, but again, can lessons be learnt elsewhere to make recovering a railway easier?

We face an existential crisis. Time and resources are finite. Religion can be a tremendous source of hope and faith leads to vision and aspiration for a bit of heaven here on earth. Entrenched polemics can lead to introversion and the worst of humanity, when we actually need some coming together, agreement that we do need a railway and a recognition that some sacrifices, compensation and relocation in some cases serves the greater good, but that speed and stealth is not the answer either, as alienate enough people and you get more upgraded roads and congestion/parking problems and all the associated dysfunctions with that default agenda of pollution, land which cannot be used for things we cherish like farming, conservation, recreation, housing and places of employment appropriately balanced to the round of the quality of life and proportionate to need and demand, not just market whim or vested interests.
 
Richard Pill
03-04-2022
richard.erta@gmail.com

Captions Below:

1. P.1 1988 Class 317 heads towards Sandy on the slow line of the East Coast Main Line.
2. P.2 1989 Looking east and north east from Girtford Bridge, now 33 years later all built up!
3. P.3 ECML looking northwards with old Fallowfield’s link inserted during the war visible.
4. P.4 Diagram of our predecessor organisation, shows how we once thought the rail link could go. Now all built over.
5. P.5 1988: Fallowfield’s just north of now Sunderland Road, Sandy, all built over now.

6. P.6 1988: Shows houses being built as ‘Station Court’ at Blunham. Now all compromised, no deviation spaces available. Hence our call for a new alignment north of Blunham.

Follow up to concerns about the One Day Paper Travelcard withdrawal and our call to oppose this draconian measure accordingly!

A follow up to show the Government do have a form of power (by legislation) to veto TfL's plan on withdrawing from the Travelcard Agreement as provided by anon third party. 

ERTA are lay people generally but we pass on in the wider public interest and fully support opposition to the withdrawal of this useful One Day Travelcard facility.

The status of Transport for London is treated as a Local Authority and not a Ministerial Department.

TfL's subsidiary for operations is Transport Trading Limited, Company number 03914810.

https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/company/03914810

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/how-we-work/corporate-governance/subsidiary-companies

Transport Trading Limited is mentioned as the party of the 2018 Travelcard Agreement released by FOI request, with Rail Settlement Plan Limited (Company number 03069042) of Rail Delivery Group.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/transparency/freedom-of-information/foi-request-detail?referenceId=FOI-2203-1819

I've researched the legislation and the Government do have powers to control TfL without changing the legislation in Parliament named Greater London Authority Act 1999 (by stripping the Mayor of London from Transport powers).

Greater London Authority Act 1999
Section 143
Directions by the Secretary of State.

(1) Where the Secretary of State considers that—
(a) the transport strategy (or any part of it) is inconsistent with national policies relating to transport, and
(b) the inconsistency is detrimental to any area outside Greater London, he may direct the Mayor to make such revisions of the transport strategy in order to remove the inconsistency as may be specified in the direction.
(2) Where the Secretary of State gives the Mayor a direction under subsection (1) above, the Mayor shall revise the transport strategy in accordance with the direction.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/143

Explanatory Note
245. Section 143 gives the Secretary of State a limited power to direct the Mayor to change the transport strategy. The Secretary of State will only be able to use this power where the strategy would be inconsistent with national policy and have an adverse effect outside Greater London. In accordance with section 144, London borough councils, the Common Council and any other statutory body exercising transport functions will be required to have regard to the strategy. The Mayor can issue guidance about the implementation of the strategy to other bodies that must also have regard to it.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/notes/division/5/4/1/2

I did check the Mayor of London's Transport Strategy, there's no mention of his proposal on getting TfL to withdraw from the Travelcard Agreement, therefore he has no mandate to do it.

https://tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/the-mayors-transport-strategy
https://content.tfl.gov.uk/the-mayors-transport-strategy-update-2020-21-acc.pdf

Greater London Authority Act 1999
Section 157
Restriction on exercise of certain powers except through a company.

(1) The Secretary of State may by order made with the consent of the Treasury provide that Transport for London shall not carry on such activities as are specified in the order except through
(a) a limited liability partnership of which a subsidiary of Transport for London (but not Transport for London) is a member; or
(b) a company which is registered under the Companies Act 2006 and limited by shares or limited by guarantee and which is—
(i) a subsidiary of Transport for London; or
(ii) a company which Transport for London formed, or joined with others in forming, by virtue of section 156(1) above and which does not fall within sub-paragraph (i) above.

(2) The specification of an activity in an order under subsection (1) above shall not—
(a) prevent Transport for London from entering into or carrying out under section 156(2) or (3) above an agreement with a person for the carrying on of that activity by that person; or
(b) affect the validity of such an agreement.

(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that Transport for London is carrying out, or proposes to carry out, otherwise than in compliance with an order under subsection (1) above any activities specified in such an order—
(a) the Secretary of State may give a direction to Transport for London requiring it to comply with the order within such period as may be specified for the purpose in the order; and
(b) Transport for London shall be under a duty to comply with such a direction.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/157

Explanatory Note
286. Section 157 enables the Secretary of State by order made with the consent of the Treasury to specify activities which TfL is not to carry on except through a subsidiary or a jointly owned company. By virtue of section 419 TfL itself, but not its subsidiaries, will be exempt from income, corporation and capital gains tax.  By requiring TfL to carry on certain activities only through subsidiaries, an order under this section will have the effect of defining those activities of TfL which will attract liability to tax and those which will not. Further orders could be made in the future to ensure that if the activities concerned are carried on they are carried on through a subsidiary of TfL and are taxable accordingly.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/notes/division/5/4/2/1

Greater London Authority Act 1999
Section 164
Control of subsidiaries.

The powers of the Authority and the powers of Transport for London shall be exercised so as to ensure that a subsidiary of Transport for London—
(a) does not do anything which Transport for London has no power to do (including anything which Transport for London has no power to do because the consent of the Secretary of State has not been obtained),
(b) does not do anything which the Mayor has directed Transport for London not to do, and
(c) does not, except with the consent of the Mayor, raise money by the issue of shares or stock to any person other than Transport for London or any other subsidiary of Transport for London.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/section/164

Explanatory note
293. Section 164 places the Mayor and TfL under a duty to ensure that the subsidiaries of TfL do not do anything that TfL has not been given power to do by the Act, even though the subsidiary may be acting within the powers conferred by its memorandum and articles.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/notes/division/5/4/2/1

The legislation on TfL's status:

Greater London Authority Act 1999
Schedule 10 - Status and capacity
Paragraph 1

(1) Transport for London shall not be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown.
(2) The members and staff of Transport for London shall not be regarded as civil servants and the property of Transport for London shall not be regarded as property of, or held on behalf of, the Crown.

(3) It shall be within the capacity of Transport for London to do such things and enter into such transactions as are calculated to facilitate, or are conducive or incidental to, the discharge of any of its functions.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/schedule/10/crossheading/status-and-capacity

Explanatory note
256. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 10 provides that TfL is not to be regarded as the servant or agent of the Crown or as enjoying any status, immunity or privilege of the Crown and its staff and property are not to be regarded as civil servants or property of the Crown. Thus it will not have the benefit of the rule that a statute does not bind the Crown except by express provision or necessary implication. The powers of TfL will be restricted to powers conferred by the Act and powers incidental to those powers.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/29/notes/division/5/4

Local Government Act 1972
Section 100J
Application to new authorities, Common Council, etc.

(1) Except in this section, and subject as follows, any reference in this Part to a principal council includes a reference to—
(be) Transport for London;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/70/section/100J

Local Government Act 1972

Section 138C

Application of sections 138A and 138B to other authorities

(1) Each of the following is (subject to the limitations set out) to be treated as a local authority for the purposes of sections 138A and 138B—

(a) the London Assembly, but only for the purposes of section 138A;
(b) the Greater London Authority, but only for the purposes of section 138B;
(c) the Mayor's Office for Policing and Crime, but only for the purposes of section 138B;
(d) the London Fire Commissioner but only for the purposes of section 138B;
(e) Transport for London;

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/70/section/138C

The Government also have power to take control of local authorities, which could possibly include TfL because of their status.

House of Commons Library:
Intervention in local government

Intervention: the legal position
The legal power for the Government to intervene in the running of a local authority is broad and flexible, permitting the takeover of any local functions by the Secretary of State or appointees.  Intervention takes place under section 15 (6) of the Local Government Act 1999.

Each intervention begins with a formal direction notice.  Typically powers are returned to the local authority after a period of years, although they may not all be returned at once.  Some interventions have been preceded by reports based on ‘best value’ inspections, though this is not a legal requirement for an intervention to take place.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/intervention-in-local-government/

Local Government Act 1999
Section 15
Secretary of State’s powers.

(6) Where this section applies in relation to an authority the Secretary of State may direct—
(a) that a specified function of the authority shall be exercised by the Secretary of State or a person nominated by him for a period specified in the direction or for so long as the Secretary of State considers appropriate, and
(b) that the authority shall comply with any instructions of the Secretary of State or his nominee in relation to the exercise of that function and shall provide such assistance as the Secretary of State or his nominee may require for the purpose of exercising the function.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/27/section/15

Explanatory note
45. Section 15 offers the Secretary of State a wide range of intervention powers in response to failures. These include some which are of a procedural nature, and others which involve more substantive action either on the part of the authority (where, for example, it might be required to externalise a function), or on the part of the Secretary of State (who might, in extreme cases of failure, intervene to exercise a function of the authority himself or through a nominee). In any case, where the Secretary of State intends to take action against an authority based upon recommendations of inspectors, he will normally be required to allow the relevant authority to make representations both about the recommendation itself, and the action which is proposed in respect of it.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/27/notes/division/5/1/4

These are the legislations to show the Government do have some form of power to veto TfL's proposal because their status is classified as a local authority.

I've also found a legislation (Section 42 of Enterprise Act 2002) where the Secretary of State can intervene a company (i.e. Transport Trading Limited) in certain public interest cases.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/40/section/42

Explanatory note for Section 42 of Enterprise Act 2002:

Intervention by Secretary of State in certain public interest cases
151. This section allows the Secretary of State to intervene in the consideration of a case by serving an intervention notice where she believes it raises a public interest consideration that needs to be taken into account.

152. Subsection (2) allows the Secretary of State to serve an intervention notice in a case that she thinks might raise one or more public interest considerations, and subsection (4) provides that only one intervention notice may be served in any case. Subsection (3) limits the considerations that she may raise in this way to those specified in section 58 or those that the Secretary of State thinks should be so specified. Subsection (7) has the effect that, in the latter case, the Secretary of State must bring forward an order specifying the consideration in legislation and seeking Parliament's approval of it (‘finalise’ the consideration) as early as practicable.

153. Subsection (1) sets out the conditions to be met before an intervention notice can be served. A key condition is that the notice cannot be served if a reference decision has already been taken by OFT.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2002/40/notes/division/4/3/1/2/1/1

I do mention the DfT persuaded TfL to appoint two DfT special representatives to TfL as part of their financial settlement.

Transport for London Settlement Letter

Governance
48. A Financial Sustainability Group will meet in May 2022 to support and assess TfL’s progress towards becoming financially sustainable by April 2023. It will be chaired by DfT’s portfolio Minister and will be attended by the Deputy Mayor for Transport of London, HMG’s Special Representatives (see paragraph 49) and Senior Officials at DfT, HMT, No.10 and TfL. The aim of the group is to ensure that TfL reaches financial sustainability by April 2023. To inform these meetings, TfL will provide to DfT 15 working days prior to the meeting, a detailed report on their progress towards reaching financial sustainability, including progress on demand and passenger revenue, deal conditions and risks.

49. Two HMG appointed Special Representatives (one strategic appointee and one technical appointee) will continue to attend all TfL Board meetings, being able to raise questions at the Board, request additional information as reasonably required and report back to the Secretary of State on these matters.

50. The Technical Special Representative will also continue to attend all meetings of the Finance Committee and the Programmes and Investment Committee, to work closely with TfL to support its progress towards financial sustainability. All relevant papers will be shared by TfL with the Special Representatives as well as a nominated contact in DfT in advance of each Board meeting.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1057532/TfL-extraordinary-funding-and-financing-settlement-letter-25-February-2022.pdf

For liaison, please feel free to send to richard.erta@gmail.com 

Thank you to all who help in any way.

Railfuture is also swinging into action/make common cause: https://www.railfuture.org.uk/article1890-The-Travelcard-Add-on-A-case-for-retention