Help Save Northampton from a road folly and protect a rail solution corridor

Help Save Northampton from a road folly and protect a rail solution corridor

The great town of Northampton deserves better. Like Bedford, despite growth over many years the town centres suffer from a problem of rising rents and mediocre footfall and spend sufficient to sustain small to medium sized business'. Congestion has informed bypasses get a string of out of town development and the congestion has just proliferated with added issue of land-use and parking conflicts facing every town like ours. 

Given both the A45-M1 clogs up and Victoria Parade clogs up and London Road also clogs up, how will adding more traffic from St James' alleviate the situation? Moreover, that traffic queuing back from the junction lights emitting fumes and noise in a now, largely residential area with thinner walls to what solid brick houses withstood? 

Consider this: A rail link from Northampton-Bedford is not 'pie in the sky' it is within our grasp if we act now. Already this very month we have £110 million for early completion of Oxford-Milton Keynes and Bedford with £10 million from the National Infrastructure Commission (NIC) for Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge rebuild/new build project, estimated to be delivered by 2030, some 18 years ahead, may seem a long way off, but in planning and strategic terms within Planning terms cordons of acceptability. Where do we wish Northampton to be in relation to these developments by then? 

Train paths are already at a premium on the West Coast Main Line (WCML) through and south of Rugby to Bletchley. This limits scope on new flows of passenger and freight services the line can take. These constraints affect Northampton going forward. It is therefore in our view, imperative that Northampton keeps it's options open and whereas for Oxford a change of train at Milton Keynes Central may seem reasonable, to go south to come back up to Bedford before setting off East would seem less-than ideal. 

A Northampton-Bedford rail link would enable direct modern, fast seamless train access to Bedford, Luton, Luton Airport Parkway as well as joining for on-wards Eastern bound services for Cambridge, Stansted and beyond and vice-versa - inward flows of footfall and spend to the town centre, sustaining it, minus the traffic and checking the impact of development and growth in a sustainable fashion. 

Already an embryonic consortium was being formed to bring players together to advance the Northampton-Bedford interest and this piecemeal road link puts a block on the reopening when so much potential benefit is at stake for Northampton. The University will be a major traffic generator, it could have a station for it's students and cohortic intakes, plan-train-campus, no-nonsense, just one change, one train, one ticket and door to door seamless interfaces. All that is put at stake by this road which severs the railway corridor, is the cost really worth it? 

May I ask you to think again and invest in studying the credentials of what's in it for Northampton if you put the railway idea first? You have nothing to lose at such a critical juncture or face a concoction of congestion locked-in and unsustainability for many years to come, compounding all the old niggles which the Chronicle portrays every week locked in.

Please support and work with us for nurturing this rail link and help Northampton have more options. If you want to be kept informed more please let me know. But this road link is bad for Northampton's well being and should be put on hold pending further research of what the rail link may offer please. Thank you. 

Contact erta.rails6@yahoo.co.uk if you wish to support more and get involved.

A Good Read

If any fancy a good read, then please see my articles on Linked In: https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/author/posts#published?trk=mp-reader-h

Northampton Depots and the Roads Agenda v Rail

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Another rail depot, measuring five million square feet, planned near Northampton... metres from original eight million square feet scheme

Another rail depot, measuring five million square feet, planned near Northa... A second rail depot plan that would place five million square feet of warehouses in countryside just outside Nor...

These new developments face the conundrum of what capacity there is on the West Coast Main Line. Facing media blackout in Northampton currently. However Northampton-Bedford-Bletchley loop would offer capacity for non-time-critical and empty movements for example and that would free some paths through Milton Keynes and Northampton. NIMBYS don't want these depots citing loss of countryside, but more road expansion is not opposed - strange coincidence! Likewise the Government reigns over austerity but has loads of money to splash on big projects like Hinckley, HS2, Trident, road schemes and Heathrow.

More road widening and yet 30 year old units on Marston Vale keep breaking down and a new generation needs to be commissioned - yet we are told no money, take recycled underground stock instead or go bust. There is a role for campaigning on these things and one way or other, it is indispensable albeit we need new blood to come forward to take on front line and active parts to foster a new wave of support. So rare, per chance between a hard rock and hot place with pushes to work, lack of slack with welfare cuts and workaholism being lauded as morally right when balance is more nearer to what wisdom would counsel, not least if you lose your health through over work and tarrying, you're in a worse state than a steady pace. Meanwhile Northampton is worth us working on and directing new team players to wade into. New buildings at the Olney Industrial Estate I observe. 

It is a fragile stay of execution, but if frivolously thrown away or dismissed or not pursued with equal vigor to Oxford-Bedford, Bedford-Cambridge, it must be pursued now not as some later addendum 2050! Yet that is the fob off we're getting one way or another. My report will be published in March and will put down a marker that opportunity to move the railway forward exists now, 5 years hence, may not be the case. By that time we'll be reaching gridlock saturate in our town centres and politicians need to realise you can't build your way out of it, rather re-balance the logistical apparatus to give people a fighting chance. Clean Air is not just about what sort of engine one has in ones car, but on fostering the rail alternative. Chicken and egg, no wagons equals can't do when someone asks about freight by rail, to have wagons a demand is required and so it goes on, lorry is cheaper, more versatile and easier to get hold of. But even that is reaching saturation point, so containers stack up, the system slows down and costs rise - enter inflation pittied on diminutives. ERTA may fold, but I as an individual will keep on with producing reports as a rader until we lose our route, then all is lost but for a turning off of the oil supply and making people pick up their bags and walk more. 

That is not fantasy but we should plan to prevent it by nurturing the sensible rail choices. It is cynical devils who bemoan and yet won't hire/pay me by the hour to work on this and then say "hey, we're volunteers who work, we don't have any spare time" - so nothing happens x generations relative to the road lobby who have an all encompassing in-built system whereby everyone has cars, everyone wants roads, every user demands cheap fuel and the politics and votes work their way out to lock-in recycling of the pattern. Rail has no mechanism to do likewise as it is fragmented to introverted parts caged by the contract/franchise and reps do not speak freely, they represent the particular interests of their members which is a fix point for xtown and a new pipe for ybox. Cracking the Northampton nut is pivotal to whether we grasp the nettle or concede defeat. Feedback: e. erta.rails6@yahoo.co.uk

http://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/news/another-rail-depot-measuring-five-million-square-feet-planned-near-northampton-metres-from-original-eight-million-square-feet-scheme-1-7655713

Transport Policy and Practise in Ground Level Outworking

Transport Policy and Practise in Ground Level Outworking

Re. Covenanta Waste Disposal Site, Rookery Pit, Marston Vale, Bedfordshire: This is daft surely as the first pre-planning consideration and stipulation should be that all fuel and waste and liquids are brought in by rail and taken out by rail? The Marston Vale Railway runs alongside Rookery Pit and laying a siding on a slow line off main lines would not be too much of a deal for something with a 20 year life-span. If not, what you get is regional influxes of wastes and fuels by lorry and exacting amounts out by lorry adding to congestion and carnage on the A421 and associated radial roads including cross-country roads. I think this failure to include and make a case for rail is a fundamental weakness of both the Metagg Campaign and Planning Authorities powers/use there of or regional LEP intervention as to the 'basis of operations going forward'. It is a carry on as has been before with or without a railway, which assumes road as a mainstay, when we should be looking at modal shift. Things like aggregates would be able to go by water if the canal used the extended navigation along the river Great Ouse course to link with Wolverton via Clapham, Pavenham, new tunnel coming out near Carlton/Chellington to turn towards Turvey, Olney and Wolverton where it would meet the Grand Union Canal. Instead the Canal Campaigners want to have a hoist up brogborough hill, which would be sufficient for boats, but not tonnages of freight except lighter stuff like recycling plastic for example. In any case non time critical may rule water out contrast the fact the railway is there and has capacity. From East-West Rail to Northampton-Bedford-Cambridge and more, the question is asked "who'se going to pay for it?" but the same question can be asked "who'se paying for the absence of it now going forward?" My belief, backed up by independent studies hitherto is to suggest the transfer to rail based operations for projects like this Covenanta episode would bring savings to the environment, road wear and tear, accidents and much more.

On another track, I am told by a colleague that the No. 40 bus service between Bedford and Milton Keynes via Bromham, A422 and Newport Pagnell is being withdrawn, hence the wish to divert the No. 41 Bedford-Northampton bus via the village loop roads and deny Bedford Road, Bromham of a bus service? I have suggested that a Grant Palmer Village loop could serve Bromham-Bedford - a mainstay of both buses and/or a No 11 recently started could do Biddenham, Bromham, Great Denham and back via Queen's Park/Bromham Road/Railway Station loop.

The No. 40 was scantily used between Bromham and Milton Keynes, although students used it to get to Bedford from Newport Pagnell - a town in it's own right. One suggestion was that it could have gone from Chichley to loop Olney before heading south to Sherrington and Newport Pagnell, cut out the Coachway (X5 serves it) and allow bus passes before 09.30 am to use it and usher day trippers to it rather than the X5 which commuters need and often leaves people behind on the am Bedford-Milton Keynes leg due to demand and capacity issues. Common interface between No. 40 and X5 could have been to reinstate the stop for X5 (request) at Chichley - which is where the Royal Society has a base. UNO C10 does Newport Pagnell and Crawley to Cranfield, it could do the Sherrington-Chichley-Crawley leg possibly to compensate if the No. 40 is withdrawn. Poor old Astwood of course. The No. 41 could then cut out Olney and provide a speeded up end to end service, but people at Yardley Hastings want a bus link to Olney as their nearest town. Maybe a very few, but one possibility could be for the 21 from Milton Keynes to arc from Lavendon-new stop Warrington Roundabout (development potential and interchange with any reinstated Milton Keynes-Olney-Wellingborough A509 bus link?) - turn at Yardley-Olney and back to MK Central.

Clearly coordination seems to be lack lustre, inclusivity like telling us and engaging with us as a representative group of 30 people would be nice from our Local Councils, let alone the media. Alas, we are tryers who seek to advocate an inclusive and coordinated transport system. Can't please everyone, but these cuts and revisions will surely displease and disenfranchise swathes of our society the old, the young, the frail, men and women. There's been a push to put society on a scientific basis and science has given values of cliniciality, reductionism, seeing people as pieces of meat, statistics and commodity value objects, than humanity and Biblical Creationism which sees all creation and every human being as made in God's image, as of eternal worth and significance and worthy of equality and consideration. As Susan Jeffers in her book Feel the Fear and Do It Anyway says these differential values are not static but rather people and societies move between the polemics and it is the point of transition which informs the average. John Bunyan of Bedford was imprisoned for 12 years for preaching without a license and sadly, the law is progressively criminalizing communications like this today. Our website: https://ertarail.com/campaigns/ on the right hand side, scroll down says anyone can join this email and where requested can be removed. We're also running a Mailchimp news-output which enables people to subscribe and unsubscribe themselves. This will be hopefully happening in the New Year. richard.erta@gmail.com Join us and help make our voice stronger!

Cllr Notebook: North, South, East, West and Central

Preamble: Heathrow announcement expected today - but what new rails will link Old Oak Common with Heathrow I wonder and what of the southern approaches?

If Government said to NR "a rolling programme of line reopenings please" NR could easily respond "we're struggling to maintain the status quo and renew Victorian assets" but does Government then look for another agency or is it lumbered with Scotland "yes", England "no"?

DfT have told us they have 2 groups they deal with, Railfuture and Campaign for Better Transport (CBT). Thus all others are largely disenfranchised in access and listening terms. We are affiliated to Railfuture, but they don't support Northampton-Bedford.

Now we learn of a fresh attempt to construct a bypass between Turvey and Lavendon (whether it will go west of A509 is unclear nor whether it heralds an Olney bypass too). However brownfield land will be created for housing, but where will it end up? Bedford Midland is going to need a lot more car parking and Oakley would put stress on Oakley and it's small river bridge. Any answers?

North: If an A428 bypass of Turvey and Lavendon linking to the A509 at some point is on the cards, the solution of more brownfield land for housing has to be weighed with where will the resultant traffic go? The same plan for all approaches to Bedford, has the same results and same question at the heart. Land used for parking cannot be used for housing or job creation. Traditional town centres are closely compacted and so bung up with volume-capacity congestion, bypass or none. I accept we cannot resist change, the world is moving apace whether we like it or not. However we should aim for balance and realise that many of these residents will want to commute to London for work and the kind of salary that pays the mortgage and send the children to Harpur Trust sort of schooling. We need a new extension of Thameslink to Northampton which would provide end to end commuting journey's of 35 minutes and with a Park and Ride Station at the Olney sort of area (half way), would mean contra commute drive times and a seat and help reduce the drive into Bedford and demand for parking/land use. Pricing people out won't send them elsewhere as elsewhere beit Luton, Milton Keynes or Northampton suffers from the same issues. What we need is Council to be willing to work with us to help take this matter forward. What it needs is elected champions willing to liaise and inform a team of able people. Cross-reference studies have already shown the Luton Airport/Luton-Bedford-Northampton (M1 end to end parallel) has promising credentials worthy of further study. Any new bypass must provide clear overhead bridges where it arcs the old trackbed and ideally the railway would be pursued in it's own right. So we have Oxford-Bedford, Bedford-Sandy-Cambridge and Bedford-Northampton. They all interface at Bedford. That is why we need to think a new track layout design and ensure proper on and off rail capacity is built into new designs for Bedford Midland Station. 

The proposal to make the 41 bus link between the two towns even longer duration (it is over 1 hour to do 20 miles, the kink into Olney picks up but 2-3 people per time and over 15 miles of derv is spent and 20 minutes duration) when we should be seeking an upgraded X4 equivalent 'Gold' service linking Luton Airport-Luton-Bedford-Northampton as one integrated half hourly fast service. Grant Palmer sort of circulars are what Biddenham and Bromham need if they want more frequency on Bedford bound services, the 41 should attend the main road and not deviate. The footfall and spend lost between our towns for an unreliable service (quite a few breakdowns this summer), the service is overall well used and would do even better if it was end to end less journey time in the saddle. As it is, a loop bus around Bromham and back, could ensure main road and villagers get the same services, not taking from Peter to spoil Paul. I'm no fan of Grant Palmer btw, I see their buses apart from Harrold, have often 2-3 people on them and the bus stop outside the new Theatre in St Peter's Street should be reopened as a bus calling stop for people to access them going out of the town, as if you are in the High Street, to walk to the front of the bus station for an infrequent No. 7 bus, is akin to walking the lion's share home! Buses to Woodlands and Keysoe and Renhold need to call at this stop, it needs a timetable inserting and made something of for people to use it. Fancy an afternoon out in Kimbolton? We have just the ticket! That's the kind of marketing we'd like to see, ditto the new No. 11 bus service means 3 per hour linking Bedford Bus Station and Bedford Midland, yet publicity has been lack-lustre. A shelter coming into Bedford down Ashburnham Road would make the bus stop more noticeable and maybe encourage people to wait and use the bus. The UNO buses could do a circular tour of Bedford - at least via Foster Hill Road, Turner Way, Gainsborough Rise and back via Robinson Pool/De Pary's to make more of their distributor roles. Likewise getting a bus to Kempston is fine, you have the No. 1, the 53 and Uno, but as they are at triangulated locations around the bus station and leave within a few minutes of each other, mis one and by the time you've walked round, missed the lot. Horses for courses I know, but does this illustrate good planning?

South: We need the cycle network to join up and connect directly strategic places. Do a list including the hospital and explore how well the cycle lanes and paths get you to and from it radially? Gaps at junctions, drop down kerbs for 'pedestrians only' pushing cyclists to dangerous roads and offering no protection at critical places seems retrograde. Top of St John's Station stairs Ampthill Road-Kingsway-Rope Walk-Across Cardington Road to the Embankment cycle network and Sustrans, the cycle path by the hospital stops short at Victoria Road, leaving a significant gap. Likewise Pilgrims Way-pavement on north side of Mile Road links to Jubilee Park eventually, should be pedestrian-cycle share, it is undelineated at best, hostile to cycles at worst.

East-West: I'm gutted at the following:

1. No one liaises with me or the association I represent from Borough Hall. Have asked, have sent email, but nil response. Please can someone tell me why or help resolve it amicably?

2. Gutted that 2025 and 2030's for Oxford-Bedford and Bedford-Cambridge respectively. These dates need to be brought forward. The rail link offers to deliver footfall and spend minus the cars and parking - land use mayhem conundrum. we need these rail links now. I'm happy to support from behind, but can't if shut out.

3. Network Rail is as good as cynical by saying 2030's for Bedford -Cambridge. This with no route recovery/protection strategy means with development - Potton new houses going in - the route/s will be lost interim (18 years). So we need to get Government to make them think again and be delivering the rail link even if a 'one man and his dog' team, that is better than dormancy.

Central: Now we have the bypass people need to be directed to use it. I note that many vehicles still use the Box End Road-Bromham-Oakley Bridge-A6 rat run than the extra mile via the new bypass A428-A6 link road. Surely by making Oakley Bridge one way contra flow, it would force these drivers to use the bypass and free the villages of congestion and hazards? Likewise I note that whilst Clapham Road-Bromham Road seems to have shifted, the bypass is clogging up at the Sainsbury's area of Clapham Road and some are suggesting more roads as a solution! If they mean Roxton-Riseley 'northern bypass/A421-A6) that would link further north and have to be tied in with the Twinwoods development surely? Will people not be tempted to save derv and drive via Brickhill Drive, Putnoe Lane and Wentworth Drive? Likewise I note that the Kempston Road and Ampthill Road and Prebend Street are congested still, the bypass has not lured them out of these artery's. Queen's Park should not be assumed to be a dumping ground for station overflow parking. Residents could have a dash board bar code to display when they park outside their homes to be exempt and then CPZ the whole area. That would bring kerb encroachment to book (hazards for pedestrians) and ensure that car parking on street returns some money to the Council for mending the kerbsides and pavements which kerbside parking damages prematurely across the whole town.

St Michael's Road and some real opposition: We desperately need a one way system for our street. Turn into St Michael's from Kimbolton Road, and head north and out via St George's and St Augustines. St Andrews don't have to be involved if they don't want, but should not dictate to us. We often get stand offs between 2-3 cars heading against each other and can't or won't reverse. Both sides of the street are parked and during the day commuters, schools and park events people use the Saints as a free-for-all and local residents can't get in. Again, often white man van parks on the kerbside making for a hazard - CPZ would nip it in the bud and again, not beyond wit for a bar code on the dashboard to exempt local residents from having to pay (main objection) but visitors should. Have asked for 20 years, fallen on can't-won't ears - we need an opposition candidate who will flag it up and for anywhere else that wants to have security checking of their street and get dumping of vehicles moved on. Our area has Budgens which does a lot of snack sort of food, but we have no take-away proper between Castle

 Road and Tavistock Street. Poorer people don't drive but do eat take-aways. Could a Fish and Chip Van akin to the one at The Spinney at Biddenham on Tuesdays provide a service at the layby between Pemberley and St Michael's? Yes new litter bins needed for there and Silver Street near Trevor Huddleston area - nothing currenly and if fined for dropping litter - chicken and egg scenario - provide bins and people may use them.

Big Picture: 

1. Pedestrianisation of the High Street: You could start with closing off the north of Mill Street section to 'delivery access only' and cycles with a contra flow cycle strip as well. Silver Street has prospered under Pedestrianisation, that's the ticket for the High Street too. Make Mill Street one-way towards Debenhams and cut the High Street-Mill Street left turn which catches pedestrians by surprise. Otherwise I fear all the paint in the world is just infill jobs and a  waste without the pedestrianisation which would mean people free of smoke, free of vehicle hazards and able to be entertained, shop, relate and live in amenable environments in our town centre (properties above shops and in St Peters next to Pizzaland could all help cut the housing crisis for want of a change of use. No 8 Olney Road, Lavendon is being reconverted to a dwelling - I flagged it up here about 10 years ago and since. Still 4 2 up, 2 downs on the A422 opposite Astwood)

2. Pedestrianise Midland Road West or make one way vehicles and bus and cycle lane coming into the town. Plant a few trees, widen the pavement, put a few 'Pidgeon Square benches' along it. Currently it has congestion, fumes and a bomb site (former Stannads - which could be made a children's play area for mums and toddlers - same for Linden Road Tennis courts?).   

3. Close Town Bridge except for buses and cycles and create a single carriage drive-over out of Embankment into St Paul's Square. Ideally have Greyfriars going north for traffic only. 

4. Batts Ford Bridge should only be for cyclists, pedestrians and buses to give them an advantage and make usage more appealing. Alas, how it would fit with Bedford College, Borough Hall and Salvation Army remains a mystery to me.

In short, we've got the bypass but people, are waiting to see the reforms of our internal roads to move towards a more pedestrianised place. Otherwise out of town will continue to drain the town centre of trade and again, the railways could rebalance this as well as that station on the Bedford-Bletchley line with footbridge to serve Kempston Town and cycle network as well as the Retail Park access options and arc between it and the town via Midland Road. Chicken and egg: Prebend Street has no buses, it is congestion all of daylight hour. Make UNO buses or another run via it and Midland Road to Bedford Bus Station and/or via Bedford Midland Station-Bromham Road (new stop outside Wyvern House)-Bromham Road-Bus Station (loop) and see whether the traffic abates. When the 100 and 101 went that way the traffic was not so bad, only after the buses were withdrawn did it close the way it is now. Point being Midland Road could be boosted with direct Kempston buses and boosted footfall and spend could fit into the vision above. Should be happening now, this is the 21st century!

The case against the St James’ Link Road in local terms

Pictures taken from Towcester Road Bridge, left (above)1998, right 2012.

http://www.northampton-news-hp.co.uk/work-expected-start-st-james-link-road/story-29108673-detail/story.html

The case against the St James’ Link Road in local terms:

1. The road links two congestion hot spots, namely the St James’/Sixfields area and London Road, Far Cotton.

2. The road link doesn’t take traffic out over all. Rather it gives more space to fill up with yet more traffic and loads of new developments go in, majoritively will drive and want to access urban roads.

3. This road goes through an increasingly residential area. New houses, (see above picture on the right) of modern construction will surely not welcome more standing traffic emitting fumes and noise to their neighbourhood?

4. Victoria Parade to the north and the A45 bypass on top of Hunsbury Hill to the south are both congested and the link road is London Road, where this new road link would pour yet more traffic into the system. It is no cure or congestion buster, rather space for more of the same making the end result worse.

5. If the industrial estate is life expired, surely the twin needs of more housing and parking should be first in the queue for a change of use?

6. The idea of a new road bringing sufficient new investment to heighten viability to industrial units seems incredulous. Rather, is there sufficient spend capacity in the system seeking the services on offer?

7. The industrial estate seems run down with quite a few empty or dilapidated spaces. Sometimes we have to accept the life cycle has run its course and it is time to move on.

By contrast the railway, if restored to regular passenger and other services, offers to remove on a local and regional basis traffic from roads through more choice. That will save time and money as well as inform more footfall and spend to the town centre of Northampton, which could make or break shops being sustainable or going to the wall. We at ERTA support the railway and welcome you to do so as well. Please see our website for more information on how to join and get involved: https://ertarail.com/

Watford Station Redevelopment Plans and Consultations

Watford Station Redevelopment Plans and Consultations

Given the plethora and overlap of consultations and considerations, I am writing on behalf of this association to give our general views and further information may be found on our website: https://ertarail.com/watford-and-hertfordshire-rail-public-transport/.

Our main wish and desire is for a new direct North-East curve be installed off the slow lines of the West Coast Main Line to link and allow direct running into and out of the Abbey Line from the North.

This would require a new single or double track off the slow lines north of A412 St Albans Road a new underpass to allow the lines to curve round and link with the Abbey Line.

Our vision for the Abbey Line is for a double track twin platform station at Abbey with a new booking hall and coffee shop and public conveniences and for doubling track loop at Bricket Wood and a new link line east of that station to a new station on the Midland Main Line (MML) south of St Albans City Station/North of M25 whereby the Abbey lines would go under the MML and link to the slow London bound lines.

This would enable the following:

a. Trains from Bedford-Bletchley to run into Watford and on to the Abbey Station off the West Coast Main Line

b. Specials to visit the area off the main lines

c. waitover for stock

d. Thameslink to Watford Junction from North London MML Stations like Hendon and Radlett

e. More use, patronage and diversity turning the Abbey Branch into a through route dynamic again.

Rarely used platforms adjacent to current Abbey Branch platform at Watford Junction could also be linked to the north via these new lines, making more platform flexibility for more services.

A footbridge linking the Retail Park with platforms and a new booking hall above ground level with lift/escalator access to ground level could give more capacity to the crowded tunnel and stair arrangement from platforms.

Could the office tower at the station be relocated to spare office locations and knocked down for more railway access? Given we have on the west side of Watford Junction the Croxley Link as well as metro lines to Euston more baying capacity is required. If the tower was gone the footbridge could extend across and the current bay line knocked through to the north side of the tower making a 12 coach through platform for interface with fast trains going north. The current bus interchange could be made a multi-storey car park and accommodate an extra bay for extra trains.

We need to encourage people to walk, cycle and use public transport to and from Watford Junction and safer off road cycle and walking facilities with the main High street and radial parks, estates and linking conurbations should also be progressively networked, mapped and promoted. Cycling on busy main roads is draconian for many cyclists and cycling on pedestrian space is also a problem. A off road cycle space, akin to Utrecht in Holland is the incremental way forward so optimising these non car methods more to greater numbers. They will require more lock up space accommodation and the link to the retail park will be useful capacity for this as well as at the front of the station.

We would encourage a study to consider incremental phased extension of the underground from Stanmore and possibly Edgware to Watford and that the Watford Metropolitan Station is not lost to railway use but retained for more services including use of the Amersham north to east curve for a Watford-Aylesbury service without a need to change. This could be a Chiltern Railway diesel service and link to the East-West Rail Network.

A possible heritage centre and some preservation/museum could also be developed around the site adding another attraction and boosting footfall and spend across the vicinity.

The north to east curve at Watford would have a triangle platform with the said footbridge (see diagram) so trains from the north bound for either the Abbey or Thameslink could call at Watford and again save changing trains. From tourism to sport, commuting to further afield travel, this would give more options for local and regional rail.

For more information please see: 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&ie=UTF-8&q=Watford%20Station%20Redevelopment%20Consultation%202016&oq=Watford%20Station%20Redevelopment&rlz=1C1AOHY_enGB708GB708&aqs=chrome.0.69i59j69i57j69i59j0l2j69i60.13870j0j7&rct=j#safe=active&q=Watford+Station+Redevelopment+Consultation+2016

and our website: https://ertarail.com/watford-and-hertfordshire-rail-public-transport/