BRTA London-wide (M25 cordoned) Forum 31-01-2026

BRTA London-wide Forum will take place on Saturday, 31 January 2026 at the Barrel Vault, St.Pancras https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/pubs/all-pubs/england/london/the-barrel-vault-st-pancras at 2pm lunch and 3-5pm business.

Agenda:

1.  Appointment of a chair (not Simon)

2.  Apologies for absence

3.  Lower Thames River Crossing;

4.  Dudding Hill Line;

5.  Old Oak Common; Heathrow Southern & Western Railways; Docklands Light Railway;

6.  Chessington Line extension to Leatherhead/Epsom; Crossrail 2 (SW-NE);

7.  Croxley Link; 

8.   Muswell Hill Metro/Extend LU Lines;

9.   London Orbital Railways

10.              Light Rapid Transits (LRT/Trams) Networks should be allowed to grow organically via local including Central London and Docklands Extension via North Circular Reform to Brent Cross Railway Station.

11.              Any Other Business

12.              Day, Date, Time and Place of Next Meeting.

Note: The London Forum is to discuss things within M25 cordons, not outside generally. 12 items is enough per meeting.

Agenda for the BRTA London-wide Forum. All welcome on a first come, first served basis. It should generally stick to M25 cordons for defining London with the exception of Lower Thames Crossing and the Croxley Link. If you want to meet in a hall or other venue, make suggestions to Simon and be willing to join, offer to serve as a volunteer and help resource the cost of public meetings. If you agree with any of our calls, please email your local MP: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?sort=1

Please engage with this consultation!

Please engage with this consultation!

re: https://www.gmconsult.org/transport/transport2050/

Please refer to our Northern Page on our website for ideas to suggest studying, progressing and support for: https://brtarail.com/northern-england/

We at BRTA appreciate feedback. It seems the North gets very little/glacial in terms of reopenings currently. Much ado is made of Trans-Pennine Upgrades and Powerhouse High Speed agendas, but beyond that, LRT speculations and routine maintenance drummed up as 'investment' and 'renewals'; it is capacity and enabling more by rail for people and goods and filling missing links with new or reopened rails, Manchester and Sheffield, Leeds and Blackpool need more, better and diversity of rail services more. Orbitals for some conurbations like Manchester are needed. Please engage as individuals and organisations and let's get the North getting a fairer share to help move a comprehensive plan forward to 'within our lifetimes' not mere jam tomorrow!

Please remind friends/organisations that joining BRTA, working with BRTA and taking up BRTA's ideas, could also be advantageous and helps resource our endeavours.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

BRTA BRTA

http://donvalleyrailway.org/

Lower Thames Road Tunnel Concerns

re: https://transportactionnetwork.org.uk/opening-of-privatised-lower-thames-crossing-motorway-delayed-to-2034/

It is BRTA's view this should be a solely rail-based scheme arcing East Anglia/Norwich/Cambridge rail network with a link between Stansted and Colchester/Braintree as well to Kent/Canterbury and the Channel Tunnel and vice versa for passenger and freight. Unless the government picks up on this, it will be catastrophic for yet more congestion, emissions, delays, spiralling costs and land-take, which is a premium for multiple and sometimes conflicting demands of land-use and allocations.

BRTA would ask those who agree with us, to email their MP's and if one MP gets more than 5 such emails, they have to look into it apparently and maybe the government can start listening as well? https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?sort=1

Likewise, the River Severn boasts 2 road bridges, but just one Victorian Tunnel for rail, when rail should be taking more and more traffic from roads, but lacks capability and capacity to do so. BRTA suggests a River Severn Rail Bridge (twin track) to enable more passenger and freight by rail and boost the environment, the economies of England and Wales and speed-up end-to-end timings?

Elsewhere in Scotland, a new Solway Rail Link and Viaduct would give a bypass to Carlisle for everything and on the Far North Line, a revisiting of the Dornoch Crossing, would give more flexibility tot hat lines operations and choices. 

The road lobby always includes extras in its lists of scheme, knowing some will always get through; rail just seems to stick with bare necessities and cascades down other candidates, which as the Borders Rail Project has shown, punches above their weight in exceeding all predicted usage in a mainly rural setting.

Yes, Cirecester's of this world and Ross-on-Wye and elsewhere need a national programme of local rail reopenings and a policy of switching to rail as much as possible, both policy direction and funding towards local rail solutions, reopenings and existing line capacity enhancements like needed at Northampton, Bedford and Leicester for example.

Richard Pill

BRTA CEO

https://brtarail.com/events/ 

Press Release email on Universal Theme Park Gets Approval! Better radial rails also needed.

Updated Media Coverage 17-12-2025:

https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/rail-campaigners-say-bedfords-universal-theme-park-must-come-with-fit-for-purpose-rail-connections/

and

re: https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/universal-theme-park-chief-thanks-bedford-for-support-after-government-green-light/

The Government has given the Theme Park the go ahead. Now the real work begins. 2031 opening (?) and the main line railway station east side and the revamped East-West Rail Station at Kempston Hardwick (incorporating Stewartby?) on the northern flank - will Bedford-Oxford passenger services be running by then? 

BRTA is sad the East-West Rail project heralds the potential end of 4 halts (small stations) and the hourly shuttle passenger service. Moreover, will Ridgmont Station be moved to the west side of the M1 and what of access to or from it for the Heritage Centre which has announced closure of its coffee shop due to it being unviable? This, on the cusp of 8-million visitors projected to Universal Theme Park Bedfordshire?

BRTA is also concerned that Northampton is being disenfranchised from sharing the benefits of direct rail access to the Theme Park by Rail and that of a direct rail arcing to link Northampton to East-West Rail Northern Route or Bedford Thameslink slow line services at Bedford Midland, as designs do not factor the Northampton interest and beneficiary in. This must change, designs must include Northampton to and from all these exciting benefits and Northampton benefitting as well in terms of commuting, jobs and regeneration contributions to and from the town in terms of a new radial rail link between Bedford and Northampton with direct services between Bedford/Universal and Birmingham for example. 

This has not been very well thought through and BRTA calls for it to be from NOW, as this once in a generation coming together of the Universal Project and East-West Rail can inform if it is inclusive.

Richard Pill, CEO and BRTA Area Rep said "BRTA welcomes both these projects and the prospect of a 'fit for purpose' new Bedford Midland Railway Station able to deal with the volume of trains, tracks, passengers and freight they will court. Yes, we have not got the rail route we wanted east of Bedford which required far less-than any properties the Northern Rail Route may demand, but railway is a railway and this new Universal development will underscore the Bedford area as a dynamic area to visit, invest and respect of significance in the region.Getting choices to roads as a default is vital if emissions are to be kept down and gridlock avoided." 

End of Press Release.

BRTA will watch and interject as these things unfold. Stations North of Bedford should also be looked at to reduce the volume of traffic along the A6, create more parking capacity in North Bedfordshire nearer to where people live and cut overall journey times. A study should be invested in to explore the merit, benefit and make an appeal to the government in a growth context requiring adequate and joined-up infrastructure.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

BRTA CEO

01234 225068

https://brtarail.com/our-campaigns/

Surrey Rail Strategy 2021

 re: https://www.surreycc.gov.uk/land-planning-and-development/development/surrey-future/the-surrey-rail-strategy 

BRTA can email a copy of the said report dated 2021. It misses mention of Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham and our proposed Redhill Railway Reforms - email ceo@brtarail.com for copy. We welcome interest and support for our schemes and help both with taking them forward and offers for speakers to our voluntary public meetings (see: https://brtarail.com/events/) to help generate a snowball effect of push for them to be studied and the cases built up towards courting government support. Thank you.

I attach our thinking for Redhill Track Reform and request you kindly email your MP (https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?sort=1) and other outlets like local media to give BRTA your support and consider joining or donating to help us do more and better. ceo@brtarail.com

Better Buses for Bedford and surrounds: a time to renationalise and for public inclusion!

 re: https://www.bedford.gov.uk/news/2025/bus-survey-2025-have-your-say-local-bus-services-bedford-borough

and https://www.gov.uk/government/news/better-buses-more-services-3-billion-boost-for-millions-of-passengers and https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/bedford-bus-boost-as-government-announces-additional-funding-for-local-transport/

We've had these kinds of consultations and announcements numerous times and what has happened is frequencies are scaled back and prices even at £3 plus cancellations, unreliability and a lack of buses linking with the main principal Bedford Midland Railway Station, shows a lack of coherence and join-up-ness to a service ethos and a business model which cannot stoop down to where people are at. I email as a layman and will also be sending out via my Bedford Area Rep role in BRTA to make others aware of both opportunities and challenges ahead.

My layman's observation is:

1. Stop outside Pizza Express/The Quarry in St Peters Street, timetable was updated, thank you, but a. would welcome exploration of 905 calling there and also that service to loop via Longsands St Neots to the principal railway station and back and b. also extend to link looping style with Cambridge Central Railway Station with through ticketing encouraged as 905 is a principal linking bus in the absence of any rail for 100 miles north of London on the east-west axis. If you can't see potential there including more footfall and spend for Bedford, something is lacking?

2. My observation is that Nos 5, 6, 10, 3 and 7 are fairly well used plus Kempston buses. However, frequency cut on 10/4 and 7 has blighted usership, waiting an hour out in dark winter months and cold or even in time-use value, is a big ask. Any investment should see these frequencies improved to a basic x2 buses per hour, merge routes should also be considered to speed end-to-end durations up, given the delays of congestion.

3. Gant Palmer 74, 44 fairly well used, 73 a vital link but more to bridge with the new Biggleswade-Cambridge bus service should be done, not isolation because operators and councils cannot talk with each other?

4. The Yew Tree at Pizza Express-The Quarry stop in St Peters Street Bedford, hangs over at 5'8 above the pavement and needs lopping back to align with the garden fence. It casts a shadow on the bus stop, the pavement, a hazard for pedestrians, cyclists and bus users. Likewise an audit on built bus stops should be done with a view to a. foster cleanliness, mending holes in roofs, clearing ivy, disinfecting floors (Olney is a disgrace for the latter) and b. maybe a competition to raise vigilance, standards and local pride?

5. Not all are digital, paper posted timetables do wonders as long as large enough font size and decent lighting are available during the winter months especially. RTI for the Kempston Stop in St Pauls (outwards stop) was vandalised several years ago and has never been replaced despite numerous different operators serving it.

6. I've said it before, the No. 8 via Queens Street goes the wrong way. It should go out via St Paul's and call at North Wing Hospital site, Old Folks Home in Park Avenue, the 'to town' stop Roff Avenue and loop to bus station via a new stop in Bromham Road (The New Ship In area), serve Bedford Midland and loop to bus station via Midland Road and Greyfriars for outwards to Great Denham. That, well publicised, would save walking across busy roads in Park Avenue and boost patronage. Gaps in service frequency, like Saturday (6th) no No. 8 looping for over 1 hour, is disconcerting, a lack of available staff or buses and no verbal communication make bus usage a lottery of reliability. That undermines confidence.

7. The sorts of people who use buses apart to commute, are old folks (free bus passes), young people (school etc), women and disabled people, but getting people out of cars to buses is a real challenge, but not a 'mission impossible' if we're willing to work at it without costing the earth. If price, frequency and going where people wish to get to/from and hours of service can be got right, the world is an oyster, no pun intended! Please lobby to extend a bus pass for all 18-Retirement ages and those on £21, 000 p.a or less to all on welfare benefits, to encourage patronage and maybe include off peak rail as well for inter-modal travel. Savings include less congestion, less waste of space, more usage, footfall and spend and raising the game on cutting emissions in a meaningful manner. Travel broadens the mind, affordability gives a leg-up to enable social mobility as well: https://post.parliament.uk/the-role-of-transport-in-improving-access-to-opportunities/

Rail Professional Article Published and Values in Transport

re: https://issuu.com/railpro/docs/rail_professional_december_issue_318?fr=sNzljNTg5NTExMTc

Thanks to the kind people at Rail Professional, I received an interview published on page 28 of the said Magazine laying out the British Regional Transport Association (BRTA) stall and I would wish that people who support the message, would either join or donate to BRTA via: https://brtarail.com/become-a-member/ and not read it merely in parochial terms of "is my area mentioned?" but consider it as to the pattern and plan for the nation as a whole. Gaps in the rail network, mean roads default has the monopoly and that means unless addressed, elsewhere gets more than its fair share of road reliance than modal shift back to rail to save land, the environment, cut emissions pollution and enhance mobility based on a sounder sustainable manner.

I recall in the 1980's discussions on saving the world and planet of how a religious leader said "morals and ethics follow lead actions." Their philosophy was that overwhelming prioritisation was to secure the end of the world for their faith, than consider advancing a belief system with morals and ethical considerations intact at every stage. I took the latter view and within 5 years I had left that radical church outlet; the same that gave us at a Party Conference 2004 "people on welfare benefits need hands up, not hands out." statements, along with Foodbanks, Centre for Social Justice (for whom?) and rising homelessness amongst young people; and I disagree with them and that pragmatic 'get it all over and done quick' approach even now and that based on bottom lines and 'costs' rather than the view every person matters, is made in the image of God and is worth dignity. Additionally, what is wrong, is to pretend business as usual and we can just pluralism on transport in a fashion akin to the adage "all roads lead to London". Reality is they do not and from Roman times, this was appreciated. So those who do courses on "Surviving Sustainability" as if doing economic, social and environmental activity was not to consider the dynamic relationship of good stewardship of planet with economic activity was somehow a 'threat' and in all but name 'act as if you can do what you like without environmental consideration, care and concern reaching to all people and places and back to the business model in planning and practise'.

I think the sustainability tri-une presentation of social, economic and environmental in balance, should be quadrilateral, and include morals as another consideration. Is a development or policy 'moral' or immoral? On a scale, how far do we go and on what basis does the greater good out-flank the consideration of relocation packages in development for example?

We have politicians hailing net zero agendas, but refusing to engage on local government planning policy and plans which if executed could in some cases thwart aspirations for rail alternatives, capacity and enhancement to challenge total locked-in gridlock congestion, emissions and growing and unnecessary NHS waiting lists!

The dismantling of the planning system to speed up development must be balanced with are we doing planning and development with people, places, land use and the environment intact? Reality as far as Lower Thames Road Crossing is an emphatic "no" in my view. Kent and East Anglia with a European dimension for people and goods would have been far better to be a rail-based project, decongesting roads and opening up Norwich-Canterbury-Channel Tunnel direct opportunities and them to East Anglia in a sustainable fashion.

Likewise, the Severn Estuary has 2 road bridges, just one over capacitated Victorian Tunnel, surely it is time to reinstate a twin-track rail bridge to enable more passenger and freight movements by rail?

I think the onus on demands for Green Book Business Cases to rail proposals, the onus should be on those demanding such to do the lion's share, as it involves avariced costs, delays, complicated maths and really is a brake on rail aspirations from lay people, which are nationwide (England, Scotland and Wales) if anyone listens and cares? It is in our own national interest to engage more humbly and work at nurturing reopenings via partnership, pro-planning and choosing rail over road upgrades which ripple congestion further and elsewhere.

Finally, level crossings on rail, are a tried and proven technology over decades. Most accidents happen when abuse comes from road users, who need better engagement and education. They must be rigorously maintained as well. Bridges get bashed and underpasses still need maintenance. So surely Office for Road and Rail (ORR) needs reform with rail user/lay public involvement. Reopening of rail link schemes are having costs put up avarice causing delays and rising costs, when level crossings would reduce delays and speed delivery for the benefit of all up. Likewise, 'special dispensations' whereby no bridge or duck-under can be done, should revert to a level crossing. Priory Park entrance on the former Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge Railway is one such example and another the Wisbech Branch in North Cambridgeshire?

Please address these issues and help re-rail our nation for everyone's benefit. ceo@brtarail.com

Reopen Ross on Wye rail links with Hereford and Gloucester for local-regional rail modal chocies.

More press coverage:

https://gloucesternewscentre.co.uk/campaigners-back-call-to-reopen-hereford-ross-gloucester-rail-line/

People can support us in: 

We need the dates for 3 forums at Gloucester, Hereford and Ross to be posted on the website for 2026. 

People can also email as individuals to the media outlet and MP in support.

I feel we are gaining ground, but need the government to tango and take an interest and are under resourced people and funding currently. See: https://brtarail.com/become-a-member/

Key things BRTA wants are:

1. A study to make the business case and examine feasibility and come up with viable options where blockages require amendments or deviations for example.

2. For roundtabling to bring talent and resources together to promote the idea and get the public on board as well as the government.

3. For Ross-on-Wye as elsewhere to appreciate that even if a Phase 1 was Gloucester to Ross-on-Wye and Phase 2 to link as a through route to Hereford, the railway even with a Parkway Station at the edge of Ross, would bring loads more people minus the traffic. A40 is congested, accident prone and always being upgraded; rail could make a critical socio-economic and environmental difference. The more support the better.

4. Public is welcome to join BRTA as every member helps us. We aim to hold a forum at Gloucester later in 2026 to bring people together.

5. Scope local between Gloucester-Ross-Hereford but also on a regional basis from Southampton-Shrewsbury - Merseyside and vice versa, could bring significant more usership to rail, which again decongests our busy roads in a context of development and employment opportunities, currently held back due to a lack of rail access.

re: https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/25677452.call-bring-bring-back-hereford-to-ross-on-wye-railway-line/

Please email your local MP in support, the media outlet and the councils at both ends and along the line in support as individuals. BRTA was one of the instigators of this idea and others are now seeing the potential.

It needs:

1. studying/making the business case to Green Book Rules (DFT)

2. Route protection including deviation spaces and realignment of original railway, some compulsory purchase, relocation packages and compensation will be required where pinch points arise.

3. When one thinks of the tourist hot spot Cotswolds and Forest of Dean are and Ross-on-Wye in particular as a tourist hot-spot; it is a winner plus as a through route Reading to Merseyside via Shrewsbury would create paths for other routes and enable much more by rail out of Southampton and elsewhere.

But we need to add our voices and usher it along. Maybe a forum can be convened later in 2026 by BRTA to bolster support. Enquiries ceo@brtarail.com