27-05-21
Clearly some may agree or disagree with varying aspects, but we submit in good faith and hope instigatedly or defaultively, our ideas may prove to be better/the right ones. Some of you may find it helpful to look at our publicity page on our website:
https://ertarail.co.uk/publicity/ and our diagrams which give a flavour:
https://ertarail.co.uk/gallery/You are never going to please anyone all the time. An east-west rail link (indeed more than one) is needed, as closure of originals and subsequent road building at huge cost and land take precursors creeping urbanisation expansion and gentrification pricing out of traditional urban and rural landscapes, means that we need to rebalance road with rail choices and alternatives. This does not mean a pigs ear superimposition per se, but has to go somewhere and options have been allowed to be eroded over the last 5 decades. Lesson to be learnt is Government of all tiers should be mandated to protect old rail routes/keep options open and public calls for this have been long standing, but ignored and drowned out with other plethora agendas from widening A14, Guided Busways on old railway formations and must-have more housing regardless of contextual considerations to name but a few. Risk and liability and cost means Government is comfortable to sit back and allow special dispensation to delivery vehicles like HS2 to plough through, bridge or tunnel and concrete over, contrast a wish-for more organic approaches which negotiates with people, stewards the landscape better and delivers capacity and choice if not high speed per se. The rail lobby like denominations, reflects the mosaic of public opinion, has popularist takes and agendas and again, it is the still small voices, which urge caution, protection and localism to be at the heart of our planning, transport accessibility and choices, not big brother stealth and power superimposed. I hope we strike a balance and wish the scheme well in principle, notwithstanding the dissenting aspects we have been careful to raise concerns about, namely the Northern Route E. As someone said, "you can disagree and still be friends" and we very much hope this will be the case.
ERTA Response to East-West
Consultation 2021
1.0 Preamble:
1.1 The English Regional Transport
Association (ERTA) is a pro-public transport membership-based association
with a particular interest in reopening, rebuilding and select new pieces of
restoring missing rail links across the English Regions. Our Chairman has been
associated with organisations which have advocated an East-West Railway from
Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge since 1987 His history is as follows:
1.2 1981 joined the Bedford-Bletchley
Rail Users Association (BBRUA) – then seeking to save the last remnant of
the Oxbridge line from closure threats (Serpell).
1.3 1985 Joined Railway Development
Society (now Railfuture) and served on the Reopenings Committee with a
brief to help forge forward the Oxford-Bletchley line for reopening.
1.4 1986/7 Forged Links and supported
the formation of the Oxon and Bucks Rail Action Committee (OBRAC) which
served as an umbrella organisation to bring various reopening advocating groups
together between Oxford-Bicester/Aylesbury and Milton Keynes
1.5 1987 Formed the Bedford and Sandy
Rail Reopening Association (BASRRA) which called for route protection,
studying and reopening a rail link to link with the main line at Sandy for
through services elsewhere and to the east-west corridor.
1.6 1990 Formed the Bedfordshire
Branch of Transport 2000 (now Campaign for Better Transport/CBT) and
carried on raising the profile of reopening the east-west rail with variations
as much as possible. Coalesced local councils to support the idea and project
which ultimately morphed into the East-West Rail Consortium (EWRC).
1.7 1997 Formed the Bedfordshire
Railway and Transport Association (BRTA) which carried on route protection,
advocacy and widening dynamic appeal of the strategic nature of the railway and
courted councils to come together to support more. This carried on for about 8
years and after a 5-year break, was resuscitated to morph into the English
Regional Transport Association (ERTA).
1.8 East West Rail Consortium (EWRC): The forming of the EWRC in 1994/5 was a game changer,
levelling in funding for studies to put on a formal basis what we as lay-people
had been advocating but without the resources to give it formal footing in an
increasingly competitive arena of competing agendas, conflict and demands for
science-based evidence.
1.9 Examples of time-line and
development conflict:
However, the EWRC came after 7 years of
calling for route protection which was not supported by Bedford Borough and
Bedfordshire County Council, resulting in a. a cycleway along the old route
which became and end in itself and an objector to a railway and b. the damage
extensively done by allowing both the A1 Girtford Underpass, a lack of
underpass to the A421 Bedford Southern Bypass and other encroachments of a
development kind. Likewise, in latter years, the policy of the Office of Road
and Rail (ORR) of opposing new level crossings for reopened railways, increases
cost, affordability and rules out where layout of roads or urban landscapes do
not lend themselves to the land-take of bridging with possible clearances in
such wakes. However, that must be compared and contrasted with bridges, which
get hit by lorries and buses aplenty, cost more and are not a panacea against
clearances, witness 6-tracking north of Bedford Midland for example, totally
unnecessary if part of the old route east of Bedford is adopted.
2.0 The Consultation Process and how
we feel somewhat disenfranchised:
2.1 2019 Consultation came out of
the blue to us and was held for Bedford at Scott Hall, easy for parking, remote
for people who do not drive unless they live within walking distance of Fenlake
in south-east Bedford. The long tradition is for civic consultations to be done
in a central and optimally accessible place like Harpur Suite, Corn Exchange or
Central Library for example. There walking, cycling, bus and rail access lends
itself, driving and parking is a cost-time exercise, but a balance is not
struck by locating to out-of-town centre areas. That consultation, took away a
30+ year consensus on what, if any reopening meant east of Bedford; formalised
by the EWRC’s own 1997 study which verified what we had previously advocated,
namely that east of Bedford meant the old route, with realignments south of
Station Court Blunham, and swinging round to a new build alignment north of
Sunderland Road Sandy and new links facing south to the East Coast Main Line
(ECML), the idea of bolting on to the Cambridge-St Ives-Huntingdon corridor
being scuppered by the decision and implementation of a Guided Busway on a
railed (freight only/mothballed) railway corridor, blocking the northern access
at Chesterton Junction which now has Cambridge North Station bestriding it.
2.2 The 5 options after £10 million to whittle down to just 5 from some
33 options ruled out/did not include the old route/turned away from the Steer
Davis Gleave option or variants on it. This was a complete unexpected and shock
to us and we were bitterly disappointed and disenfranchised/alienated from the
whole process. The turning on its head all that had been understood and
campaigned for at cost to start anew with 2 options supporting ‘via Bedford
Midland’ and 3 avoiding Bedford altogether. The nudge psychology of Bedford
Midland or bust of course twisted people’s arm for inclusion, but then led to
the question of how you then end up at Cambridge and head off eastwards in some
shape or form. Our view and reflection, given these changes of design dynamic
and policy, however informed or not, was to accept the link with Bedford
Midland, but calling for 2 new bay platforms bolted alongside the current
Platform 1A for passenger trains to reverse and freight Midland Main Line
(MML)-East-West to use existing tracks, albeit realigned and upgraded between
St John’s area and Bedford Midland ‘box’ area. East-West freight, would avoid
the Bedford Midland ‘box’ area, by a reinstatement of the triangle anew at St
John’s area and thus conflict and away from any encroachments of residential
areas.
3.0 Our emergent view of a new build
between Bedford and north of Sandy/Tempsford area:
Rebuild/new build east of the old St
John’s area reinstated anew triangle and either bridge or level crossing for
Cardington Road/A603 dual carriageway. Head off east on old corridor with new
level crossing needed at Priory Marina entrance, raise the A421 Bypass as per
DfT were to give ‘sympathetic consideration’ at the Side Roads Order 199 1993
Inquiry and such an under-pass bridge would also, with perimeter fencing,
enable a cycle/footway alongside the railway. Heading east, either plough
through on old trackbed at Willington and relocate Danes Camp to Willington Woods
or realign the railway to the north, cross over the Great River Ouse west of
Willington and swing round and cross exact same River east of Willington and
thence on embankment and new build go to the north of built Blunham alongside
the Great Ouse River Valley and corridor to approach crossing A1/Ivel River
from a south-westerly direction and – contrast the agenda of the 2019 and post
discourses – choose physical linkage of tracks with the outer slows of the East
Coast Main Line (ECML) for optimum scope, business courting and through rail
journey capture. We are against segregated lines, we are against a new station,
we are against 300 houses on a flood plain and a lack of facilities when
existing settlements would be better enlarged with enhanced facilities.
Alas, this 2021 Consultation rejects
this completely and presents us with a Northern Route E which arrives at the
Tempsford area from a north-westerly direction.
4.0 Key objections to the Northern
Route:
4.1 Six tracking through Bedford
Midland and Poets area of Bedford. We need to see how the design and land
use of a rebuilt Bedford Midland would look and fit in a context of growth on
and off the rails.
4.2 Rebuilding of A4280 Bromham Road
Bridge – going to need a land-take and be a massive under-taking with huge
disruption and had Bedford Borough, Network Rail and other agencies listened to
us, would have had an extra arch for bolting on to existing twin slows north of
the bridge, we were completely ignored and now face more cost and disturbance
as a result.
4.3 Fifty plus houses taken – not
just residencies, people’s homes, our route option required fewer if any
demolitions. Extended back gardens are not residencies and there is a
difference between inconvenience and family dwellings.
4.4 The eyesore of a 50’
viaduct/flyover/bridge to get from ground level to incline of a hill over
trunk roads and associated issues on a mainly flood plain which perennially
floods.
4.5 The unnecessary intrusion, cost
and upheaval of the Northern Route E arcing route and what of demolitions
at Ravensden or associated to get through an increasingly built area both sides
or projected route/s?
4.6 The conundrum of negotiating
A1/A421, Black Cat Roundabout, Roxton,
Roxton Garden Centre to get to the Tempsford Flood Plains east of the River
Great Ouse/River Ivel conjoined area? Our route is flatter, more direct, in all
probability less cost and less intrusive, courting fewer objections. Why not
consider it, why not study it, why not compare and contrast? Instead, we have a
stiff-necked ‘Northern Route or bust’ attitude, presumption and in our view,
abuse of power.
5.0 The consultation Section by
Section:
5.1 Oxford-Calvert:
Islip Station must have a regular train
service and be invested in as an equal partner, optimising footfall and spend
with things like capitalising on visitorship, country walks, cycle rides, more
food and drink access and modest development in-keeping with the quasi-rural
nature of the location.
5.2 A west-south new curve for Bicester-Aylesbury (nodal points of
reference) should be studied and considered to enable rail to do more
(passenger and possible freight).
5.3 Calvert must have a new station:
The area (3–5-mile radius) is growing,
possible new town development, so a. keeps rail reopening and servicing by rail
land-take-use options open and b. look at other servicing projects like
extending Chiltern to Brackley alongside HS2 and indeed re-railing the Great
Central corridor with new build to West Coast Main Line (WCML) Rugby
connectivity for passenger and freight by rail options, capacity, re-railing
outlying areas and catering for growth on a sustainable basis. We are not so
concerned who does it, who serves it or who operated what services over it –
the rails – but it is needed and should both be looked at and design options
kept open instigatively and passively by others including HS2 and other development
agendas and plans. Likewise, a new Calvert-Grendon rebuild of former GC rail
corridor gives access by existing rails to Princes Risborough, High Wycombe,
Old Oak Common and if we get our way, the new Southern Heathrow rail link to
Woking and Guildford which provides off peak other use like freight away from
residential areas of Aylesbury and London centric tracks (few other choices
currently to orbit the capital north-south and east-west). Can also approach
Reading from the east and link on to South West and/or Southampton flows.
5.4 Calvert-Winslow:
There should be land
protected/identified around the old Claydon Station area with a view to a new
station. The Claydons and surrounds have and are growing, Claydon House a major
attraction of national interest and the gap between Bicester and Winslow is too
great (given Buckingham a 10-mile distance is included in commuter use
catchment potential case making) – needs to share-out the loading and
parking/traffic flow and capacity more. Claydon could fill that gap and bring
better public transport interchange in a quasi-rural transformed setting going
forward.
5.5 Newton Longville/West Bletchley:
Growth of Milton Keynes and east of
Winslow, north, south, east and west, makes consideration of a Parkway Station
serving these areas out of urban cordons tangible and should be a. land use
allocation identified, b. should be studied further/case making and c. kept
under review/implemented at design stages now. Services can be diverse, fast
end to end, semi fast with limited stops, slow, every stop plus freight. 24 x 7
railway, gives plenty of scope to optimise. However, this goal should be a
constant along the whole project, alas flounders and stalls in some cases.
5.6 Bletchley:
This is good but should give more
consideration to a. expanding capacity/baying and through tracks at Milton
Keynes Central Station, b Wolverton and c. how Newport Pagnell and Northampton
can more be included in the frame for Aylesbury links, Old Oak Common via
Calvert links, Oxford via Bicester links and vice versa, bringing regenerative
footfall and spend on a sustainable basis. The current one train per hour from
Southern tracks to MK Central is an example of how capacity constraints,
diagramming and available paths, stifle access. Some study needs to look at
this and come up with rail-based solutions. Diversity on a theme makes sense
and our suggestions seek to take it into account. a. where do people wish to
go, b. what main hubs like places and airports could rail direct serve
better/market capture.
5.7 Marston Vale Railway:
The quasi-rural nature, albeit a
changing landscape constantly, should be valued, cherished and retained where
possible. Likewise, the local hourly shuttle serving multiple halts should be
retained and enhanced with a. Sunday and Bank Holiday Services, b. Increased
hours inclusive of later night running say 11pm as a get you home/mop up
service base note. c. The service could do more. Line guides should be produced
and sold. Food and drink trolley service nurtured and retention of the toilet
on a train and conductor likewise and retain the cash economy alongside other
options. d. I do not think people would object to a bi-hourly service on
Sundays and Bank Holidays if it is rock-solid reliable, sadly this has not been
the case in recent years, however informed or not. e. We object to closure and
relocation of stations, diversity of services should be the goal, not end to
end whole line timings per se. f. Extension of the local service to Milton
Keynes Central (£20 million spent), the electrification of the line and
utilising old stock which could do more, a line-side freight development plan
inclusive of regenerating freight to/from Forders loading gantry use and
sidings – recycling centre and sending to processing centres by rail – located
as is off the A1-M1 A421 link and near A6, could service a wide area with
aggregately less lorries pounding the roads as a result. We need to think
creatively, scope widely and court an alliance geared to making use of the
infrastructure just sitting there, rotting in a world of need and resource
demand. g. Kemspton Town/Retail Park – see attached report. But upwards of 18,
000 population/Kempston Town could bolster usership to any local or regional
service on the Marston Vale Railway and should be round-tabled, supported,
studied and progressed to boost all trains calling there. It is a
short-sightedness that has not had station and development together for 40
years and needs rectifying with integrative bus services for local distribution
and two-way feed.
5.8 St John’s – Bedford Midland:
a. Reinstate a Bedford St John’s area
rail triangle for optimum operations (passenger and freight)
b. Claim and utilise the former Danfoss
area for a realignment of railway, straightening and line speed increases.
c. Relocate the 1984 St John’s Halt to
serve both sides of the railway and make 4-coach standard on all halts and
stations for exact the same or more in principal locations like Bedford Midland
Baying facilities.
d. install twin bays at Bedford Midland
with a booking office/reception annex wedged between looking down Midland Road
and the new station/track layout for pedestrian and cycle and bus access whilst
car drivers can continue to use Ashburnham Road access and a new facility over
Ford End Road Bridge – see diagram for an idea to be worked on.
e. Bedford St John’s – Tempsford – see 3.0
above.
5.9 Tempsford-Cambridge:
We would have preferred a going through
a rebuilt purposed Sandy Interchange Station and via new interpretation
through/tunnel the golf course near Potton and straight gradient line to south
of Gamlingay and rebuild on old route to M11 where a new build and facilitation
across the M11, River Cam, new re-claim of old route through Trumpington
Meadows Development, Trumping ton P&R and junk the Guided Busway to roads
and utilise old trackbed to serve both Addenbrookes/Cambridge South and a
east-south curve for direct Stansted running from the west and via Long Road
underpass bridges, to enter a broadened Cambridge ‘box’ of extra platforms,
through or bay facilitation and broader neck enabling more than 3 tracks in/out
from the south. In any case, if you went for the Shelford option, curving from
the old route to a southerly direction would be less intrusive and hazardous
than current derivative options. The reality is that all tiers of Government
failed to protect the old route despite calls from public based organisations
and developed even with an intent to reopen in mind well into the 2010’s. This
flagrant breach of trust and stewardship should be translated to a levy of
compensation shared both to the builders of the new rail link and those
affected by it more.
5.10 On freight:
A new line off the Soham and Ely
Junction lines across via Northstowe to join ECML slows at Tempsford (from a
north easterly direction) to go out south-westerly makes sense to segregate
freight and also ‘not via Cambridge’ extra capacity to reduce the conflict of
intense passenger requirements to an international centre like Cambridge from
multiple directions. This segregational approach means more by rail, not less.
Yet this needs looking at now or the exact same scenarios as before, whereby
land is taken for development, no corridor planned, and failing to plan means
planning to fail! We cannot afford to if we are serious on climate change,
climate emergency and modal shift/cutting road emissions and associated volume
pro-rata of road space informing congestion, pollution and wasting both time
and energy as a normative bi-product of human activity. The rail alternative is
needed and we must think bigger, better and act now to secure this new route.
Richard Pill
ERTA Chairman
richard.erta@gmail.com
29-05-21
