Monday, 21 September 2020

Tonbridge-Gatwick, a catalyst of what is required for the wider South East rail connectivity.

Re: https://www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/gatwick-rail-service-could-link-18954332?fbclid=IwAR2CknrzE9B_XiLOruUl1FYABk1kfcHqHL5Hsd-iaTb5EE64DTShdjTJd3E

The idea of upgrading and making more use of the Redhill-Tonbridge rail link makes a lot of sense as does a study to look at how and if a direct curve towards Gatwick could be provided?
However, more trains terminating on through platforms gives rise to capacity/pathing issues and far better for trains to run onwards to elsewhere and the Brighton arm is at capacity.
This is partly why ERTA is proposing rebuilding of the Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham rail link which could inform a loop between Reading-Guildford-Horsham-Crawley-Three Bridges-Gatwick-Tonbridge and/or back via Redhill and the North Downs rail link which needs inclusive electrification to enable more and boost efficiency as well as giving rise for Thameslink reaches to link with Guildford and possibly Reading out of Croydon for example.
Our other proposals are:
a. support for the Arundel Curve, to enable Crawley/Horsham trains to serve Worthing, Shoreham and terminate at Brighton.
b. A new realigned Polegate-Stone Cross avoiding line enabling semi fast direct services between Brighton-Hastings and Ashford, whilst at the same time freeing up capacity/paths for more trains to inform a London-Gatwick-Eastbourne focused service, which with marketing would make more of the resort as an international destination and portal stay-cation for wider exploration of the South East with the London amenity built in. Eastbourne seems be-shadowed by Brighton magnetic appeal, whereas these better line configurations would enable both to benefit respectively. Eastbourne tracks need investment and an air of new dynamism.
c. The London - Brighton Mark 2 Project via Uckfield-South Coast Rails incorporating a re-railing of Tunbridge Wells - Eridge and maybe a relocation of the preservation operation elsewhere, like also the Lavender Line? This project would enable better links between Tonbridge and the South Coast and vice versa, with modal shift gains, cleaner air, land use savings for other purposes than endless car parking as well as footfall and spend both ways sustaining small to medium businesses and service opportunities.
d. A study looking at links with the Tonbridge-Redhill Line with a view to whether a curve connection could be provided for either/or the Uckfield Line to link directly onto the Tonbridge Line informing East Croydon-Tonbridge links?
The point is that better east-west links and common standard rail infrastructure needs to be seen as expedient. The landscape is mixed. Surrey County Council needs bringing on board for these projects, as per East and West Sussex, the latter seem content with a cycleway between Shoreham and edge of Guildford, but the compatibility seems undermined if councils fail to turn down a canal application utilising the old trackbed formation, if planners fail to relocate leisure centres and make space for a railway to get through with a station at Cranleigh and for an attitude commensurate for a cycle way and railway to coexist with a broader definition of the corridor to accommodate both respectively, bearing in mind the engineering requirements of a railway, contrast the more flexible design of a cycle way. What is clear is a cycleway and a canal will be very hard to accommodate each other. So wider councils need to get onto these others and bring them to be willing to consult with neighbouring councils and work together to get bulk environmental transport shifted by rail choices and joined up networks of rails. The long ago idea of a flyover like at Bletchley linking the Tonbridge-Redhill with Guildford-Redhill Lines would require some demolition and be a major engineering challenge, but again, the benefits of a seamless Reading-Ashford synergy for passenger and freight with the revitalisation such could make to these part-time track uses, should be aspirational food for thought surely?
ERTA is supportive of better rail links and synergies and wants to see modal shift, traffic reduction, pollution reduction and a better balance and approach to transport generally. I remind you of the Government's Rail Reopenings Fund and you should be lobbying Rt. Hon. Grant Shapps MP, Secretary of State for Transport and others like the Chancellor of the Exchequer to extend it as a rolling programme and again balance the £27 billion new roads budget with the mere £500 million Rail Reopenings Budget - we need a level playing field and more powers and incentives/sanctions to keep options open, not scupper them rail-wise.
You may wish to attest if the Transport for the South East are aware of/pursuing these smaller, incremental pieces of rail infrastructure which combined would make a huge difference? https://transportforthesoutheast.org.uk/ Thank you.



Northampton-Market Harborough Rail Rebuild Scheme - the route must be kept clear and reopening pursued with rigor.

 The proposed scheme: https://www.northamptonshire.gov.uk/councilservices/northamptonshire-highways/major-highway-projects/Pages/northampton-north-west-relief-road.aspx

Has these things against it:
1. There is no proof that it will alleviate the area of traffic nor congestion. Sure it acts as a conduit for traffic but such schemes are often found to increase traffic pull and thus ends up with more severe congestion. This especially true at junctions, which jam up causing delay to access on and off such roads. For example, whilst this article is more a broader canvas, it works back to local situations including large magnet conurbations like expanding Northampton, adjacent to M1 and principal east-west roads with no equivalent rail choices, locking in roads only inflated demand and journeys. https://www.driving.co.uk/news/britain-among-worlds-worst-traffic-jams/
2. At very least, this road must be made to bridge the former Northampton-Market Harborough rail corridor, keeping re-railing options open whether it be a Network Rail or Preservation or combinations with pedestrian and cycle provision alongside suitably fenced off. Only in the last 2 years have studies been done to examine the feasibility of reopening such a line and courted Ministerial support, but not followed up with applications to the Government's Rail Study Fund to buoy up the case as a candidate for shovel ready/spades on the ground delivery in a timely manner as befits putting Northampton on a corridor which could link Oxford, Milton Keynes, Northampton with Leicester and the East Midlands and vice versa. Think what that flow of footfall and spend could offer to ailing town centres, minus extra traffic and cars? We must not throw such a golden opportunity away for a road scheme of dubious credentials or even if you think it has merit, should not be allowed to scupper the rail link aspiration surely?

Please support the rail link initiative and amend or reject the road scheme to give more time for alternative options to be considered. Northampton is expanding in all directions but the closures of local lines hit the town of its size hard and despite rapid expansion in the 1970's and onwards, have not been rectified. Likewise, if we do not keep options and corridors open, we throw away recovery chances. 

Only last Saturday we appointed a Volunteer Project Officer to take re-railing of the railway to the Brackmills Industrial Estate, to enable more people to access the site by public transport and surrounds and alleviate road congestion which is adding time and cost to deliveries to and from the area. Choices are vitally needed and we appeal to you to leave a legacy that the County foresaw the issues and took steps to leave a support life-line to keep options open. The England's Economic Heartland (EEH) supports a new rail link between Banbury-Daventry-Northampton and a curve from north-west at the foot of the Northampton-Market Harborough rail link revived, could enable freight trains to serve DIRFT from a wider base relieving existing lines with more capacity for more trains to serve the Northampton area generally. If you allow such a road scheme to destroy the old formation or put pressure on its demise as a principal future rail access route, then it is a downward spiral of missed opportunities. We appeal to you to amend the road or reject it pending further incorporation of the rail aspiration into a joint transport strategy with delivery in mind please. The old route could, with sensible policy and planning be broadened out to include a preservation operation, a Network Rail through line and a green corridor cycle-footpath provision. Likewise the railway corridor could be electrified and so width and height clearances need to be taken into account. Further blockages makes costs and reopening harder and like the successful Borders Railway, rectifying takes some doing. But as the Borders rebuild shows, the benefits are robust even in a mainly rural location. In short, people will use rail where expedient, notwithstanding the current circumstances.
http://www.bordersrailway.co.uk/media/2660/borders-railway-blueprint-pdf.pdf It could be Northampton and Shire too! In such a context, amending this road scheme makes more sense.

Monday, 14 September 2020

All Aboard and welcome to join a Great Central Rail Reopening Zoom Meeting

Agenda for the Great Central Meeting hosted by ERTA for interested and supportive persons. 

Please contact Mr Simon Barber T. 0208 940 4399, E. simon4barber@gmail.com to go on the Zoom Listing prior to the event. We are incrementally progressing to making a start to get the ball rolling and every member and support and collaboration can count towards something greater than the sum of the parts.



Wednesday, 2 September 2020

ERTA Round Up

Despite a long summer, we have and are making progress. Membership is going up. We also have a new relaunched web address - please link to it/pass it around for others to get a window on us and our laudable endeavours:  https://ertarail.co.uk/

Please stay with us. We face multiple front-lines from our campaigns and feel the pains of aspiration turned sour whereby the mooted idealism of the modern age of cleaner air, water, land use-ecology balances and the fit of growing populations with mixed development including housing, employment and services/facilities from hospitals to care centres to swimming pools and leisure provision just is not in any kind of tandem. Masses of houses with few facilities. Development planned with multiple car dependency from day one assumed contrast to the need to nurture rail infrastructure, public transport and healthier lifestyles (walking and cycling) just not cutting the mustard in many cases. 

Grant Shapps launched the new Rail Reopenings Fund and organisations like England's Economic Heartlands and other similar organisations give themselves 2050 to get something done, gainful employment there then (!) But there's a serious need for a logistical and transport switch (modal shift) from road to rail and you can't do that without putting tracks back and building some new ones. Shovel ready projects like Bristol-Portishead have not been given the go ahead, whilst Oxford-Bedford rail link is happening, 2024 is a mooted date for trains to actually run and according to some 2030 is a cut off date for irreversible Climate Change damage with impacts on weather, food production, costs and many other news-worthy spin offs. 

In short, delivery is where speed is needed, not how fast trains go. If congestion means 20 mph is the average speed of lorries and cars for example, a train going the exact same location to location is much faster with no hindrances at say 30mph... makes 225mph for HS2 seem a tad unnecessary. Of course there's more to it, but for our money starting off with getting something small, growing it and replicating the model across the system like more recycling by rail (freight off roads) is where collaboration needs to be tangible. Trading reports and citations all laudable debate-worthy stuff, but ultimately it is delivery which makes or breaks our very sense of well-being, let alone ability to compete on a sustainable platform and conscience.




Friday, 21 August 2020

Northampton and Bedford Rail Links

The east-west rail could come into extended bays and reverse out east or west at Bedford Midland. Bedford-Willington area-North of Blunham-Tempsford is much easier than the hilly northern route laden with blockages. Peterborough via the proposed Corby/Luffenham Curve yes, Cambridge via Tempsford and Cambourne okay, but via St John's is the better option. Still serves Bedford Midland, still enables through running, but saves £'s and is quicker/easier/on the flat via St John's. Cardington Road needs traffic calming anyway, so bridge or dispensation for a Level crossing should be sought ditto invoking the bypass A421 clause of 'in the event of a railway being sought, DoT would give favourable consideration to over or under the bypass provision.' I paraphrase.

Bedford-Northampton needs pursuing alongside and the two junctioning north of Bedford being inclusive not exclusive in design. The A6 Bypass makes things harder, but it is not insurmountable at this stage. 

The last meeting of the Northampton Meeting ERTA tabled in Northampton seemed to come to a consensus that re-railing the Brackmills Branch with some sort of initial light rail configuration like a Parry People Mover (PPM) be implemented with halts at places like Waterside Campus (doubles up for Delapre), Brackmills and Great Houghton for example.

However, we are all aware of the challenges getting this done presents practically, politically but also we need someone with some capacity and time on their hands with a professional twist to spearhead the project with ERTA supporting/interjecting from behind.

It needs all on board to succeed and the quest is on to find a captain and inform a team to take the project forward.

I have drawn some thoughts together as a starting point. 
I welcome your thoughts and support.

Hopefully our tabled Zoom Northampton Meeting can consider this (an agenda will be drawn up) on Friday 18th September. 
We need outcomes tangible and specific from that meeting and it shall be tabled bi-mothly to show we are taking the matter seriously and want action. Otherwise we get development, more of the same and dysfunction and potentially lose the corridor. I am sure we all want better public transport and this is a way to go preluding more.

Studies at every step are needed and someone to take on to bid for Rail Reopening Funds would be advantageous - it is free Government money which can add to any sponsorship pot. 

ERTA is too stretched, too small and resource constricted to lead, we can usher and encourage and reify where appropriate.

Please give your support. I appeal to Bedford and Northampton Borough Councils, Milton Keynes/Olney and England's Economic Heartland (EEH) please do not throw away options, help us keep them open and support Bedford-Northampton as a strategic missing link now and going forward. A428 may be sparse, but end to ends are Brighton-Bedford, 3 airports and London and Northampton, 1 airport, several campuses and Birmingham/West Midlands and wider strategic links. There's a 21.5 mile gap in the rail network and both Bedford and Northampton would be pivotal. Thank you.  For pdf of paper/correspondance richard.erta@gmail.com



Wednesday, 5 August 2020

Draft Transport Strategy for Green Recovery

I am responding to the consultation for your draft Transport Strategy for green recovery, with the following comments:

In the main document (DRAFT TRANSPORT STRATEGYTransforming Journeys p.38 East-West Main Line - the Central Section must be completed before 2030 at the latest, ideally even earlier. Furthermore I have reservations in regard to the chosen route option for the Central Section and I would prefer the original route via Bedford St John's ( as per the attached diagram). In fact your organisation should call-in Bedford Borough Council's non-rail development plans for the old St John's Station area and get them rejected to keep contingency options open should the chosen route prove problematic for any reason. Comparative costs and challenges should be done and approaching Tempsford from the south-west avoids the need to negotiate A421/Black Cat Roundabout/A1 and descent to Tempsford Flood Plains. Please also see: https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/ (7 and 21 July). Furthermore, there should also be stations on the East-West at Kempston Retail Park, Claydon and Calvert (which is the potential site for a new town).

Transforming Journeys p.39 Other East-West Arcs - both these other two arcs (Banbury - Northampton- Peterborough) and Bucks - Herts) are vital.These are also referred to in the PASSENGER RAIL STUDY Phase 1 pp. 81-82

Connecting People with Opportunities p.45 Transport Orientated Development - both the Mass Transit Systems for Milton Keynes and Cambridge (also see p.88) are top priorities. As regards Milton Keynes, its Council's Mobility Strategy Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2018-2036 had proposed a Light Rail Transit. In addition the old Wolverton - Newport Pagnell railway should be re-opened and much of the original track-bed survives. As regards Cambridge, the Mass Transit system should be a Metro which should not go underground since this could bring more cars on to Cambridge's roads ,many of which are not designed to modern standards.

I had also looked at the PASSENGER RAIL STUDY Phase 1, and referring to the section Upcoming Rail Enhancements in the Heartlands p.91 Midland Main Line - Associated Enhancements & Schemes. The Midland Mail Line electrification (already in delivery) should be extended beyond Market Harborough to Leicester/Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield.

In the section Gaps in the Rail Offering throughout the Heartlands pp.80 etc., the following railway lines should also be re-opened and much of the old track-beds survive in these cases: Bedford-Northampton; Northampton-Market Harborough; Great Central (Calvert-Brackley-Rugby-Lutterworth-link existing Nuneaton-Leicester line at Narborough); Luffenham Curve (linking Midland Main Line eastward with Leicester-Peterborough line); and Northampton - Wellingborough. All these routes need protection, urban corridors need protecting for integration and coordination,and furthermore most of these routes could also be used for freight traffic. Banbury-Northampton (Northern Arc) needs to link with the Great Central somewhere in the Woodford Halse area.

The Southern Arc should involve the re-opening of both the disused St.Albans Abbey - Hatfield and Watford - Croxley lines.

I would also like to add that the delivery of the rail components must be made at the earliest opportunity to meet Climate Change targets.

Finally, I do not support the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway since it will bring no benefit at all to the Englands Economic Heartlands.This new road will affect Green Belt areas ,and will also be an incentive to build new housing and will not solve traffic congestion at all,and in fact, the road will bring in more traffic which is already increasing with the significant housing growth between these two towns. This increase in traffic will in turn increase CO2 emissions and also air pollution (a serious health emergency), both of which the Government is pitifully complacent.

Yours faithfully,

Simon Barber
ERTA Vice Chairman
T. 0208 940 4399, E. simon4barber@gmail.com

Tuesday, 4 August 2020

Great Central Corridor Re-railing

Great Central Corridor Re-railing between Oxford/Banbury/
Woodford Halse or Oxford/Bicester/Calvert and Brackley-
Woodford Halse and onwards to Willoughby, Rugby, Barby, 
Lutterworth and the Leicester/Nuneaton Lines Gatewaying to/from 
East Midlands Direct.

Who
The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) is an unincorporated voluntary membership-based association which takes a particular interest on the agenda of forwarding better public transport especially rail around the English Regions.
It has a growing membership across the regions and welcomes more.

What

Our concern and interest here are the re-railing of the former Great Central corridor which we believe could play a significant role in the areas and inter-regional connectives it could serve for both passenger and freight. It is not born of nostalgia but of the fact that if we are serious about climate emergency matters, modal shift pro-active is an essential ingredient to get traffic volumes, congestion and pollution down and re-railing incrementally is a key part of that.

Where

The section of Great Central corridor we are focusing on is in scope between Calvert and Narborough and possibly Banbury and Northampton as an interceptor link with mutual benefit. Places like Brackley, Woodford Halse, Willoughby, Barby and further north Lutterworth need re-railing. They are busy areas, loads of upgraded roadways, but a long way from rail connectivity.

Why

Currently trains between the triangle and all between Southampton/Bristol and Leicester/East Midlands have to go via London or Birmingham. This means few paths are available, restricts growth and takes capacity other trains could utilise.
GC re-railing would enable. Freight, South Coast-East Midlands, South West and Wales-East Midlands and all in between and vice versa.

East Midlands being a gateway to wider distribution networks. Currently there’s a feeling that East Midlands is being shadowed and second fiddle playing to West Midlands spotlight and both should be equally getting new/reopened lines and investment to optimise potential and that sustainably with a view to environmental impacts. That means rails and this is a prime example. The ambition of vague ‘defaultive capacity’ created on the backs of HS2 for example, still leaves no direct rails to/from the East Midlands but via London and/or Birmingham and that is a capacity problem compounded unless new/rebuilt rail links are provided like this GC re-railing idea. Passenger-wise direct access ‘not via Birmingham or London’ means Cross-country could be beefed up to offer more diverse services like Penzance/Paignton-York/Scarborough via Oxford/Banbury or Bicester/Brackley – Leicester and East Midlands principal stops and vice versa. New audiences and new markets.

A real chance for rail to woo off roads reliance to rails and a Nottingham-Bournemouth service is also potentially in the frame as well as new links and services between East Midlands/Leicester/Burton and Derby for example to Marylebone (London), Old Oak Common (via Princes Risborough or a rebuilt Calvert-Grendon link), Heathrow (a link between Chiltern Main Line and the Guildford-Heathrow Southern Proposal has been made to the DfT in numerous communications) and finally via a new chord onto the east-west rail Oxford lines via Bicester to Reading for example and via the Didcot avoiding lines to Bath and Bristol for example. In reverse these new flows to Leicester and beyond offer sustained flows of footfall and spend, visitorship and exploration including access to the Peak District if the Matlock-Buxton line is reinstated and Sheffield-Manchester via Woodhead. All called for rebuild in recent years to take traffic pressure off the road system and cut emissions as a result whilst enabling more mobility to all.

How

The missing rail links are between the Oxford-Bletchley line – Brackley – Woodford Halse/Banbury-Woodford Halse-Willoughby-cross WCML/M1 on new viaduct to cross back to either serve Lutterworth or a wider area station and freight interceptor station east of the Mi with links between rail and the merging M1/A14/M6 Junctions and onwards to west of M1 to link anew with the Nuneaton-Leicester existing lines. At Knighton freight for further afield and indeed a diverse passenger alternative to Leicester could be to divert to the Knighton-Burton line for quick access to Derby with connections. The Knighton ‘Ivanhoe Line’ and Leicester access lines could share the passenger and freight business on offer and enjoy more apiece. There would be plenty of business and benefit on offer and buoy up any business case and that could work back as a plus for the case to re-rail by return. It needs backers, funding study support and on-the-ground action.

Calvert or Banbury - Woodford Halse

Our original proposal wanted to take a spur off the being rebuilt Oxford-Bletchley lines onto the redundant GC trackbed to south of Brackley and via a new descent to raised trackbed in the valley to go to the east of the town intercepting the busy A43 and a bus link to Silverstone to make the most of the catchment served initially by a railhead station. The old formation was lost years ago with demolition of the old viaduct and houses built to the north of the old station. Thence a Phase 2 would be to extend to the north of the GC trackbed unimpeded with more or less relay to Woodford Halse where some realignment or relocation deal would have to be struck.

Now HS2 wants to utilise the old GC formation adding extra complication and cost and the ‘throw everything at Calvert area’ by multiple schemes of one sort or another means getting a chord onto a new domestic line alongside HS2 is potentially problematic. Moreover, the trackbed or alongside new domestic build to that of HS2 would require more land and some demolition/compulsory purchase upheaval. That is always controversial even as big brothers seem to have more ability to assume that displacement role than domestic others. So, getting to north of Brackley and indeed serving Brackley is the most expensive bit, complicated and controversial. North of Brackley, with HS2 veering away to Solihull at a north-westerly angle, we assume the old trackbed.

Another suggestion has been to utilise existing tracks and rebuild a new rail link north of Banbury to Woodford Halse with modest distances and negotiations, albeit would have to negotiate M40 and HS2 and maybe some smaller developments en route. This gets you there quicker, this cuts the cost of the Brackley link, but also means Brackley is still disenfranchised by being served by rail.

Once in the Woodford Halse area we proceed to south of Willoughby (new station) and a split with a link off serving Barby and linking to where the WCML fast and Northampton Loop lines diverge on a graded flyover which going south would veer to the west. The other GC route – old alignment would go into Rugby and have a second station (Rugby Central) and cross the WCML via new viaduct.

Our view is we don’t mid overly. Both have merit and should both be studied. If HS2 brigades were to offer to passively design rail access for domestic link to serve Brackley, that would be a kind and welcome gesture given they have no intention of providing such a station.

Both options should be studied and weighed on their merits. In terms of getting things done, the cheapest, least protracted option and quickest to deliver should be done.

Direct link to Rugby Central and beyond
We have already mentioned our suggestion of getting into Rugby (WCML) for linkage (passenger and freight). The old Rugby-Leicester formation and line would have been useful even as far as where they intercepted with the GC/M1 area so a loop and chord onto the GC ‘new build’ could be considered.

Deviations around built areas would be required. But again, the idea of a new link between Rugby and Leicester with their connectives commends itself for consideration. Likewise, a direct new viaduct GC cross and go alongside the M1 to Lutterworth/A14/M6 Junctions and onwards crossing back over or under M1 to lands west entering via a new chord to descend to flat junction link with the Nuneaton – Leicester lines.

You could have a west and east junctioning, which from the Nuneaton line direction, would enable early GC access and reduce transits along WCML between Nuneaton and Rugby for example or vice versa accessing WCML or West Midlands via Nuneaton. It is all direct routing, all new capacity and catering for growth not just on existing lines or default, but instigationally. You cannot have default capacity if the lines don’t go where the business is and that is plundering road congestion, not competing between rail companies!

Summary of Passenger AND Freight Benefits:
  • Direct AND Default capacity creation
  • Re-railing a corridor unserved nearby by rail access
  • Taking on the roads, not other railways and operators
  • Open access, open to all
  • Provider of infrastructure must benefit from use
  • Outlying area re-railed giving modal choice
  • Regions better linked not via Birmingham or London dependent
  • Direct, faster uninhibited access enabling more by RAIL
  • Enabling and underpinning sustainable growth
ERTA, 24c St Michael’s Road, Bedford, MK40 2LT (01234 330090)
Join our free email loop/request this as a pdf:
E richard.erta@gmail.com

All support welcome.
1. Join ERTA
2. Join Our Teams
3. Give funds
4. Write to MP's and Councils
5. Trackbed watch and object to potential threats
6. Encourage bids for Reopenings Funding Grants to study further
7. Let's together over-come the problems and re-rail this much needed rail solution!