Some reflections response to Mr Andy Roden's Rail Article 'Ten Rules for rail reopenings.'

Some reflections response to Mr Andy Roden's Rail Article 'Ten Rules for rail reopenings.' Published in Rail Magazine Issue No. 923, Jan 27-Feb 9 2021 pages 32-35.

'Experts' (p. 32) seem the buzz word of standard aim and audience, what of local/lay people aspiration? Andy declares links to the Northern Route Working Group, Exeter-Plymouth. Re-railing Exeter-Okehampton is one thing, getting to Tavistock and Plymouth quite another matter and yet people have been advocating it for years - where was the railway media then? Many other campaigns have come and gone, largely un-covered and ignored by obsessive rail media coverage of existing lines, traction, rolling stock designs, power and pandering to professionals on the one hand and enthusiasts on the other.

Rule 1: Don't look back: But if the case is valid and if - given no retrospective inquiry assessed the issues pertaining to the before and after closures by stealth - if there was foul play, and new demand now can be detected, action is required now at the 11th hour even as a rebuild can take decades to bring about - lessons need to reduce complexity, cost and duration from concept to delivery. We cannot sit back and say 'blockages prevent reopening' as you surely have to balance pain and gain? You may say HS2 is a replacement for the loss of the GC Main Line but does not serve Leicester and probably won't cater for freight except by default on existing lines which do not directly link Southampton/Bristol/Oxford with Rugby/WCML and Narborough/Leicester/East Midlands and vice versa for example, let alone growing catchments around Brackley, Daventry, Magna Park and Lutterworth for example. The real default of such thinking is that it all goes to the roads, compounding congestion, pollution and expansion destroys land more. That in the context of a Climate Emergency seems very short sighted if not myopic? We are supposed to be de-cluttering roads and informing modal shift back to rail more through making the network more comprehensive, re-railing and mixing passenger and freight customer services tuned to what people will use/do. 

If blockages or opposition meant "reopening simply isn't possible" (p32) HS2 would never have been built and about 80-90% of reopening in rebuild or select rebuild/new build terms is ruled out, which leaves a deficit locking in road demand.

2. Identify your markets: If you have loads of money - studies are upwards of £100, 000 plus, then fine, this article is for you. But most people do not possess such, what's in it for the Bridport’s, Ilfracombe’s, Ventnor’s, Maldon’s and Keswick’s of this world? The tenor of the article seems to rule them out the game from differential criterion fronts. Again, it defaults to roads and more demand for roads but for want of taking the pragmatic true bull by the horns and re-railing. Lay people seem to be dismissed from:

a. having a view

b. advocating a scheme as best they may (subjectively)

c. being taken seriously "ignore part time gardeners..."

Yes, do as much homework on any proposition as may reasonably be done.  But apart from 50 plus years of route abandonment, neglect; the route abandonment then and now including other and competing uses (cycle paths, walk-ways, canals, development) means the loss of routes and corridors is ever-present and article if it had space could have put forward a call to Secretary of State to make arrangements to protect routes and consider their case merits with suitable incentives and sanctions to keep options open. Helston may be the proverbial Swaffham for not reopening and closing respectively, but what of the Dunstable’s, Brackley’s, Daventry's and Witney’s of this world, do we write them off or strategic relief lines or duplicate lines? All defaults to spiral roads and disparity, whilst the existing rail network looks on and people are locked into driving lifestyles for want of more choices.

Mr Roden's view on assessing demand seems limited. On the one hand it could be a combination in normal times such as coastal resorts having all year round visitorship, which may not have been so common 50+ years ago. Likewise, bus substitutes may be less cost, but are they as versatile as rail could be were a line-born freight and passenger growth plan for every line to be mandatory? We have downsized, airlines and sterilised what the railway can do, so rule out a click and collect/send parcels depot x per population 10, 000 upwards on the back of plethora of problem rather than solutions except money can solve most of them it seems?

Lay people can make anecdotal but part of the problem has been:

a. lack of support for route protection/Cinderella status many years.

b. Costs of studies. One over-arching is not enough, many sub studies on aspects like engineering, environmental impact, demand for casting, BCR Rating and so forth exist. It just goes on and meanwhile the routes are under threat as never before - see Olney in Milton Keynes as a prime example. 

c. Complicated maths and formulas put many lay people off, it is the preserve of the specialist or enthusiast for complicated maths and problems it seems - Highways Agency and British Roads Federation and similar do it for roads, who does it for rail?

d. Other 'political' aspects. E.g., Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge has numerous studies commanded as a pre-qualifier at huge cost, but continually was deferred for decades. People saw Bedford-Bletchley and said "basket case, why do we want more?" contrast where actions of faith did prevail, Oxford-Bicester was a resounding success. Same line, different approaches and apprehensions. In short 'can't, don't won't' v 'can-do, will do, must do'. EWRL was pursued after 7 years of knocking on their doors, by a consortium of councils and public interest has grown and diminished in waves intermittently. We're still waiting and could be another 10 years before all singing and dancing delivery infill happens, contrast development of roads/Black Cat Roundabout and houses being pushed to the fore now. The consortium came about through campaigning and advocacy by lay people first.

3. Define rail as a solution to a real-world problem: Examples could be a missing link, population has grown since closures, other growths, new markets and lack of choices on strategic corridors or intermittent places needing better connectivity.  There can be a view that the closures from the 1950's - Serpell (early 80's) were 'political' in nature, rather than purely demand led for example. The view "not enough people used them" may only be partly true and the question why, bring up a demand for modernisation to cut overheads for example and no money for it, so closure was the answer? Bus competition was much more abundant and subsidised, government switched spending from rail to road, power switched from coal to oil, surveys of demand-use could be done in quieter times, avoiding peaks and term time for example. Poor promotion, a lack of coordination in the original build of laissez-fare - can/do we learn today? 

LRT/Trams and buses raises the issue of freight – what good for it/can you send parcels or bikes by bus/tram? There’s guarantee LRT is cheaper per se and horses for courses, taking to the streets is one thing, adding destinations and populations to a nationwide rail-net-work is a different thing and scope of the latter broader providing you get your marketing right. Otherwise all but main lines to close brings us back to Serpell, which is a wrong way to go if we are serious about environment, public transport and cutting emissions surely? I feel the dismissive of Helston as the example with the 10, 000 people scoping contrasts to the fact that Cornwall is a much sought-after places with multitudes of visitorship and whilst many drive to/from it and their homes, they do, like Wales, use the local rails. The treatment of Helston serves as a cautionary note, but also sad because it makes grim reading for smaller communities being re-railed and remnants getting upgrades.

4. Timetabling is vital: The polemic of trade-off may be false or what of harmonisation of services, timetables and patterns? Versatility including rolling stock is a key here surely as well? That is why historical appreciation can be telling (see Q1). Knowing the history – highs and lows, may lead to a SWOT analysis for fine-tuning a proposition. Growth and the fact many reopenings have exceeded predicted usage shows a degree of switch from road to rail not anticipated for example and higher than predicted take-up of a new rail service from Bathgate to Borders, from Aberdare to Ebbw Vale and indeed Oxford-Bicester started on just 3 trains a day 1987 albeit on freight-only upgraded track. They all exceeded expectations and bucked cold sceptics on demand.

5. Ensure the infrastructure really is up to the job: Unsure who the article is pitted for, but these issues seem suited to engineers to answer, not lay people. Lay people (the public!) are part of wider Stakeholder-ship and so should be included and valued. Again, the qualification seems to be “if you have £000’s to spend fine” whereas the public and power need inspiring to bother, to do what they may and should have called for better ladders for funding access like a level playing field may inform like the un-green example of £27 billion new roads contrast a mere £500 million Reopening Railways Fund. What more could more parity inform?

6. Justify the reinstatement: Okehampton is not a reinstatement, Tavistock drives because a closure was pre-Beeching does not render them then or now as ‘basket cases’ by default per se. Many speculative developments banked on growth to the new stations and only 2 World Wars dented that trend mainly. Had the wars of been avoided, Great Central may well have survived to this day with select others.

7, Siting Stations is critical: I suggest people use what is available and Parkway status brought nearer to where populations are means less drive time, less traffic, less emissions, so re-railing is aggregate gain. We need a map and a plan of coherence and intent, not pontification, dithering and fragments.

8. Stakeholder engagement is vital: Yes, but if that was true, HS2 would have been turned down on the back of mass protests to it, they were all over-ruled, literally!

9. How will you reopen the railway? You have to start where you are at and do what you can. However, power closed the railways and so power must by and large address matters of such scale, cost and challenge. There is a wider socio-economic and environmental cost if we do not re-rail and needs to be done sooner than later. Otherwise, we pay for the loss in different ways then, subsequent and now.

10. Avoid wishful thinking: 45 mph is quite good contrast crawls on roads and junctions of less-than due to congestion in normal times. As long as people can be on the move, speed of itself is not necessarily the main consideration. This especially for local lines serving poorly served rural areas, linking principal local places and ensuring accessibility is more universal, not the preserve of those with time, money or specialist interest. For years professionals dismissed parts or all of Bedford-Cambridge for reopening as ‘pie in the sky’. That cynical approach informed a failure to protect ‘why bother’ (?) the route. Then, when studies found there was a case, a good case, the route by then was sadly lost and now the conundrum of a brand-new route with as many if not more upheavals, challenges and costs is the name of the game, but with development and road proliferation happening now, 5, 10 or 15 years hence beg the question of practicability however worthy the case. So, some joined up coherence here as part of a nationwide approach plan, is what we need our railway media folks to start advocating, not just niche interests and negatives out of reach for most ordinary hard pushed people of any and all ages.

Richard Pill

26-0102021

richard.erta@gmail.com

Notes from ERTA Meeting Herts Southern East-West Rail Links/M25 Corridor 22-01-2021 14.00hrs

Notes for ERTA Meeting Herts Southern East-West Rail Links/M25 Corridor 22-01-2021 14.00hrs

Present: Simon Barber, Colin Crawford, Richard Pill, Cllr Steve Jarvis, Owen O’Neill, Cllr Nigel Quinton, Cllr Ian Stotesbury and Kathy Keeley.

1. Chairman’s Welcome: Richard and Simon duly welcomed people.

2. Apologies for absence: Cllr Stephen Giles-Medhurst, Cllrs Chris White and Jackie Taylor.

3. Background: Several links are in existence; others present as possible and then there are gaps which moderately could link up to inform a through route with inter-links with radial north-south lines and principal places.

4. The Croxley Link to Watford Junction: It was felt the rail project should go ahead but had stalled following TfL’s refusal to fund it and a deficit of who will/can? It was felt it should be terminating at Watford Junction for interchange. It was felt a tunnel linking it to the Abbey Branch was unrealistic. Likewise, Colin Crawford felt people for Amersham and Aylesbury can change at Moor Park, rather than use the direct curve from the Aylesbury direction for dual running, even though it would enable Chiltern access to the Junction and Watford West and bridge a missing link between Watford and Aylesbury direct by rail.

- Cllr Ian Stotesbury confirmed the renewal of Watford Junction Station.

5. The Abbey Branch: It was acknowledged a new loop at Bricket Wood, but some felt it should be considered as a public transport corridor of some descript beit conventional rail, LRT, Guided Busway. Old route to Hatfield has development on it at St Albans.

The meeting did not seem too sure of a new rail link from Bricket Wood to new freight depot and linking with MML at Napsbury. The new freight depot was to be rail-served from day one and would in all probability require a duck-under rail link from the north-south Midland Main Line slows to it in the Napsbury area. This new depot was given the go-ahead and is being promoted by Segro.

6. Napsbury Interchange Junction Station: ERTA has raised the question of whether a new Parkway Station south of St Albans City on the MML could utilise the depot’s new rail infrastructure and double up for passenger use as well? The station could serve growing populations south of St Albans but also if lands are protected, enable the following to be studied further as to feasibility:

a. Extension of the Northern Line from Barnet to St Albans Abbey Station (reinstate second bay)

b. A new rail link (same or additional tracks) veering off from south Napsbury to the east alongside the M25/serving the London Colney area and onwards to link with the ECML at either Potters Bar, Hatfield or a north-south junction in between.

c. If Abbey Branch was retained as heavy rail, the new link to the depot could be extended to Bricket Wood and enable inter-urban-London Thameslink services to go on to Watford Junction, making more of the branch infrastructure.

7. Extension of Barnet Northern Line to Napsbury and duck-under to terminate / share either St Albans Abbey or Watford Junction or both. It needs studying and coming together of interested parties to work at it and see the bigger picture, opportunity and again make the case for funding.  

8. New-build local rail link from Napsbury to Potter’s Bar with ECML link up inclusive of London Colney: This is thinking aloud but choices remain – either all roads with growth of development and loss of lands for rail options or we consider what local rail solutions may offer and work at it.

9. Extension from Cockfosters to Potter’s Bar rail link: This was raised but again needs studying further and issues of crossing over/under M25 and what inter-link access opportunities and how it could link to station interface at Potters Bar – either an underground station and/or redesign to allow access to a new bay for example.

10. Potter’s Bar to Harlow – Stansted – Braintree via Great Dunmow/A120 corridor: It was acknowledged that extending the Central Line from Epping to Harlow could make sense, exact routing needs studying. Lands in all these scenarios needs protecting and that costs, balanced to the cost of not doing so. Cllr Nigel Quinton said “we need balancing rail and development to work together”. There was also the question of whether Herts CC has examined the issue and question of county-wide east-west rail infrastructure and the role it could play? The Croxley-Maldon Link joining up, courts 3 large and powerful counties – Bucks, Herts and Essex. They could bring formidable influence to their Government to look favourably and ensuring policy does balance and join up the dots sustainably. Rolling stock was discussed and eco-friendly. Class 230 by Vivarail are in use on several lines and will soon be battery powered. They are fairly versatile and act as an example of what could traverse these lines as infill. Once you reach Harlow, tracks exist to Stansted and so new build is needed from Stansted – Braintree for access to the GE Main Line at Witham. Witham – Maldon is a very few miles of reinstatement, but would create capacity for commuters and inform all year-round footfall and spend to the resort, famous for shell fish amongst other things.

11. Witham-Maldon Branch: There has been local vocal calls for the reinstatement of this link.

This could make a joined-up railway with shared tracks with conventional local trains and Underground stock services.

12. General Discussion around pros and cons. What cost to roads if we don’t protect lands and nurture policy for a joined-up rail corridor? There was heated and muted discussions. It was felt that our Westminster Team must press Government for land/route protection measures which are applicable for a number of reinstatement schemes across the country. It was noted Grant Shapps, Sec of State for Transport grew up in the Croxley area and is sitting MP for Welwyn, Herts. So local familiarisation should make talks slicker potentially.

13. Any Other Notified Business: It was raised on numerous occasions that clear graphics mapping out were needed to be provided by ERTA. The answer is that we all have different talents and some excel at mapping and computer software crayoning more than others. We are voluntary and rely on volunteers to offer their able services to Mr Simon Barber who is keeping a database of volunteers and work together with him. Meanwhile we do the best we can, tabling and facilitating discussion of ideas is at least a start and much needed. Our door is open to budding talent, rather than same tired people doing everything and collapsing under the weight of it.

Notes: We will work at these things and want to build a loose alliance of friendly inclined and favourable to conventional rail people.

Background: Network Rail's Report talked of a southern east-west rail. Our idea is seeing what can be done interim, not 2050. Piecing together chunks and bite sizes, joins a localised rail base network. Unless lands are protected and buy-in to the ideas are accepted by politicians and councils, development sprawl will scupper any hope or chances. Then you face the difficult decision of the middle east-west rail Bedford-Cambridge section of which is a lesser of two evils route. 

Croxley could be done.

Whether a tunnel under WCML south of station off Croxley to feed into Abbey Branch is feasible is unknown, but needs studying as to pros / cons.

Bricket Wood to get a loop. Needs direct link to freight depot and Napsbury Junction Station with duck-under to join slows and onwards to serve London Colney and split/integrate with extended tubes from Barnet which in turn could go under Napsbury and terminate at a second platform at Abbey/make more of it.

London Colney-Potters Bar or north thereof - Harlow, links with lines to Stansted. Stansted-A120/Great Dunmow-Braintree Branch link up has long been called for but nil action.

Finally, there is a localised call for the Maldon Branch to be reopened for commuters to the main station at Witham. 

So, pieces coming together informs a localised east-west link with principal lines and places not well served by rail east-west. Saves going into London and checks traffic growth on local roads in normal times.

Moving such ideas forward is the heart of the discussion. Hope this helps.

Please liaise with Mr Simon Barber on offers to help: T. 0208 940 4399, E. simon4barber@gmail.com  and campaigns-wise richard.erta@gmail.com likewise any amendments to these notes. https://ertarail.co.uk/events/

Road v Rail Event - It is time for a national plan of modal shift from road to rail and that means local rail reopenings and nurture.

This event is free apparently and 'open to all': https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/roads-vs-rail-reducing-emissions-by-2030-tickets-135985449139?ref=esli&utm_campaign=201308&utm_source=LinkedInenivtefor001

Roads v Rail is a polemic, whereas what we may need to see is more nurture and integration as follows:

1. a rolling programme of local, conventional rail reopenings/rebuilds/realignment lands and select new pieces of rail to enable rail to do more, court new markets and nurture modal shift by default of rails going where flows go. Thus north-south capacity - our call to re-rail/new-build a Great Central Link between Calvert/Banbury and Rugby/Lutterworth/Narborough (for East Midlands), Northampton-Market Harborough another. Default capacity creation is a nice idea, but passenger demand post covid may go up but in any case if the rail gaps exist, rail cannot be an answer. East-West Oxbridge rail link, but a new dedicated rail alongside A14 from Felixstowe to the West Coast Main Line with radial links in between would also seem logical, as 100 mile gap between North London Line (which takes a lion's share) and Peterborough-Leicester-Nuneaton rail link.

2. A plan for every line for rail-born nurture of freight by rail. Like Green Energy we tend to be presented with a big is beautiful or bust and trade reports on costs and locations, when small and plentiful can also reduce carbon.

3. A plan for formal protection of routes/lands to keep re-railing open. The new edition of Rail Issue 922, page 16 'Regional News' today has a bit about a canal threat to the Guildford-Horsham line, saying it will not stop a rail reopening. Personally having walked the line I think it is less clear cut, especially adjacent to line edge development and issues of double track and cycle/footpath access - can it really sustain it all?

4. A national plan for modal shift from road to rail, but also more combining road and rail interim like intermodal swap-body wagons, a dedicated Piggyback rail route from Channel Tunnel to Heart of England, an inland roll-on, roll-off rail network, bring back motor-rail and every train able to carry small loads of freight by rail like parcels, pallets, bikes, luggage, and dedicated freight again wagon loads to mixed goods to Speedlink style to full block trains. If we don't have the infrastructure, can't be done, but needs to be nurtured. One planning rule could be that warehouse complexes must be rail connected and have a percentage by rail from day one, not an after-thought of retrospective nice idea without inclusion of rail.

Hope these thoughts are of interest. I am sure you may have some of your own too.

Oxbridge East-West Rail Event and Thought

There will be an important conference/event: https://peloton-events.co.uk/rail-east-west-main-line-2021/?fbclid=IwAR24JK0FNPiyfqeu7UiUrRbjECbEWz_AeEf3mDT-qB0g-hRPsU1wmtiKdUc Please pile in and have your say/advocate more of what we may wish for. If unsure or wish to discuss it, please email me. 

East-West Rail tell me they will be doing more consultations in due course 2021 and the route between Bedford-Tempsford-Cambridge via North Bedfordshire and Cambourne will be in the frame for feedback. Will Ravensden get a station out of it? Or a vibration from a 3 mile tunnel? The access from Girder Bridge where the Midland Main Line crosses the Great River Ouse north of Bedford to reach the south of Clapham side of a hill raises some engineering gradient and clearance challenges which again, raises whether for all the hassle and cost, the old route via St John's out of Bedford having reversed at Bedford Midland would be better/cheaper/less hassle? Yes, deviations around Willington have to be done but apart from issues of crossing road accesses and new construction south-west to Tempsford direction contrast the northern route which has to engage Black Cat Roundabout and the Great Ouse/Ivel convergence to the east of it on a flood plain, means our route has probably the edge in keeping costs and engineering challenges down if politics can be kind to it.

Parishes, what is your view? Happy to discuss. I think Bedford needs a rail link to Cambridge. Old route is now lost to development. So using what is available with deviations where blockages exist with some new interpretations may be a way forward. The new northern route seems far less straightforward. Alas, we don't get a local newspaper anymore, so it's hard to know what people think these days in the community. I don't think we need forensics to get a general idea. Whilst Victorians have to take lie of the land more into construction consideration, none-the-less principal ideas and some idea of geographical lie of the land can surely be useful? If we don't get and bid for the delivery in a timely manner, we throw more development to roads only by default and that makes, in normal times, for more congestion at junctions and urban interfaces. The legacy of the closures is an environmental issue our country is grappling with 50+ years on and still pluralism is the answer, whereas we need focused projects which can deliver bulk off roads (passengers and freight) through choice and rail links which connect to principal places inclusive of audiences in between. Serving Bedford Midland is a plus, but it will need rails, platforms and capacity reconfiguration to ensure linkages and competition with other services can all be slotted in. Thus disposing of lands west of the station which could serve for more parking may be short sighted, ditto if we let go of the old Bedford St John's Station site, blocking access to the east, locking in a north Bedford route only option. There is a lot at stake and one suspects post lock-down, it will either be a lot of things happen at once, or we hold conferences on environmental issues, but long grass or develop options away? 

ERTA 2021 Winter-Spring Events Page Information 'all welcome/open to all'

 

The ERTA is organising a series of events on Zoom this Winter and Spring and welcome your support and interest and potential joining and engagement. We face 2 things happening at once. On the one hand a slow-down due to the Pandemic and Lock-Down and on the other, the need to be better prepared for unlock and recovery to a 'new normal'; whereby we balance economic activity with adequate infrastructure to inform modal shift from road to rail more, cut congestion, emissions and balance prosperity with environment the two not being opposed per se, but harmoniously fundamental for well-being.

I attach our latest newsletter and poster of a selection of events/email richard.erta@gmail.com for newsletter or see: https://ertarail.co.uk/newsletter-archive/

You may wish to check our events page on our website: 

https://ertarail.co.uk/contact/ Please feel free to pass on to any interested others. Our events are open to all and all are welcome to get involved. 

This news story shows that if we don't invest in the rail reopenings like Northampton-Market Harborough in this case, but elsewhere other rail links likewise, we throw by default to more roads, more congestion, more pollution and land lost. Choices present themselves and we need to get it right and ensure a local to regional rail network 'fit for purpose', able to serve customers from small loads/parcels to large loads/block trains of goods and all in-between. Government has a pivotal role to play, but we can all do our bit at a local level to nudge right policies and practises and have values which put people, places and the environment before things and vested interests. The re-railing of the Great Central Corridor is crucial to create capacity on the West Coast Main Line as well as more east-west rails to enable more connectivity including better access between M25/Hertfordshire/radial north-south rail links and places like Stansted, Essex Coast and vice versa to Watford and via the Croxley Link to Aylesbury for example. Northampton-Market Harborough deals with the eastern flank of the M1, Great Central the western flank approaches to Leicester.

https://www.northamptonchron.co.uk/business/construction-starts-450-acre-northampton-gateway-logistics-park-m1-3085058?fbclid=IwAR2ix3hYAoXxmexshfmNuuwvpE16UrHfFgMhcaMxTef8q6Yc9-tMgfnEwi8

London-M25 and beyond calling No. 2 Dec 2020 plus!

 Dear Colleagues and Friends,

Please see the list of schemes below and comments. I would appreciate it if you can kindly have a glance between now and the next meeting and give any support or ideas or comment for/against, pros and cons. If you want to volunteer with ERTA, please contact Mr Simon Barber (T. 0208 940 4399, E. simon4barber@gmail.com) who will put you on a database. 

If a project takes you fancy or others as well or an area approach, please indicate it in your email to him: We will contact you after the next London Meeting. 

Meanwhile I will be working up, but it is a big job and we need several people involved on a reliable but ad hoc basis. Thanks. See: https://ertarail.co.uk/events/ I aim to acknowledge receipt of stuff like photos and captions etc if sent to me at richard.erta@gmail.com with dates. I cannot guarantee always!

'1. All London's suburban rail services must be devolved to TfL (London Overground) as soon as possible: This is laudable from the viewpoint of public dealing with one entity rather than multiple and that one entity focused on quality of usership and inclusive design integratedly now as well as expansion and ever more growth and diversity. Interestingly enough, TfL regard themselves as London constrained than expansion beyond M25 for example it seems. Thus, an example of the Crowley link whereby a wish to rebuild a missing link to enable Metropolitan services to run into Watford Junction bay platforms for interchange purposes was declined as a TfL project and deferred to Hertfordshire within whose boundary it was concerned with. Partnership and shared cost could be one way forward and combining the distinctive natures of the two entities for best results seems to allude and so nothing has happened on the project for a number of years. This is a pity as the benefits of better choice and joined up integrated transport lend themselves to this sort of expansion, whereby London’s reaches and ranges combined to adjoining areas which are becoming increasingly urbanised, need better public transport, choices and options.

 

2. Better integration of London's suburban rail with TfL bus, tube and tram services, including new and improved interchanges with these services: Again, integration makes sense, but how, like the Swiss and other examples countries do we get buses to arrive within good time of a rail departure and leave within a reasonable time afterwards? How do we ensure we get the right type of bus or train or tram for the audiences using it? Overcrowding in normal times is not unknown, what ‘now and then’ relief can we bring to a table beyond seeking to manage peak and off-peak usage through fare increases or reductions? We want choice, we want better value for money and above all, a system which incorporates disabled people and their needs as well. Access, information, access to toilets at key locations as a right not a cost-benefit consideration is where new thinking and consultative inclusion is warranted. Making our transport safe, day and night and retention of walk-on, walk-off usage, not just pre-book airline styles. Unsure if available, but some app which shows busy routes and recommends alternatives beit bus, tram, boat, walking, cycling or rail, underground and/or overground – people need access to such information ‘on-the-go’ not just boards at principal stations and bus stops.

 

3.                  Chessington Line extension to Leatherhead including station for Chessington World of Adventures: Needs more research and a walking of the line noting any blockages or if a clear way what width. Photos welcome, maps and diagrams also for consideration. A dedicated volunteer could work on it. Must be reliable and able-bodied for the task please.

 

4.                  Crossrail 1 East-West: Crossrail is happening like it or not. Delayed, over budget yet the scope and scale commands a certain respect and once running will in all probability be well used.

 

5.                  Crossrail 2 [SW-NE]: This project is currently on hold, but again connects tube and trains with cross London access and outlets and will again provide capacity and choice.

 

6.                  Double-track Frimley Green – Ash Vale: Needs a dedicated volunteer to take pictures, make a case and show capacity. Photos, diagrams, maps and justification.

 

7.                  Extend Docklands Light Railway Bank – site of old Broad Street station (underground): needs a dedicated research volunteer to make or junk the case. Could be a variation on a theme, for example some have cited the idea of doing more with Tottenham-Moorgate subsurface tube which terminates at Moorgate, could it be extended (where?) and inform either a loop, connection with London Bridge and beyond or combination?

 

8.                  Extend LU lines:

a.  - Edgware – Stanmore-Watford: Would have to be in tunnels and sub-surface interfaces. Much of the old trajectory route developed over. Needs a critical study as to what may be feasible.

b. High Barnet-Napsbury-St Albans Abbey/Watford Branch links: This should be studied in conjunction with NR’s southern east-west rail link idea and integrated. The line could be extended in a fashion, beit above surface or tunnel or combination. It could go over or under M25 with Parkway Stations and integrate with the new east-west southern link, Napsbury new station and via a duck under, go on to link into a resuscitated second bay platform at St Albans Abbey for example.

c. Cockfosters – Potters Bar: This idea may mean tunnelling and sub-surface accesses integrating with existing stations and Potters Bar for outer suburban services going north and more relief/choices coming into London including of course direct access to North London and bus networks, rather than driving or going in and coming out which takes time, costs more and this idea would free up seats and reduce overcrowding in normal times.

d. Bakerloo Extension to Lewisham: This relatively new scheme is a welcome addition if delivered and LRT development right across south London should also be developed and cascade buses to busy routes to strengthen them, capacity and timetables.

 

9.                  Gospel Oak-Barking line (GOB) services integrated more with existing London services: The proposed extension to Barking Riverside is good, but other considerations using the same tracks including running onto the lines to Grays and beyond and vice versa. Likewise, at the western end, running via the Carlton Road Junctions Tunnels into a new platform/crossover platform interface at West Hampstead Thameslink could bring more benefits again in the making of interchanges outside the inner London areas and distributing usage more evenly. Gospel Oak, but for the busy North London Line, is a bit out on a limb and integrating with Thameslink for example could bring x2-way benefits and fresh vitality. That GOB network should extend eastwards to Barking Riverside and Abbey Wood via a Thames Tunnel. That GOB network should extend eastwards to West Hampstead -Dudding Hill – Acton – Kew Bridge -Heathrow.

10.             Heathrow Rail Links:

11.             Heathrow Southern Railway (short tunnel from Terminal 5 and then a mainly surface route parallel with the M25 to the new junction with the Windsor-Staines line. HSR will then continue alongside the M25 to a new junction with the Virginia Water–Weybridge/ Byfleet Junction line north of Chertsey. Could also incorporate old West Drayton - Staines West branch and be linked into reopening the old Great Central mail line in the longer term. This is laudable and a promoted scheme, however must integrate with others, share tracks and go on to a. link with OOC and b. tunnel to Chiltern Main Line for links including a west London orbital more and Aylesbury-Guildford arc.

12.             Improved pedestrian access between Dorking West/Dorking Deepdene: This is laudable and some detail on exactly how would be welcome.

13.             Light Rapid Transits should be allowed to grow organically via local planning systems in North/South/East/West/Central London e.g.  Croydon Tram link - extend to Crystal Palace and Lloyd Park curve eliminated (site of accident Autumn 2016): Laudable but needs more fine-tuning/work on detail and whether road space or off road for example.

14.             Lines, with better interchanges at stations along the existing route? Which route/where did you have in mind?

15.             London Orbital Railways: Agree the principle, but more detail of where – north, south, east and west. The lack of orbital rail links around east and west London for enabling through traffic from the radial rest of the country to and from the South East, South Coast and the Channel Tunnel.

16.             Muswell Hill Metro: Can they be asked to issue a statement for inclusion?

17.             New air-conditioned trains which are energy-efficient with regenerative braking: Where are we with these?

18.             New platforms Willesden Junction Low Level for London Midland and Southern services, thereby enabling interchange with North London Line, West London Line and LT Bakerloo Line. I am unfamiliar with this, needs more fine-honing/specifically/i.e. what is wrong currently?

19.             New rail link Southend Airport – Rayleigh/Pitsea parallel to A13, A130, A1245: Diagram needs working up. It would intercept these roads with suitable Parkway Station/s. Needs a reliable, local volunteer who can work the proposal up to a design specification and check on land – corridor availability? Photos and diagrams welcome as well for general use. Pitsea-Rayleigh new build project and Grays-Dartford railway tunnel under Thames for more by rail north-south including Woolwich-Southend Airport access direct and vice versa.

20.             New station Old Oak Common (interchange Crossrail 1/HS2/West London Line); it must be built before HS2 begins: Must incorporate Heathrow Links and a tunnel for direct link with Chiltern Main Line and vice versa running. There must be common access to tracks, not segregational or ‘our own tracks and no share’ sort of arrangements.

21.             New station on London Overground North London Line at North Acton (interchange with LT   Central Line and possibly Crossrail 1, adjacent Chiltern and First Great Western Services): Needs a reliable volunteer, knowledgeable to work it up.

22.             New station on London Overground West London Line at Battersea: More detail needed and independent assessment of feasibility, unless a TFL project already?

23.             North Downs Line: to be or not to be a. electrification and b. better integration, c. direct curve onto the Cranleigh line for Horsham looping back via Gatwick to Redhill and vice versa subject to capacity pathing issues. Guildford-Thameslink direct running from Redhill off East Croydon. Reading-Redhill utilisation of electric stock, avoids diesels in an otherwise electric area context? Some local seem mixed or against electrification whilst industry plays down third rail and prefers OHL in a third rail context?

24.             Re-open Bank-Aldwych (closed for sake of new lifts!) and old Fleet Line to Charing     Cross: needs updating, planting with City of London Corporation, TFL and others now, and what of new development, does it scupper it? Would a new line serving Aldwych be in order like Tottenham-Moorgate loop extension and/or LRT Network in the Central Zone?

25.             Restoring through services to Bromley North from London Bridge/Charing Cross etc.: More detail needed. A. What is wrong with current, b. what pathing/capacity? c. what gives/what takes?

26.             Sites close to railway lines offering potential locations for rail freight terminals and logistics centres must be protected from alternative transport proposals; these include disused railways and rail sidings: Identify, list more and a reliable volunteer to work up cases.

27.             Thames Tunnel Grays – Dartford (Lower Thames River Crossing scheme), built to HS1 standards, to include Crossrail 1 extension and cater for freight between ports and Channel Tunnel. Must be a rail project mainly, roads are 20^th C! Ditto Silvertown project, which is an environmental disaster waiting to happen?

28.             The lack of cross-Thames tunnels and bridges for north-south rail travel within London as well as getting more freight off the roads and back onto the rails, freeing up capacity/reducing hazards. Make common cause with objections to Silvertown Tunnel and argue it should be rail/invite their members (google) to the next London Meeting and put-on agenda.

29.             Up-grade on the District Line (with population increase crowding is set to increase on that line from Richmond in next 25 years; that line is also notoriously crowded in peak-hours between Earls Court and Westminster). Wat track works needed inc. at Richmond? Establish rapport with station manager and seek, when lock-down lifted, a notice board and station stall. Recruit reliable people to help out locally.

30. West Hampstead - new platforms for Chiltern Line services and possibly Metropolitan Line, thereby enabling interchange with North London Line, Thameslink and Jubilee Lines. Unsure, need more detail of feasibility. Float ideas with professionals/TFL/seek meetings and Borough Councils and discuss/if support fine.

31. Cricklewood-Action North West London Line – reinstatement of passenger services – must be done/supported/what is its status/flag up to all candidates on Mayoral Election. Wearing an ERTA hat, we’re supposed to be impartial and treat people equally.

32. Photos - I would also be prepared to take some photos with captions where relevant. Database/build a team and allocate areas/projects.

33. North Circular Corridor to Brent Cross - Presumably you are thinking about an LRT, which you had already covered as no.17 in your draft. LRT and/or Docklands extension, both should be looked at. Contact both TFL and Serco.

34. BML2 this would cover reopening Lewes - Uckfield, Tunbridge Wells Central - Eridge and Ashurst and Purley to Elmers End, new spurs at Edenbridge, plus new tunnels providing direct links to Brighton and from Lewisham to Stratford (Thameslink). Key interchanges at Groombridge and Purley Gate (where Purley-Elmers End crosses the Wealden line). It needs discussing. Find out promoters, establish status and work with delivery organisations/foster links/exploit for ERTA gain/members/money/events and razzamatazz. Think, what can we bring 'new' to it and will they reciprocate for Guildford-Shoreham etc?'

End.

This is purely consultation and please respect confidentiality/sensitivity at this time.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

Vice Chairman and Campaigns Coordinator

There's no money... Thinking aloud...not just us either!

This is the verdict and coming not from us and it isn't Railfuture either! If RAC can spend time and energy to call for better public transport, things must be dire! Horses for courses, but what makes for modal switch from road to rail?

https://www.bedfordtoday.co.uk/news/transport/thousands-more-cars-are-bedfords-roads-decade-ago-rac-warns-public-transport-not-scratch-3053829?fbclid=IwAR1cfi6ITSlDIi2k15JfgsI06TkCfja6ia5E6SNMVzNUz5ZPip0xmp2SFas

The reality is things have been allowed to drift. There's a lack of dialogue and no will-way it seems. Wixams, Kempston Retail Park Station, route of Bedford - Cambridge issues and Bedford-Northampton - these rail issues need support and action, instead, we have pandering to out of town shopping, roads and road design schemes and a Government which tilts the expenditure to £27 billion new roads and only £500 million to rail reopenings fund.

Buses, X5 cut in half, 905 Bedford-Cambridge takes longer, is more a Cambs favoured thing with Bedford commuters losing out. It and Bedford-Northampton takes too long and that is negative for our town centre, dents will-way commuting aspirations and needs remedy. A faster end to end service alongside the local 'all round Will's mother's' would be desirable with X5 Bedford-Oxford style coaches able to take bikes and luggage and afford a toilet. So Northampton-Bedford-Cambridge via A422-A509 (Olney High Street)-Northampton (A428) could cut Bedford-Northampton to about 40 minutes each way. But Cambs is parochial looking after its own backyard, Bedford-St Neots an afterthought. 

Bedford-Cambridge rail link:

a. will it be suitable for freight and passenger services 'fit for purpose'?

b. Will the design north of Girder Bridge Bedford (crosses the River Great Ouse north of Bedford) of Bedford-Cambridge have enough land to cross A6 Bypass at height for HGV clearance and will it require an expensive 3 mile tunnel under Ravensden/Renhold?

c. Will it find it easy to negotiate A1 trunk and/or A421 and/or Black Cat Roundabout before ascending to a flood plain at Tempsford with a station and housing = a mess unfolding.

d. Yes Oxford-Bedford will serve Bedford Midland Station, but should reverse out and go east on the old route via St John's site.

Happy to discuss, someone needs to fund it. Could road tolls on trunk and motorways inform a pot and/or extend CPZ area and ensure Borough ring fences revenue/gets a share for environmental modal shift/better public transport? Where is the vision, where is the hands-on connectivity? Where is the integrated plan? Silence, this is all we get and pandemic news, again, surely better for resources and Local Government to administer tests and grade/tier their own areas which they know better than Westminster/why are we becoming centralised and local government being seconded to just an arm of Centralised Government without any wriggle room for discretion and/or resources to inform better 21st Century public transport choices? 

A debate is needed and some rethinking I feel. Alas, EWRC is not in talking mode, they are pursuing a scheme which is seriously flawed and in 2 engineers I have spoken to 'not-so-professional' in scope. 

Cardington Road has a sign going away from Bedford at 30mph and coming onto a busy roundabout into Bedford at 40mph. Crossing Longholme to get to Tesco on foot or bike is a nightmare, with x 2-way traffic coming off the roundabout at speed and narrowly missing the kerbside. Cardington Road needs calming and 20mph with a single carriageway and a bridge over the old railway could aid that. It is an urban area, residential in nature and Tesco draws a variety of shoppers to it covering a wide area. Crossing the road has become dangerous and casualties have arisen. Priory Marina access, could be redesigned or a level crossing considered. That is the only impediment, A421 Bypass could be raised for the railway and Willington Bypassed to the north and go parallel to Great Ouse Valley on embankment over Great Barford Road, north of Built Blunham and approach Tempsford from the south, forget housing, forget stations new and changing/delays, plum for physical rail connectivity so you have sharing same tracks, trains to/from Peterborough, Cambridge and Stevenage/East Bedfordshire to County Town of Bedford and HAVE SOME PRIDE based on sustainable reaches and ranges of what rail can offer (platforms for more confidence). The Borough needs to talk to Grant Shapps and get a dialogue working. The auto-cue of consultations by EWRC have been set in motion and like a programmed robot it obeys the rule of it, without discretion but resignation or retirement as and when the mess becomes apparent. Yes, HS2 enjoys special dispensation, whatever the cost, whatever the barriers, bulldoze in the name of the greater good, but is that really a model for our local railway unfolding? It is to me at least, an alien style. The original route was discounted in Jan 2019 Consultation and location for Bedford, way out of the town centre, spoils car users, disenfranchises bus, walk and cycle /town centre users. It is hard-sold serving Bedford Midland which everyone wants, but 'go north my friend' solution seems half baked. Of course landowners will rub hands in glee, but theirs is income, not concern for optimal designs per se. I think we need to have local public transport for local people and balance cost/avariced studies with some basic research and common sense.  What is available, what can be done, who, what and why. How much subsidy for 1 or 2 people to commute to Olney once a day for work from Yardley? I used No. 41 and Olney loadings are about half a dozen on a good day per time I use it, Bromham commutes to Bedford, a handful westwards. Brafield commutes to Northampton, few eastwards. Stagsden may be politically significant, but I see very, very few people boarding there.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

ERTA Chairman and local public transport user/supporter.

richard.erta@gmail.com for joining our free email loop.