Bad week for hope as campaigns hit buffers of resistance!

This is the context these tiers of councils and Government should be reckoning with, not defering and massaging and hoping no one notices!
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

Background:

This is why people resort to tearing down statues and mob rule, because the system is not responding, is not spontaneous enough and is negative largely for what people may wish for. The Government award £27 billion for new roads schemes yet places a mere £500 million for the Rail Reopenings Fund. Likewise, many good ideas and popular public interest flounders with the barriers of 'business cases' which cost £millions which ordinary people do not have even if they tick most of the socially mooted boxes of 'normal life'. This is a Climate Emergency, yet our leaders are playing fast and loose with hope. Here's 3 responses this week we thought you may like to consider and any support for us and our causes, are welcome via Mr Richard Pill richard.erta@gmail.com It is all voluntary.

1. Gloucester-Hereford rail link: 

Subject:	FW: RE: Gloucester - Ross-on-Wye - Hereford Railway
Date:	Fri, 5 Jun 2020 11:24:13 +0000
From:	NIBLETT, Robert <Robert.NIBLETT@gloucestershire.gov.uk>
To:	'simon4barber@gmail.com' <simon4barber@gmail.com>
CC:	SENFT-HAYWARD, Luisa <Luisa.Senft-Hayward@gloucestershire.gov.uk>, SIMMONS, Dave <Dave.Simmons@gloucestershire.gov.uk>, JACKSON, Karen <Karen.JACKSON@gloucestershire.gov.uk>

Dear Mr Barber

Thank you for your email of 12^th May and my apologies for the delay in replying to it.  Policy LTP PD5.1 - Rail Infrastructure Improvements of the adopted Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan (LTP) 2015 – 2031 states that:

‘GCC will only support the re-opening of railway lines where a robust business case can be provided by the scheme promoter. The business case must provide clear evidence of benefits to the economy and deliverability’

Consultation on the emerging review of the draft Gloucestershire Local Transport Plan 2015 – 2041 closed at the end of March this year.  The policy position in the draft LTP remains unchanged. Details of the review process can be found at:

https://www.gloucestershire.gov.uk/transport/gloucestershires-local-transport-plan-2015-2031/ltp-review-201920/

The ERTA’s support for rail and better integration of public transport is very welcome.  Gloucestershire County Council is committed to reducing carbon emissions and increasing use of public transport.  However, as you will no doubt appreciate local government finances remain very challenging particularly with the current Covid – 19 pandemic and the priority of the County Council is to focus it’s limited resources on increasing patronage on the existing rail network and improving station facilities. 

Ultimately the reopening of the line between Gloucester and Hereford would be a matter for Network Rail to deliver and they would need to be convinced of the strategic need for such a considerable undertaking.  Progressing schemes through Network Rail’s Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline is a lengthy and expensive process and for the potential reopening of rail lines the County Council would need to make a decision on support or otherwise on a business case produced by a third party scheme promoter.

I hope this clarifies our position on this matter and again I am sorry it took so long to reply to your original email.

Thank you

Rob Niblett

Senior Planning Officer

01452 425695

2. Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham rail rebuild: Dear Mr Pill

Thank you for your additional comments.  As I say, we would agree that this line would have played a useful role had it still been in place today.  Unfortunately, however, even when businesses cases are looked at over a long time frame and in the context of the Climate Emergency, the very high costs of reinstatement (costing hundreds of millions of pounds) means that it is extremely unlikely that this proposal would be achievable.  The scale of development along the route likely to be necessary to fund the level of investment, which would probably be many tens of thousands of new homes, would not be acceptable along this rural route through the South Downs National Park.

We are not actively discussing this proposal with other councils as we cannot foresee how a business case generating good value for money could be generated.  Although I realise that this response will be disappointing, we need to focus our attention on other priorities for attracting investment to improve the rail network where there is a much clearer and stronger case for major levels of investment.  This includes Network Rail’s current proposals to unblock the Croydon bottleneck on the Brighton Main Line, and proposals that we expect to emerge through the West Sussex Continuous Modular Strategic Planning study considering the West Coastway and Arun Valley Lines in West Sussex.  

Yours sincerely

Roger Elkins

Cllr Roger Elkins | Cabinet Member for Highways & Infrastructure and Member for East Preston & Ferring Division,

West Sussex County Council, Room 102 First Floor, County Hall, West Street, Chichester, PO19 1RQ

T: 033 022 23699 | E: roger.elkins@westsussex.gov.uk

3. Don Valley and Woodhead rail rebuild/reopening campaign:

Subject:	RE: Woodhead Rail Route
Date:	Thu, 11 Jun 2020 08:14:45 +0000
From:	Finnegan-smith Tom <Tom.Finnegan-smith@sheffield.gov.uk>
To:	simon4barber@gmail.com <simon4barber@gmail.com>
CC:	transport@sheffield.gov.uk <transport@sheffield.gov.uk>, Harrison Kelly (CEX) <Kelly.Harrison@sheffield.gov.uk>, O'shaughnessy Lisa <Lisa.O'shaughnessy@sheffield.gov.uk>, Partridge Caroline (CEX) <Caroline.Partridge@sheffield.gov.uk>, Jockel Cate <Cate.Jockel@sheffield.gov.uk>

Dear Mr Barber

Thank you for your email of 23th May, sent as a representative of the English Regional Transport Association, to SCC’s Interim Chief Executive Charlie Adan, and relating to the Woodhead rail route between Sheffield and Manchester.

You raise a particular issue around the proposed new underground cables. I understand that Sheffield City Region (SCR) did raise some concerns about the cables: however, the application is currently with Barnsley MBC and it is unlikely that any considerations about the future of the railway will provide grounds for refusal as there isn’t sufficient materiality behind any reopening.   

You also raise an issue around a housing development at Deepcar. This was considered at the City Council’s Planning Committee in May and was approved there. There is some protection provided for a future rail halt on the rail line to Stocksbridge. You can find the minutes of the meeting and the full report on the application at -

http://democracy.sheffield.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=373&MId=7294&Ver=4

More generally, you will know that Transport for the North (TfN) is leading development work on a Northern Powerhouse Rail (NPR) network. This has aspirations for Sheffield to Manchester services which partners across the north, including SCR and SCC, have supported. Locally, the South Yorkshire Districts and SCR have all signed up to the Sheffield City Region Integrated Rail Plan which you can find at this link https://sheffieldcityregion.org.uk/irp/ This does include the option of a new line between the two cities.

It is TfN which will take forward the NPR network and it is continuing to work on the evidence and business case for this. The NPR work is now being brought together by central Government with HS2 work under a banner of High Speed North and it has asked the National Infrastructure Commission to investigate. The NIC report is now keenly awaited.

You can be assured that SCR and SCC have regular contact with TfN (NB SCR is the constituent member and not SCC or the other South Yorkshire Districts). We put forward the case for the Sheffield elements of NPR at every opportunity.   

Best regards
Tom

Tom Finnegan-Smith

Head of Strategic Transport, Sustainability and Infrastructure

City Growth

Sheffield City Council

* Floor 5, Howden House, 1 Union Street, Sheffield, S1 2SH

(  07787268905

 8 tom.finnegan-smith@sheffield.gov.uk

Please join ERTA and give us your support: 

https://www.ertarail.com/become-a-member

Cambridge needs a rail-based solution to ease congestion, cut pollution, sustain footfall and spend more.

Comment: For a seat of learning, the Cambridge 'mess' epitomises the health of campaigning but also the power of superimposition. #ertarail fully supports the East-West Rail Link Central Section from Bedford-Cambridge and is opposed to proliferated Guided Busways and developments which would make that rail proposition harder to deliver or implement. Please join our email loop and help usher delivery sooner than later. Cambridge is congested, bus solutions have only taken us so far, roads solutions have locked-in congestion and given rise to more by road compounding the congestion, land use parking demand when land is premium and pollution takes a toll also. Trams/LRT has been mooted, but all costs and where's the funding coming from? Tolling motorways and trunk roads and allowing local transport agencies a share of takings could be one answer, but their plans have to be sustainable and on the right lines = rail based transport, not rubber on hard surfaces emitting particles. Send email requests to our loop to richard.erta@gmail.com

See:https://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/news/revised-cambourne-to-cambridge-busway-route-would-still-cause-irreversible-damage-says-forum-9111515/?fbclid=iwar2smvxkaj5kzqqgkstihtvwxbljz6u9gxkp7nkff1frvcvz8yeduc26dla

5^th June 2020

Press Release

 

Cambridge needs a rail-based solution to ease congestion, cut pollution, sustain footfall and spend more.

 

The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) supports the proposed East-West Rail project between Oxford, Bedford and Cambridge. A new route was proposed earlier in 2020 and we await to see detailed designs. However also, that corridor needs protection and conservation to ensure the railway has a viable corridor. It is intended to serve both Cambourne and Cambridge South Stations (alias Addenbrookes).

 

We deeply regret the touted go-ahead for a Guided Busway across country to Cambourne and possible associated infill development. Development without a rail foundation is unsustainable and could cause more problems than it solves. Over the decades, Cambridge has had a plethora of road initiatives, Guided Busways but rail schemes have not had their fair turn in what they could offer, alleviate local and regional roads more!

 

We call on all tiers of Government and associated agencies to speed up delivery of the East-West Rail especially between Bedford and Cambridge and call for re-doubling efforts to re-rail Wisbech and Haverhill as well. If routes are lost, new routes need to be found. But it is a fact that rubber on hard surfaces produce particulates we all have to breathe alongside congestion which exacerbates the health issues associated with locked-in road transport solutions.

 

People are welcome to join our email loop and work with us to support rail alternatives across the English Regions. Send requests to Mr Richard Pill via richard.erta@gmail.com

 

End of Press Release

 

Further comment: Mr Richard Pill, Chairman of ERTA and Media Spokesperson 01234 330090 or richard.erta@gmail.com

Ref: https://blog.greenflag.com/2019/tyre-particles/ as an example.

DfT Rail Reopenings Fund - Taking it forward

This may also be of interest, for which we take some of the kudos: https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/65978/three-new-east-west-rail-arcs-explored-for-eeh-geography?fbclid=IwAR25-zneUddTmmuu7MJtAVIws43CuYpO5bOhyxZGqSb2aolrqcyqL6uIOz4

Good news for others, which ones should we be focusing on for moving towards bids for funding/read criterion. Solicit MP/Local Council support/let them lead the bid:

1. Great Central Calvert-Rugby-Narborough

2. March-Spalding

3. Northampton-Bedford

4. Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham

5. Gloucester-Ross-Hereford

These are our top 5 I believe. Others elsewhere are covering other projects and can make their own bids. We can progress towards the bid and that gives us a focus, taking the public with us as we go. It is positive, so question is, can we arise to the challenge. No. 2 the MP is supportive, but councils aren't much. No. 1, Chris Heaton Harris MP Daventry is on the patch of GC as well as Minister of State. No. 5 is early days yet but a round at some point is to be envisaged. No. 3 - again when unlock happening and we start meeting, working with people-on-the-ground etc is the way to go as long as they stick with rail and don't go off on Guided Busway or similar. Northampton-Market Harborough another but theres a pecking order - others may play in reverse, fine, at least they can deal with accommodating the preservation line. 

Hope helpful. Hope we can discuss at some point. This is 2020-2021 main focus and things like meetings, forums, jaunts and Westminster Team can focus on these things. What we need is more active people.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/re-opening-beeching-era-lines-and-stations/re-opening-beeching-era-lines-and-stations
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/re-opening-beeching-era-lines-and-stations/re-opening-beeching-era-lines-and-stations#successful-bids-for-the-first-round-of-the-ideas-fund
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m000jfpz

Help Save Don Valley and Woodhead rail reopening options

#ertarail The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) is a nationwide membership based association independent of management or unions. We are committed to seeking local, conventional rail links restored and improved across the English Regions including and mainly reopenings, rebuilds and select new builds. 

In the north, we wish to see the following lines rebuilt: Keswick, Colne-Skipton, York-Beverley, Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton, Matlock-Buxton/Chinley and finally the Woodhead line.

We are concerned that as population rises and (in normal times) traffic and development inform more of each other, we need to embrace that these select rail links could find a new role in today's society and going forwards. 

The past is one thing, but you cannot live on just nostalgia nor scenery. The railways help to reduce road traffic, cut congestion, save precious land and beauty spots from being overrun by endless demands for land for parking, when there's a need for that same land to be used for other things beit employment, housing, landscape or conservation. 

I appeal to your support especially reopening the Woodhead line:

1. It would take on the following roads A628 direct, M62, M1, A629, A6018. 

2. It would give more rail capacity between Sheffield and Manchester

3. It could handle freight and passenger demand

4. It could have a new tunnel and realignments where necessary or expedient.

5. It would feed and be fed by other local and regional rail links enabling more by rail overall.

6. It is not just a local consideration, but part of a land bridge between Europe/North Sea/Hull and the North East to Liverpool/North west/Atlantic and America potentially, ship to rail and vice versa. 

7. Rail is the best way to conserve the best of our National Parks in a sustainable fashion, checking volumes, cutting pollution and informing footfall and spending minus the traffic.

We are concerned about HS3 and High Speed generally, being expensive, serving mainly passenger only, wide gaps between principal stations, leaves all in between to whatever rail exists or default road more. We believe that lines like Woodhead need:

1. Protection from further erosion/intrusion/keeping open for potential re-railing

2. Please round table and apply to the Government's Rail Study Fund for informing a pot to commission a study to evaluate it, compare it and see what is to be gained on and off the rails.

3. We believe in a mindset which seeks to overcome the problems of reopening this rail link, and looks at the wider gains and the throw-away of an asset which stood for many decades and survived Beeching only to be axed under the Serpell Closures of the early 1980's. There was no democracy about the closures, they were implemented often against local people's wishes by stealth and the result is we are poorer and less equipped now in a time and situation whereby we need these strategic rail links and the benefits they afford.

When unlock is lifted and things get back to some sort of normal, we hope to table forums and meetings to bring people together. Meanwhile we urge councils to talk together, work together and put this rail link at the centre of revival and regeneration plans please. 

It is an investment in ourselves. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

ERTA Chairman

https://www.ertarail.com/  

MAKE YOUR VIEWS KNOWN NOW AND STOP A THREAT TO WOODHEAD RAIL ROUTE EVER RE-OPENING DEADLINE FOR COMMENTS 25 MAY

Below see Don Valley Railway’s objection to plans to mlayhigh voltage cables along the potential route of a re-instatement proposal East of Dunford Bridge…
-------------------------

I write as chair of Don Valley Railway. We are a campaign group seeking to reopen to the currently freight-only railway line to passenger traffic between Sheffield and Stocksbridge. This section forms part of the former Great Central Woodhead Rail Route, similar to the section of the Transpennine Trail proposed for undergrounding cables as part of this application.

Many of our supporters feel strongly that Woodhead Railway linking Sheffield and Manchester should not have been closed and that it should be preserved for reinstatement at some stage. In addition, should the Woodhead Rail route be re-opened this will make this will either achieve Don Valley Railway’s objectives or at least make them far easier to achieve, therefore we do not wish to see anything get in the way of this occurring.

In my former capacity working for the Peak Park Transport Forum, BMBC representatives informed me that after closure, their purchase of the route was for the express purpose of preserving it for rail reinstatement.

More lately Sheffield City Region’s transport strategy states that the Hope Valley Line should be used to link the two City Regions, however if this is not possible, that other options should be considered – the only other existing option possible, without considerable infrastructure work, being along this, the Woodhead Route.

In 2013 ahead of cables transferring from the Victorian Woodhead Tunnels to the 1954 built replacement tunnel, a study was undertaken by the Government body that existed at the time, Northern Way. This went into details as to the consideration of how far if at all those plans would compromise the ability to reinstate the Woodhead route as a rail Route.

This study went into detail as to how the tunnels could be used in future for rail and came to the conclusion that it was still possible to develop transport options along the route along side the undergrounding of cables.

For this application a short note has been presented to establish if these works would similarly impact on any future aspiration to reinstate the Woodhead Railway, as speculatively suggested in Sheffield City Region’s Transport strategy.

Within this it claims that… “The Northern Powerhouse Rail Director explained in The Sheffield Star on 4 January 2020, that the Woodhead route has already been looked at and discounted because re-opening it would cost too much; and that Transport for the North is focused on the Hope Valley line for improvements to journey times between Sheffield and Manchester…”

In this regard it is noted that a lack of certainty or scale exists with regards to the City Region aims to improve rail and transport links between Sheffield and Manchester City Regions. Currently a plan for a £30m upgrade of the South Transpennine corridor (Hope Valley Line) which is struggling to be implemented is the sum total of this. For Sheffield City Region to gain the necessary connectivity to flourish it is our view that these are out of scale with aspirations to improve transport links between other city regions.

In comparison with Manchester-Leeds City Region links plans for a £3billlion upgrade of the North Transpennine corridor services are under development, not to mention Northern Powerhouse Rail’s aspirations for a high speed line between Leeds and Manchester via Bradford. It is also worth noting a similar gulf exists between the quality of alternative transport facilities (road) between the corridors; compare the M62 with the A628.

Don Valley Railway would argue that if the Northern Powerhouse Rail Director Quoted’s views are as expressed in this document, they should be discounted as in comparison with other parts of The North of England they do not place an acceptable level of weight on the importance of Sheffield to Manchester City Region links to this part of the North of England and rather than aiding its economic rebalancing are acting against it.

It should be noted also that at the moment there are opportunities to develop large rail schemes. On announcing the go-ahead on HS2 Phase 1 and 2a to Birmingham and Crewe Boris Johnson stated that with regards to the remaining sections to Leeds and Manchester that these will be redeveloped to better fit within Northern Powerhouse Rail aspirations; i.e. better links into northern cities and towns. With this re-visitation, revised plans for rail could be progressed, and this section of former line may make a vital contribution to that process.

To demonstrate that this development does not have consequences that could have negative impacts on the environment and local economies in South Yorkshire and East Manchester, it is assumed that if a proposal comes forward to re-open the line that the public purse should pick up a bill of £35million at current prices. Stating that this will be an insignificant amount if part of the cost of a rail reopening scheme. Please note that this amount is larger than the total current budget allocated to improve the South Transpennine links. With regard to OfGem’s requirement of National Grid to ensure it operates in the interest of its shareholders, it would be preferred if a condition is put in place to ensure that National Grid shareholders pick up this additional cost in the future (rather than taxpayers) should a proposal come forward. In addition, we would require that that amount of money is not included in costs in any Cost-Benefit appraisal analysis of a future scheme.

There is also the matter that the £35,000,000 price tag is almost certain to be much higher as having removed pylons it is unlikely that the Peak District National Park authority would sanction their re-instatement should this occur. Installing new lines via another underground route will be more expensive. For example the £50million scheme to install cables through the Woodhead Tunnel would have cost only £18million if via Pylons. So what they are proposing puts a financial risk on to the public purse in excess of £100,000,000.

Alternatively a plan demonstrating that a rail alignment is retained along the trail, and/or, information detailing that if installed compromising such a route that it is economic and feasible to move the facility at reasonable cost. Ideally this should establish a route alignment to be preserved.

Don Valley Railway object to these proposals and will not withdraw our objection until a workable plan to ensure that the rail alignment is preserved is produced.

A link to the application is below:
https://wwwapplications.barnsley.gov.uk/…/ApplicationDetail…

Posted 27-05-2020

Don Valley Railway

tuarSp7ro ndhsoredros · 

SUCCESS OF THE BARROW HILL LINE BID IS A MAJOR BREAKTHROUGH FOR DON VALLEY RAILWAY

Despite not being one of the 10 lines selected for the first tranche of the Restoring Your Railway Fund, Sheffield City Region’s successful bid to reinstate scheduled passenger services on Barrow Hill Line between Sheffield and Chesterfield appears to be something of a catalyst to a revised bid for the Don Valley Railway.

The Barrow Hill bid is a first step towards investing in rail in the Sheffield City Region. Despite not being selected ourselves, Miriam Cates MP, Sheffield City Region and Don Valley Railway have been invited to talks with the Department for Transport (DfT) to undertake further work on a revised proposal, probably to be submitted in November.

Sheffield City Region have noted synergies between Don Valley Railway and the Barrow Hill Line bid.

Additional Barrow Hill services will approach Sheffield Midland from the direction of Darnall and would add to demand for paths through Nunnery Main Line and the station’s northern approach. This area is already operating at or near capacity. However for additional capacity to serve Sheffield City Centre avoiding this congestion point the former Sheffield Victoria Station may have a part to play. With Don Valley Railway plans accessing Victoria from the west it would be interesting to see how this issue is addressed.

In addition, work is going to be necessary to improve the southern approach to Sheffield Midland as part of HS2 with many services may diverted via the Barrow Hill route to enter Sheffield from the congested northern end. The last time that occurred, when Bradway Tunnel was refurbished, the number of trains entering Sheffield had to be cut because it was not physically possible to get them all into the station from the north. However, sending some services into Victoria may go some way to addressing this issue.

Don Valley Railway have always considered that Victoria offers a cost-effective means of adding to station capacity in central Sheffield.

So Don Valley Railway remain optimistic about the future development of the line.

We need a national government initiative to save old trackbeds and deviation spaces with carrot and stick

Much talk and reports abound on the need for a better environment and discourses reach and range around it. However it is a fact (1) that exhaust from cars and other fossil fuel reliant transport - particularly road and aviation has contributed to ill-health and pollution. That pollution exacerbates any other ailment and erodes the robustness of the population alongside any deprivation elements which lock-in the divides between haves and have nots. 

The closures of the 1960's went too far and left glaring gaps in the rail network - the very alternative we need now to rebalanced public transport away from locked-in roads dependency to more people and goods going by rail. 

HS2 won't cater for freight and the default argument of it will create capacity elsewhere relies on whether it goes where the demand and flow and existing rails go or not. 

For example Southampton/Bristol to Leicester/East Midlands triangulation is problematic as you either need to go via Birmingham or London and they are at capacity already and have few orbital rail links to avoid busy central locations and passenger centric hubs. A new build Great Central from Calvert with a spur off the Oxford line could link direct to the Nuneaton-Leicester existing line for access directly not via Birmingham and London and enable new flows of passenger and freight services off existing rails.

This is but one example, another is there is no east-west rail link for 100 miles north of the North London Line to the Peterborough-Leicester-Nuneaton line. That means all traffic must go by road largely informing manipulated demand for road widening costing £billions like A421/A14/A45/A43 arteries for example and these congest around urban hubs which lack the capacity to cater for the volume demand and congestion is the result. Northampton, Milton Keynes, Bedford and Cambridge are examples as well as junctions where these roads intercept A1 like Black Cat Roundabout and M1 for example.

Choice in rail restoration terms is needed. We need Government to also implement a rail route protection arm which incentives protection of former routes to keep reopening/rebuild options alive as a contingency but also sanctions against where piecemeal planning policies throw caution to the wind, block critical routes/access and then lock-in a roads only future with all the impacts that informs including wars for oil (2), costs, health issues and mayhem generally.

The English Regional Transport Association is committed to raising these important national issues and would welcome your support to press the Government to act now in a timely manner in the wider interest please. You can find examples and more information on both of our Blogspot (scroll down) https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/ and our publicity page of our website: https://www.ertarail.com/publicity-page Please have a perusal and feel free to recommend our work to others to help us save the day on a curtain coming down amidst a lack of coherent leadership and direction in these matters and a positive will to ensure reasonable delivery and timescale can be done which reflects the need to avoid irreversible climate change impacts and inform modal shift from car, van, lorry, plane, oil dependency/fossil fuels towards re-railing, choice, balance and more off roads and back on rails, saving costs and lives as a result. Thank you.

Notes:

1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17704116

2. file:///C:/Users/User/Downloads/Greenpeace+report+Over+a+barrel.pdf 

I attach our latest newsletter for further information. Suffice to say lines like Woodhead, Peak Rail, Keswick, York-Beverley, Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton, Exeter-Okehampton-Tavistock-Plymouth, North Devon lines to Ilfracombe and Bideford, Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham, Bedford-Northampton, Northampton-Market Harborough and numerous others need yes, funding for studies to make the case, but alongside route protection and deviation lands also where like places Cranleigh, blockages have arisen and a deviation is required. Please help us and ensure that options are kept open, otherwise we lose them and wonder why people get disillusioned when much talk and many reports, end in expensive paper chases whilst lines 'ready to go' like Bristol-Portished remain to be given sanction for reopening. One suggestion has been, if cash is the issue besides politics, of tolling motorways and trunk roads £1 per vehicle every 15 miles across the regions and using that pot for better public transport. Another is to enable local councils to keep any Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) money (former traffic warden roles) and be directed to ring fence it by Government to protect routes. Bedford St Johns old site and corridor down to Cardington Road for an east-west rail contingency and Brackmills-Northampton on former Bedford-Northampton route are cases in point and across the regions, other examples exist whereby if you junk the urban access, you scupper the whole railway restoration scheme. Our lists are not exhaustive, but about 500 schemes of approximately 10-20 miles of rebuild is what is required with each region getting a fair share. Otherwise modal shift is not going to happen in anything like the scale we need. It reduces things to mere talk and people daily experience 'other laws at work' making them disillusioned. You can help inform more objective hope.

Support rebuilding a Great Central Corridor - Calvert-Rugby-Narborough

Our proposal is a rebuild of Great Central corridor / re-railing from Calvert - Narborough with a new link into Rugby.

Such a link would enable direct rail access from Southampton/Bristol-Leicester/East Midlands and vice versa in scope for passenger and freight. It avoids Birmingham and London, freeing up capacity/enabling rail greater market share and efficiency. It could also cater for a re-railed corridor and local links including commuting to Aylesbury/OOC and London via Chiltern Lines and put places like Brackley/A43 corridor/Silverstone a 10 minute bus interceptor to rail access as well as Bicester/Oxford-Rugby or Leicester or even Burton and beyond. The new link to Rugby would diverge south of Willoughby and link at a new junction between Northampton Loop and WCML Main Lines. Whether a north of Rugby - new GC alignment near M1 could be done with realignments where blockages exist remains, as per elsewhere matters for professional studies. We want buy-in to the idea and principle and especially local councils/quangos like English Economic Heartlands (EEH) and East Midlands Connect for example, who could in turn take to a next stage and court wider support/GRIP NR for example. We (in normal times) table forums to bring people together and aim to recruit people to in turn get them to campaign for the above objectives. New stations at Barby and Willoughby, Woodford Halse and Brackley desireable as per Calvert. New chord onto the Oxford line (part of east-west rail). We envisage a widening of the corridor between Calvert and Brackley with domestic (our) lines running alongside an HS2 concept and diverging north of Brackley - HS2 to north west, us due north. Lutterworth is where the A14, M1 and M6 converge and so plenty of opportunity by re-railing to engage with those markets for traffic to rail. 

If you can help and include us and help up our game, please do and encourage others. Enquiries welcome. Please contact Mr Simon Barber in the first instance: T. 0208 940 4399, E. simon4barber@gmail.com

Reopen the Gloucester-Ross-on-Wye-Hereford Rail Link

The closures coincided with gradual upgrades of roads and the result is congestion locked-in on a grand scale with land use for parking not being available for much needed housing or employment for example. Pollution and the world crisis on environmental issues abounds with few cures in sight.

We say ‘think global, act local’! Rebuilding a new Gloucester-Hereford rail link would enable Reading-Shrewsbury and beyond each end ‘not via Oxford/Birmingham’ giving freight and passengers and orbital option via some of the loveliest countryside in England, wedged between the Cotswolds and the Forest of Dean.

It would serve an immediate catchment of about a quarter of a million people as well as re-rail the jewel in the crown ‘Ross-on-Wye’ (population 10, 000 approx.) but a 3-5 miles either side of the rail corridor comes to approximately a quarter of a million people plus through use and switch from other modes given choice for example.

Please give your support by joining ERTA and join our Forums (when un-lock resumes) and get involved. Yes some blockages exist, but sensible planning and craft can overcome, realign, relocate or negotiate a way through surely, for the greater gains including sustainable development.

Visit the ERTA website https://www.ertarail.com/become-a-member and join or email to join our newsletter email loop via richard.erta@gmail.com The sky should be the limit, re-railing should be the norm.
Help make it so!

Technical stuff and drawing maps using digital technology/software is not my forte. However, if you think you could do a better job, please don't be critical or impatient but offer as a volunteer to help us and do better please. Email: Mr Simon Barber T. 0208 940 4399, E. simon4barber@gmail.com

Dossier for Gloucester-Ross-on-Wye-Hereford Rail Link – by Richard Pill May 2020

Key Factors	Associated Considerations
Introduction	English Regional Transport Association (ERTA)
What and Where	Aims and Objectives
Why and Where	Scope and Benefits
How and When	What needs to be done

Introduction: Reopen the Gloucester-Ross-on-Wye-Hereford Rail Link

The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) sees a rolling programme of line rebuilds, reopenings and select new builds of conventional ‘local’ railways as a key element to give choices for people and goods across the English Regions and beyond.

The closures coincided with gradual upgrades of roads and the result is congestion locked-in on a grand scale with land use for parking not being available for much needed housing or employment for example. Pollution and the world crisis on environmental issues abounds with few cures in sight.

We say ‘think global, act local’! Rebuilding a new Gloucester-Hereford rail link would enable Reading-Shrewsbury and beyond each end ‘not via Oxford/Birmingham’ giving freight and passengers and orbital option via some of the loveliest countryside in England, wedged between the Cotswolds and the Forest of Dean.

It would serve an immediate as well as re-rail the jewel in the crown ‘Ross-on-Wye’ (population 10, 000 approx.); but also a 3-5 miles either side of the rail corridor comes to approximately a quarter of a million people plus through use and switch from other modes given choice for example.

In Brief: The ERTA have identified the Gloucester-Ross-on-Wye-Hereford rail link as a missing strategic rail link. It would combine a local, regional and inter-regional sustainable transit corridor for both passenger and freight movements sustainably.

What and where

·                    To rebuild the Gloucester-Ross-on-Wye-Hereford rail link with possible select intermediate stations

·                    The line diverges south west of Gloucester and heads northwards serving a vast area of natural outstanding beauty (ANOB) sandwiched between the Cotswolds and Forest of Dean.

·                    Current roads of A40, A48, B4224 and A49 for example parallel or criss-cross the railway

·                    The railway could bring rail services from London and locally Reading, Swindon and Gloucester to the corridor and onwards to Hereford, Worcester and Shrewsbury for example, bypassing and freeing up capacity elsewhere on the rail network, particularly Reading-Oxford-Leamington and enable an orbital link around Birmingham and the West Midlands.

·                    Free up capacity for more by rail with overall aggregate sustainable transport modal choice and switch.

·                    Ross-on-Wye is a major tourist location and destination and currently has no rail access, so suffers from land use parking demand, congestion and demand-supply issues; the railway would help alleviate, bring new flows of people, footfall and spend as well as an all year around feed.

Why and where

·                    Open up a large currently unserved area by rail from a variety of north and south portals

·                    Scope of reach and range by rail is London/Southampton through Reading, Swindon, Stroud and Gloucester to Hereford and thence places like Worcester, Shrewsbury and the North West ‘not via Birmingham’ and all in between for passenger and freight use.

·                    The line may have potential to source lineside freight in or out beit aggregates, farming, bulk, warehouse and other distributive services.

·                    It would be useful to have a local commute service serving new stations including Ross-on-Wye to places like Gloucester, Hereford, Cheltenham and further-afield as well as a cross-country or London Open Access or variety thereof services utilising the same tracks.

How and when

·                    What is required is firstly to try and get local councils to see the principal outline benefits from re-railing and to have them in turn support it in principle together with any other relevant quangos and parties.

·                    For a study to be commissioned to examine further the business case, environmental impact, engineering and overcoming options where any encroachments or blockages exist. Government funds are available to draw down upon towards costs of studies.

·                     Once case is made and agreement to support it further and as a coalition grows, to get Department of Transport (DFT), Network Rail GRIP and other support and permissions to proceed with building it. Ideally a 10-year timescale should be the maximum timescale from conception to delivery and reforms at all levels are being sought for by ERTA and others to make the processes and delivery schedules more in-keeping with the need for modal shift, environment benefits and a Climate Emergency.

Please object to this development and call on the Councils, the local MP and Government to protect the rail route and keep options open, not lock-in to a roads only, congested and polluted future: https://www.herefordtimes.com/news/17722078.ross-on-wye-rail-arch-to-be-demolished-for-homes/?fbclid=IwAR145PtTq0TXqL6FfcyLqxTKJvFw_6NuQrZU3Yk0wWTlcQ8WWdVqRaTBMU4

The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) supports a rolling programme of local, conventional rail reopenings to rebalance our transport system and enable more people and goods by rail, more choice and less reliance on fossil fuel and roads-based transport default 'normatives' and to this end, planning must not be left to laissez-fare whim, but we need rail routes protected now and development tailored to keep options open. 

If we scupper through piecemeal development these contingency optiosn, we lock-in unsustainable and polluting lifestyles which are bad for our society and world. We applaud the Railway Reopenings Fund and recent announcements, but this must not be a one-off and whilst the £500 million is welcome, we note also a £32 billion road expansion funding from the Chancellor also! Clearly we have a long way to go before equity is the 'norm' not inequality. Alongside the rolling reopenings programme, we also need a route protection measure which gives incentives to Local Councils and other agencies to protect rail corridors and keep them as an option for re-railing. 

There must be carrot and stick incentives, protecting lands and deviation lands included, costs money, it is not a passive thing. Time stands still for no-one, yet from Bedford St John's, Don valley/Woodhead and now we have Gloucester - Hereford via Ross-on-Wye badly needing protection from encroaching development please.

I attach 2 brochures which I would welcome you to have a look at and give support through your channels to get the statute book to stem the tide of destruction and invest in our future transport and environmental needs please. 

I have looped the local MP's and also you, as these principle issues are happening across the regions. Please act now and feel free to keep in touch with our Vice Chairman, Mr Simon Barber who helps coordinate our Westminster Team. If we can secure MP support and they help us get councils to 'think again', there may yet be some hope or light at the end of the tunnel! Thank you.