As we walked the fields of gold!

Looking at the area in August 2019 one can see that with realignments via adjacent fields and a southern bypass of built Gamlingay – pretty much from the M11 to east of Potton is recoverable/new build-able. However, at Potton the old formation is heavily built on as is at Gamlingay but much more severely. To go to the south of Potton from a southern bypass of Gamlingay meets further complications whereby notwithstanding the old route is lost any new route to the south faces the significant blockage of John O’ Gaunt Golf Course which is prestigious attracting well-heeled people who can read, write and command lawyers. Who would want to ruffle their feathers by suggesting a railway blights their facility and landscape? Moreover, from south of Sandy to east of Gamlingay the railway rises out of the Ivel Valley to higher ground. So, any tunnelling or cut and cover solution would have to be on a gradient. Go further south and you face the hills of Wrestlingworth and Hateley, further south and you enter another valley altogether going north of Eyeworth for example. So getting from Sandy to east of Gamlingay is a pinch point which could have done with some positive consideration If the case and justification for the railway outweighs the pain or cost, then it is imperative things like this are looked at with a view to options of what could be done, not rule it out at the stroke of a pen. In this caption by Jeremy Harvey looking westwards you have Gamlingay and Sandy Heath on your right, a wind turbine on your left. Key question is, can we get a local railway through here with a park and ride station or do we accept development with no sustainable transport and send it all on local roads? That is the stark choice here and elsewhere plethora and tough choices have to be made. To pretend expanded Gamlingay will not expand further over the next decade is to put one’s head in the sand! 

East-West Rail - getting the Bedford, Blunham, Sandy and Cambridge right

The Trajectory of old railway can be ascertained and Steer Davis Gleave 1997 went north of this 2004 data and was an 'S' on it's sides looping round to south Blunham. If since 2004 data more encroachment has occurred - depending on what it is, whether the feasibility of curves has been compromised is debatable at this stage. Thus the option of Tempsford to Thurleigh/Milton Ernest and through Bedford Midland (serving Bedford) and out via St John's 1984 makes some sense, even though more expensive and not a panacea for avoiding the need to compulsory purchase, deviate and realign and of course the cost. Options which avoid Bedford Midland altogether or involve slewing the Bedford-Bletchley line to Wixams alias Bedford South must be opposed rigorously, it is sheer fantasy to think that Midland Main Line which already has trains waiting south of Kempston Road Bridge for a path into Bedford Midland would welcome more trains, slower trains and varied configured trains adding to the problem of capacity into and out of Bedford Midland Station. Therefore coming into Bedford from the west via St John's 1984 Halt makes sense to keep capacity options open for passenger and freight hopefully. Getting through Bedford Midland will be a challenge on current twin track for everything capacity and remodelling the tracks, platforms and so forth should be looked at, not just a relocated train shed and mere aesthetics which hide a multitude of sins very often! Who will give thought to this, who will take up the baton? We at very least should be loathed to give up railway lands to road development before these matters of layout and access are settled. The consultation earlier this year on routes should have included the old route - to gauge public opinion objectively not sway it to false premises of 'new dawns' which are yet to be worked up to a real route and list of what compulsory purchases and compensation will be required to contrast with the issues of the old route - to make an objective comparison. Yes, Cardington Road, Priory Marina entrance, Willington, Blunham and north of Sandy curvatures need a new assessment, but to discard it currently before the alternative and there can be only one if we are to serve Bedford Midland, must be looked at. ERTA will continue to call for these things to be considered and highlight sailent points. Thanks. Sandy-Bassingbourn-Shepreth hangs on whether you intrude on Wimpole Hall lands and can access the Hitchin-Royston line at Shepreth. Again segregation until Cambridge has benefits in able to take and do more passenger and freight by rail. But principal issues are a need to bypass Potton and Gamlingay to the south perimeter, realign using adjacent lands, raise M11 with under bridge, bridge River Cam and tunnel under Trumpington Meadows/Park and Ride and getting rid of single line on old trackbed Guided Busway. Linking passenger-wise with the new Cambridge South for Addenbrooke's and direct running into Stansted on the one hand, restoring the old Trumpington Junction for access to Cambridge, before or after Long Road Bridges, needs examination. Overloading Shepreth Junction, triple railways on a flat level junction and just 3 tracks is a recipe for chaos, so Mayors of Bedford and Cambridge need to compare notes and help each other get a better deal. It needs over-arcing leadership and debate. Sadly we have bubbles of parochial interest and scoping and media reflects the reporting of that rather than regional and inter-regional aspects and the pros and cons x whosoever is purporting whatever including professionals and Government.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

ERTA Officer.