This seems to be a widening of the tent of opposition to the rail route going north and east of Bedford Midland Station. It is ERTA's view that if the East-West Rail goes north of Bedford (Route E), it will require track re-working, expansion of tracks and platform capacity and that means land-take. Bedford Midland is something of a capacity bottleneck already, Bedford-Bletchley usage is capped with access to MML north of Bedford because of the capacity of getting through the Bedford Midland 'box'. I feel that given Cllr Michael Headley has been on the Board and Council, he should have flagged these issues up prior to the 2019 Consultation, which was flawed and perverse. Instead Borough wants cake and eat it and is playing the field to position itself as a possible objector to the Bedford-Cambridge leg of the overall scheme. Its failure to support the rail link going east of Bedford via St John's is why we are where we are. If either EWRC or Bedford Borough supported the rail link going east via St John's, that is what we will support. Otherwise it is a stand-off and the clock is ticking, wasting time and energy for nothing.
In short, the message is clear:
1. There is a current need for more tracks and platform capacity at Bedford Midland 'box'
2. Add East-West Rail and that is doubly true (no. 1)
3. In our view 6 tracks will be needed if Northern Route E is pursued.
4. If Borough lines up against it, the question then is how will trains go on to Cambridge et al?
5. Our route via St John's area and east of Bedford makes a load of operational sense:
a. allows east-north movement of trains
b. weeds out east-west rail movements not for passenger interface i.e. Bedford Midland (capacity)
c. enables a new Bedford-Northampton option to be entertained
d. Even if you opt for a 'glass half full' Oxford-Bedford rail via Bedford only, you will still need more capacity - tracks and platform capacity at Bedford Midland for these new train movements and also more access to Midland Main Line-East West Rail for west-north and vice versa train movements
e. St John's area -Bedford Midland is currently 10 mph, more trains means upgrades needed to enable quicker end-to-end timings. Current layout does not lend itself to that, a point I pressed to Cllr Roydon about 5 years ago.
Of course we would be delighted if the Mayor, Borough, Cllr Headley, David Devenish, Senior Pastor at Woodside Church contacted me (local area rep) and engaged in meaningful conversations to sort things out. Instead, we're getting political football, fudge and playing to the EWRC one minute and then playing to north of A4280 objectors gallery the next. This is not the way to go, rather via Bedford St John's. I remind folks that in 1988, I was told the cycleway was to protect the rail route and therefore should either go next to a railway with a fence or be reworked to do the same job, but not on the railway corridor. As to fauna and flora, railways exist better with nature than 24x7 roads. Once a train goes by, all is quiet, roads, especially main roads are 24x7. The latter is what has been opted for by councils, governments and subsidiary agencies for the last 5 decades and unless we get a rail link east of Bedford 'all singing, all dancing', roads, congestion and pollution is the lot - that which erodes the charm of an otherwise nice place to live, namely, Bedford.
A problem for us x nationwide stretched coverage, is we lack resources, and sadly in these sorts of theatres, is used against us and yet these problems and implications are perfectly resolvable.
As for quisling sooth-sayers who say "three trains per hour plus one freight won't need more tracks, upgrades and platform capacity" to marginalise what we say, consider this: what goes into Bedford Midland or through it, also comes back, so by their own tacit admission, we're talking a minimum of an extra 8 trains per hour on that basis. Add to that growth - beit frequency or length of trains or extra and our calls - and indeed seeking to see the design - seem more reasonable. Realism is what can work, head-in-sand is trying to get pints into quarts.
This plan:
1. Goes east of St John's in Bedford and approaches the Tempsford area from the south western angle, not the northern route e, which has much against it, not least the solution to engaging Black Cat Roundabout, River Great Ouse and to cap it all and make things even more complicated Bedford Borough/The Mayor endorses a load of housing to boot! An interchange station is no substitute for physical rail connectivity between the north-south main line and the east-west rail. Failure to physically connect and plan adequate land to enable that at this stage, north or south of Tempsford Station Road, seems churlish, nonsensical. This, regardless of route.
2. Our route avoids Poets demolitions and that of Ravensden, it avoids Black Cat Roundabout + River Great Ouse crossing. So if you tunnel under A1, you still have to cross the River Great Ouse!
3. Kempston Hardwick? A load of houses, A421? When the 4 decade un-delivered cry is for the Retail Park at Kempston to have a station with a large population, easy walking, cycling and bus access, why not do that where clear immediate demand exists? More traffic means more queues down Ampthill Road to turn to the Retail Park with no remedy and disenfranchisement for pedestrians crossing busy roads. It is bad planning, bad for the environment and the Borough should consult before putting these plans forward with us and others.
4. If the Borough blocks the old St John's site with housing, it locks-in northern route e or bust. That is unwise to say the least. Our route takes on A421 and A603 traffic, northern route e, provides nothing for no-one locally and is avariced cost, upheaval and a poor substitute for the original route visa vee Willington and new build on embankment (flood aversion) to cross Ivel River, A1 and enter Tempsford area.
Please don't double-cross us, Bedford and think again. Meanwhile land needs saving for stations north of Bedford at (Beds area) Oakley and Sharnbrook to spread the load, use the slow lines so as not to bung up the fast lines. Modest car parking, encouraging drop offs, walking, cycling and bus connectivity. I doubt Bedford Midland will be able to cater given land available and unwanted multi-storey car park blight on houses opposite in Ashburnham Road.
5. If you settle (cynically) for just Oxford-Bedford, block off east of St Johns and so forth, any new rail for the Bedford-Cambridge 'gap' will have to avoid Bedford with more upheaval and costs. Make no mistake, you can influence a better outcome now. Then, we won't have such a luxury and yet the gap remains, roads alone cannot cope, are accident prone and congestion has not been ameliorated as media once portrayed by bypasses, rather volumes have grown to fill extra capacity. We cannot go on like this, you seem to be blowing in the wind of pseudo opportunism amidst the fan-fare of plethora of events, but sustainable businesses being a 6-8 month wonder before the shop is empty again. We need sustainable footfall and spending to the town centre and only public transport can deliver that - bus and rail respectively.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Pill
ERTA Chairman
From 18-06-2022 above:
re: https://mayordave.org.uk/en/article/2022/1430941/rail-strategy-sets-out-mayor-dave-s-priorities-for-bedford-borough
ERTA supports the east-west rail project but wants the route
east of Bedford to go via the old route east of Bedford St Johns to a new
alignment around Willington to link with the physical north-south main line in
the Tempsford area. What it does after that is for Cambs to determine. But in
any case, a north-east curve from St Neots onto the east-west rail, would
enable all south of Peterborough direct rail access to Addenbrookes, Cambourne,
Cambridge and possibly Stansted as well as East Anglia, places like Ipswich
direct?
We don't agree with a new main line and cramming in on just 4
lines north of Bedford, more capacity and lines will be needed unless you adopt
the old route with passenger workings out of two new bays facing south at
Bedford Midland (redesigned).
On Bedford-Northampton rail link would have to avoid Olney
and so whereas the old Victorian route went curve south to align with Olney,
off Stevington Walk to curve north, east of Yardley through Castle Ashby
southern estate to link the old route into Great Houghton. That is my thinking,
would require a viaduct over Great Ouse north of Lavendon on a south-east
trajectory. But consider this: 1. our route into St John's from the east,
allows east-Midland Main Line/MML north routing though Bedford Midland, Route E
does not. 2. Our route would have a flyover off slow tracks and a new bridge
over Great Ouse to cross MML at height (flyover) and off westwards. Route E
makes no provision, despite: a. Northampton, part of Golden Triangle b.
Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal/DIRFT access/inland port c. WCML
access. If passenger trains are scaled back to Milton Keynes Central due to
capacity on West Coast Main Line/WCML issues, surely more long freight off
Bedford-Bletchley tracks would mess that up too? Therefore Bedford-Northampton
'new' makes a load of operational sense surely with Thameslink arm on the back
- old Connex terminating at Rugby?
Open to chat, but Retail Park Station,
Kempston should be sacrosanct as would serve more population and direct
Ampthill Road congestion, contrast out-of-way Kempston Hardwick? d. via St
John's from the east enables direct east-west to flow by rail without all
through Bedford Midland, which eases capacity and optimises potential, ditto
linking north-south East Coast Main Line/ECML somewhere in the Tempsford area. Rebuild
Bedford Midland by all means, but capacity is premium now, so we need to think
honestly and strategically. North of Bedford, stations at Oakley, Sharnbrook,
Irchester, Burton Latimer, Desborough and Kibworth on the slows as well as
Ampthill (south) are required to spread the load in a context of growth alleviate
concentrates of traffic like at A428/A6 junction in Clapham Road, which really
does throw all vehicles in one proverbial 'basket'!
Always happy to discuss, be
invited to round table discussions. But I feel the political spin is to aspire
to have cake and eat it, when Northern Route E, does not deliver what is
required and playing down, whilst seeking to block the old east-west rail route
off with housing, locks-in a straight-jacket. If we are listened to and
included, outlets and personnel will find us congenial enough, but if excluded
for power or plough-through, we will watch as things unfold and be thoroughly
entertained probably!
So, please communicate and give us your support/help keep
Bedford's rail options 'open'. For a copy of
our Kempston Retail Park Station document, please email richard.erta@gmail.com
or any other related matter/join our loop. See https://ertarail.co.uk/publicity/ for
our other documents.
https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/council-double-down-on-their-opposition-of-east-west-rail-six-track-proposal/
Comment: This seems to be rubbish
quite frankly! 1. Cllr Headley has been a board member for a long time and not
once has he ever initiated a meeting or round table with ME, despite my being
involved since the mid 1980's and used to go to his Church at Woodside one of
whose Leaders did live in the Ravensden area. Working together, talking and
exploring options should be seen as healthy, instead we have stealth with
convulsions. "We want a church/solution built on relationships, not
institution". 2. The Mayor could talk and reconsider going east of Bedford
via St John's which would resolve many conflicts and issues and with difficult issues
like Cardington Road, you lobby and grow a coalition to get what is required.
If you look at Cauldwell Street rail bridge, maybe a similar one for Cardington
Road could be done if speed is reduced to 20 mph? What studies for
accommodation? Fenlake Road could be made one-way off Cardington Road as a
slip-way access to London Road? 3. If, as I suspect some say, they want
Oxford-Bedford and will happen, fine, but then that still leaves a. the gap
between Bedford, East Coast Main Line at Tempsford (Sandy is blocked off,
thanks Central Beds Council former Mid Beds District Council) and
Cambridge/East Anglia generally and vice versa. b. More bay or through track
capacity will be needed at Bedford Midland Station with remodelling to
accommodate more trains coming and possibly terminating there. London Commuters
won't want to be held up outside whilst Platform 1 & 2 are occupied by
either passenger trains off East-West Rail or long freights x however many
there is. 4. As someone has said, the east-west rail plan makes no provision
for east-north movements anywhere and coming in via Bedford St Johns area from
the East enables that whilst also allowing non-Bedford Midland/freight to go
east-west without recourse to Bedford Midland. 5. I do not believe if the
Northern Route E is adopted, it will be possibly to put all trains on the slow
lines existing and more lines will be required. So, someone, somewhere is
playing politics, when it is avoidable. Despite challenges, old route is
straighter, flater, quicker and probably saves money. It was preferred route -
notwithstanding new build east of Willington to the Tempsford area now needed.
Again physical links with main north-south main line could enable Peterborough,
Cambridge, East Bedfordshire and Stevenage access to Bedford County Town and
vice versa, why not do it? https://eastwestrail.co.uk/get-in-touch
No comments:
Post a Comment