Transport Reality - what for rail choices? TfSE needs a reality check

re: https://transportactionnetwork.org.uk/campaign/road-to-ruin-for-se-plan/ 

Please do a meeting and try and win over to what we wish for - namely Guildford-Horsham and Shoreham + Polegate-Stone Cross or variants thereof. 

This is appalling if we take a Climate Emergency seriously. 

They should be coming forward incorporating our rail-based solutions and delivery mapping in a timely manner 2030 not 2050!

People can join ERTA and swell our active ranks. People can write to their MP's, any 5+ letters and they are mandated to act apparently and join our Guildford Forum on Saturday 29th October 1pm at the Rodborough: https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/pubs/all-pubs/england/surrey/the-rodboro-buildings-guildford

If you want more and better, join us, help us, offer to serve and assist. It can be done if we can get enough reliable people involved, holding councils and candidates to account - what can THEY DO? They need to audit the blockages and find/study solutions. They need to pool agencies, other councils and tap into grants to invest in case-making studies to take the projects to next stages of Network Rail's GRIP and DfT Reopen Railways Grants to advance the candidacy and have development policies tailored to inform pro-affirma re-railing. I don't under-estimate the challenges, but do also feel alongside that, the problems conceived or actual can be seen as a looming shadow, when the reality is more straight-forward and less daunting.

Please give us your support: https://ertarail.co.uk/

Electrification of the North Downs Line would bring footfall and spend to Guildford from South London/East Croydon by a direct Thameslink inclusion semi fast, leaving interim stations for the Reading-Gatwick shuttle to serve, which - given the sea of third rail - should be pragmatically done as an infill engineering rectification for efficiency, not debates and no action on hydrogen, greening or default status, unsatisfactory quo. Likewise, Guildford Station - we get mixed feeds of 'loads of spare capacity' and 'lacks capacity for more services'. Which is it? But in any case, the restored rail link to Horsham would enable a train to deliver and off-load, run onto somewhere else, clearing the platforms for other services. Currently, coming in, unless you're heading North Downs or Portsmouth, standing idle at Guildford blocks that other access. More land, more sidings, more reopenings is the way to go if rail market share is to increase, reducing congestion. More roads just deliver more congestion, pollution and harms the public. https://academic.oup.com/jpubhealth/article/33/2/160/1591440?login=false Food for thought! But there's big money and influence at every level and so the log-jam of people having more alternative choices needs breaking and enabling choice more and people to walk free of locked-in dependency, however luring.

ERTA Newsletters - be part of our email loop!

Greetings. It is that time of year again. ERTA produces a bi-monthly newsletter which serves our purposes and budgetary arrangements more often than not. We have people and organisations come to us from a variety of walks of life and frankly we can never satisfy everyone. 

If you want more, be prepared to be part of the answer of will something happen or more and better. That is the only way we can grow and do more and better. So things like joining ERTA as a member helps us to pay our bills in the endeavour. Volunteer to help, we ask about 1 hour per week minimally. The opportunities abound. 

I am convinced we can tailor something for everyone which works well with us too. To get anything done, to do anything justice requires reliability, commitment and a shared vision. Compromise to get the greater good, do not compromise to get it done! The more people I can organise to recruit more area members, focus on specific projects, team-working and making representation, case research and field work, the better. Then there's running the association, the Executive Committee, Constitutional work, administration and yes, we do seek more people to be the answer to strengthen our work. 

Membership is a gateway. We do take on some non-member volunteers, but it is hard work to recruit. Sounds familiar? At ERTA we still need a flow of new blood frankly of a lower age profile. Many ask themselves "what's in it for them?" or want 'instant satisfaction' whereas many projects we engage with demands patience, sacrifice of time, interest and endeavour. We need a dedication to make the news for the right reasons in and out of season, not just follow the news or what is popular.

On the campaign front, things are happening, pockets here and there and that is of course welcome. However, the system and process is painfully slow, money is a finite resource, and we wonder sometimes whether it is being well-used for optimum effect. 

Most reopenings have exceeded expected usage and indeed the closures and dismantling of the most intensive railway system in the world as once was, was based on a false premise and misconception in the first place. Some believe the closures were wholly justified and we are where we are today as the outworking default and instigated design result. 

Others believe the closures were wholly political, wrong and detrimental on and off the rails in terms of legacy and impact. Not all can be reopened now, many cases are too far gone. So rewinding the clock is not a realistic option. Where salvage and recovery can be done, needs to be kept open as an option, identified and a system needs creating which moves towards reopening more. In every way, we're running out of time in a Climate Emergency and the resources to rectify or seize opportunities in a timely manner. 

One Christian Church friend I respect, acquainted with management, said to me "the car will be the last to go". It threw me slightly, but if we settle for less, what could it look like to turn for example 90% freight currently by road to 50% by rail more? Northampton-Coventry-southern rail bypass of Nuneaton-Leicester is possible to do if West Coast Capacity enables on the back of HS2, but like Werrington near Peterborough, is a great way round and direct roads have the advantage. 

So getting more direct rails makes good sense and working back, protecting routes and working towards reopening seems prudent. It is also as every other scenario, protracted. Some areas are excelling more than others, other places are virtually rail deserts. 

It will take a very bold and committed government to redirect away from £40 billion new roads to £20 billion rail reopenings budgets and only £20 billion new roads, but that is what we need, not more money, but a better balance and level playing field to enable do-ability more for what we wish for, not avariced 'all eggs in one basket' purported panacea mega projects, which promise more in decades, whilst proverbial 'Rome' burns or floods today! 

Please stay with us, encourage others and let's work together, however loosely to see some social, environmental and economic justice done and our area of focus has to be getting the transport right surely?

To join, look at this page on our website: https://ertarail.co.uk/become-a-member/

Thank you.

To receive our free, no obligation pdf newsletter, please email requests to richard.erta@gmail.com

East-West Rail Turbulence: ERTA points the way for rail and save some money!

Bedford Midland Station Designs: https://sacuksprodnrdigital0001.blob.core.windows.net/regional-long-term-planning/Eastern/Bedford%20Area%20Strategic%20Advice%202022.pdf is the latest installment in the saga. Good news intrinsically, although we want a rail route going east of Bedford via St Johns, not Northern Route E which in our view is costly and engineeringly problematic, let alone environmentally more questionable than going along an established former rail corridor for some of the way?

re: https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/east-west-rail-has-hit-the-buffers-says-local-mp/ and https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/grant-shapps-rail-project-cancelled-24481614

This is a failure of tiers of Government as well as anyone else. On the one hand, ERTA takes a view the route between Bedford-Tempsford area-Cambridge was unworkable beit engineering, steep gradients and lack of things like east-north from east-west rail to Midland Main Line which the design did not incorporate. On the other, taking prior support and with reworking for the taking into account development creep has curtained off the Sandy area for accessing the north-south main line (East Coast Main Line/ECML) and that such a physical linkage was not inherent in the 2019 consultation, means the wider range of market potential inclusive of north of Stevenage, south of Peterborough and East Bedfordshire is written off, but no-way are people to be expected to come to Bedford from one of these areas changing trains at middle-of-nowhere even with 300 new houses Tempsford to come to Bedford when they can drive or bus in less waiting time? 

ERTA believes we do need an east-west rail link and discerns that freight should be an important element in such a design. However, a passenger line serving Cambridge as one main market and a new passenger and freight line to link with radial lines at Ely: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/improving-the-railway-in-anglia/ely-area-capacity-enhancement/ which is being pushed for a rail upgrade but being stalled by... government! Who is the Secretary of State for Transport? Is it not one Rt Hon Grant Shapps? Again, as with the strikes, he is unwilling to consult with us and consider a Plan B option, it is do or bust and that is sadly, unworkable.

As for Richard Fuller MP's rhetoric, we should note A1 and A421 roads are being flooded by unadulterated growth of traffic in a context of no east-west rail comparative choice in 100 miles north of London. Black Cat Roundabout and dualling to Caxton (near Cambridge) will at best buy time, but the development rate and overflow straight onto the roads, means that gridlock congestion, urban, rural and at junctions is at best delayed, but when it comes, what then? A1 motorway-isation has been on the cards for decades and where to put bypasses of built Biggleswade and Sandy bring their own issues, to the east of Sandy you have growing Potton, to the west growing Beeston and Blunham/Ivel Valley course of river. To tunnel under Sandy Heath would conflict with RSPB HQ (birds!).

There's no easy answers. 

ERTA appeals to Councils, MP's, DfT, East West Rail Company and others to talk with us, reason with us, invest in studying our proposals and do a comparative assessment contrast the cost, upheaval and other issues including getting through Black Cat Roundabout area which does not make passive provision, and see our suggestion could make a whole lot of sense. Currently we feel marginalised and ignored by the media and the various parties and we wonder why? Suffice to say "the stone the builders rejected, turned out to be the capstone!" So we are in good company!

Please stay with us. Join our loop via email richard.erta@gmail.com and for the pdf - but the situation is changing all the time. Page 18 of the current Modern Railways Magazine* apparently has a new story of a new platform at Bedford Midland. This sounds like what we have suggested for catering for Oxford trains calling at Bedford. Two bays are needed. But it is made in such a way as to keep open going north of Bedford. That means station booking hall rebuild, that means 2 new arches under A4280 Bromham Road and knocking down 40+ houses with 6 tracking; so bays seem more sensible, reversing and out from the southern link. However, for freight going north of Bedford, better access to the existing twin slow lines is needed, so a complete redesign/revolution is required. If, when and what we await with excited anticipation and of course the upheaval it will inevitably bring on and off the rails. There's always more and rationale can lead to conspiracy theories rather than to put it baldly 'cock-up'! Jury is out, but a roundtable could bring representatives together including ERTA Reps, and together we could work at making a rail link a success, rather than an embarrassment. Realism wrongly predicated on pollution, large land-take and environmental degradation, is unsustainability by design (more roads only answers) and a false premised economy. We need a sustainable railway and our suggestion could reduce costs, speed up end-to-end journeys and rebalance road-rail usage. If Dr Beeching could see the strategic potential of retaining the Bedford-Cambridge rail link, x3 over 6 decades of growth on and off the roads and rails, then so should we. Location, location, location! *From text, now corrected, it is to be on the west side of the existing station. That will cause its own issues and is mega disappointing.

East-West Rail Turbulence: ERTA points the way for rail and save some money!

For reflections on the past, please refer to reference (1) below and scroll down and click! But the announcement that Grants Shapps may cancel east-west rail (2), surely does not mean Oxford-Bedford which is a rebuild job, but the new construction ‘gaps’ between Bedford and East Anglia. On the one hand the problems were inherent with the whole project from the start. Disunity amongst the rail fraternity and on the other a post-rail culture developing where roads are the way for freedom. Carefully ignoring congestion blight, but seeing more roads as the answer to congestion, not rebuilding rail links.

Caption Left: Bedford-Sandy trackbed at Goldington looking west 1985. Why build brand new with up-hill/down-hill, when this flat land commends itself and you can always slew a cycle/footpath alongside in such an open-land context surely?

In 1985 that was very much the emergent case and in 1987 when the first organised effort to formally suggest the rail link east of Bedford should be supported, met with incredulity. Interim, bypass building has been done and the volume of traffic has grown to fill the new vacuum of capacity created. Despite the views expounded and reified by media that bypasses offer relief from congestion, in fact, Bedford is very much congested today despite those bypasses. With the growth of development, that congestion will grow and be exacerbated and with roads everywhere, there will come a day when nowhere else to go transport-wise. In short, a rail link east of Bedford is essential to counter-balance the growth of traffic and bring some choice to the market of business on offer. ERTA has long argued that whilst we need them, buses are no good at luggage conveyance, bikes or freight. Only the rail alternative can cater for this, to reduce the juggernaut volumes and give car owners a decent alternative to make them think public transport as a realistic and viable option. Where things went wrong, apart from disunity at the start and counter-objections to a bridging of the former Bedford-Sandy trackbed east of Bedford with the A421 in 1993, the 1997 Steer Davis Gleave Consultants report made the case for a Bedford-Cambridge Railway, but Bedford Councils could not make up their minds! Some touted an inner route serving Bedford and faithful to the old route, others wanted a new-build outer railway avoiding Bedford. They wanted cake and eat it, the darn cheek being they had spent a decade saying things like “there’s no case or demand for a railway” and “blockages prohibit rebuilding” I paraphrase from letters I used to receive from them. They knew we lacked the resources to challenge their bigoted views. Then, here, 1997, the report of consultants, trained and experienced in such matter are saying “it can be done” and “benefits if done to…Bedford!” – again I paraphrase. All we had been saying was shown as ‘do-able’ being getting east of Bedford via the old route, realignment south of Blunham and a new route north (then) of Sandy with connectivity to the main north-south main line and new links to Cambridge via the Ickleford Curve. Alas it floundered, alas the disunity meant government following a post Iraq financial deficit, took its money elsewhere and just turned the question back to focusing on the then ‘western section’ Oxford/Aylesbury-Milton Keynes/Bedford. East was abandoned, Central Beds Council as it became developed over the north of Sandy lands blocking off access for a new railway. So, we come to the 2019 consultation whereby it comes up out-of-the-blue, with a new route east of Bedford. Our lay assessments showed that it was engineeringly challenging to put it mildly and ill-judged. On engineering, environment impact (knocking down houses) and fit for purpose criterion, it was dismissed by us in utter disbelief and disappointment and we counter suggested a new-build using the old route instead with realignments at Willington and instead of south of Blunham, to go north of Blunham. Their meeting point was ‘south of St Neots and north of Sandy’, which by my map means the Tempsford area, north or south of Station Road. But despite our efforts to warn the EWRCO that their new route north of Bedford would court a lot of opposition, they ploughed on and now it hits the buffers. That means we get the Oxford-Bedford link, but no rail link to East Anglia. 

If we wait 10 years, rate of development means all options will be lost. A421 is growing like M1 with about 50% juggernaut lorries, so any new railway must cater for freight from day one, ideally in roll-on, roll-off/Piggyback terms, we must have vision for this and build accordingly. But the proposed new route had steep gradients, was circuitous and lacked connectivity with the East Coast Main Line (ECML) in the Tempsford area (Peterborough, East Beds and Stevenage for example in scope) and as for the new route to Cambridge, because and weaving between development, avoiding compulsory purchase and re-build, it weaves to join the Royston-Hitchin line from Cambourne on new trajectory and against the grain of the landscape meaning new embankments of some size. It is a circuitous route, a controversial route and costly.Our route to ECML from Bedford uses the old route to just west of Willington. A realignment is possible, but speed need not be the main consideration. Our route then goes north of Blunham to approach the Tempsford plains from the south-westerly direction with physical connectivity with the north-south main line for optimum passenger and freight reaches to the Bedford-Oxford corridor and vice versa. Our route is shorter and probably cheaper than Northern Route E and despite some councillors claiming to the contrary have yet to specific exactly what houses would need demolishing if any, whereas 40+ in the Poets area of Bedford would be required for the Northern Route E, which our route would be hard pressed to equal! Yet for all that, the Mayor, for all his attributes, has failed to grasp these merits and lead from the front in asking our route to be assessed with a view to overcoming challenges, not building new housing on the old St John’s Station site which would scupper any rail link east of Bedford forever. Caption below: Simon Barber captured the old St John’s ‘green site’ in urban Bedford circa 2019. Why block an amenity for housing, when a railway + a green corridor could really add something in the urban context, including traffic reduction?

On east of Tempsford, we believe there is merit in connectivity to Cambridge principally for passenger requirements. However, if the link to the Royston-Cambridge line proves too much, we believe a new look at a new rail rebuild to link with Norwich, Ipswich/Felixstowe and Cambridge/Stansted lines from a new multiple linkage at the Ely area from the west. If we act now, lands can be acquired and the new link pushed through. A key objection from Cambridge is that loads of freight through the urban centre would be counter-intuitive and given the capacity constraints both there and Newmarket Tunnel, I can see their point. If all goes via a new link across to Ely and the Ely bypass being mooted but stalled by… government, whose Secretary of State for Transport as at 23-08-22 is still Rt Hon Grant Shapps MP despite Government agreement we are in a Climate Emergency, is pursuing roads and counter intuitive policies to any environmental/land-use stewardship cares. It presides over ever-more uncertainty and seems to be wobbling like a jelly, rather than a bull-by-the-horns and leadership, direction and cascading money from road to rail and an investment for a better future and lowering our emissions footprint at one and the same time. When win, win stares you in the face and you ignore it, begs the question as to whether it has an objective and honest evaluation of the needs and situations this country faces. Suffice to say Government finds money for roads more easily than rail projects of an exact similar nature. If our route suggestion is less than Northern Route E, why not evaluate, compare and contrast and go for it to give hope of some traffic reduction relief to urban areas and land savings for rural ones? The £950 million Black Cat Roundabout (3) remodelling and dualling to Cambridge will, like A421 M1-A1 only full with more traffic which then backs up at junctions and once capacity filled to gridlock, has no Plan B. Urban areas cannot accommodate it and so, unless we make the rail link a priority, we are in a dire situation of false premises. The railway is the right way to go, our route, not Northern Route E, which even lay people with some local knowledge could work out was not going to succeed except as some kind of vanity project which does not serve rail well. We welcome all parties to round-table with us and crack on with a rail link east of Bedford. 

References:

1.       https://ertarail.co.uk/publicity/

2.       https://cambridgeapproaches.org/secretary-of-state-for-transport-wants-to-cut-ewr-tranches-2-and-3/

3.       https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/planning-milestone-hit-for-national-highways-950m-black-cat-roundabout-upgrade-22-02-2022

Route for rails east of Bedford ERTA supports: 

1. 

 2. 

 

Sign the Petition please!

Dear Friends,

I just signed the petition "Cut their profits, not our ticket offices!"
and wanted to ask if you could add your name too.

This campaign means a lot to me and the more support we can get behind
it, the better chance we have of succeeding. You can read more and sign
the petition here:

https://www.megaphone.org.uk/petitions/cut-their-profits-not-our-ticket-offices?share=73dafe16-cc80-42bc-878b-bdf155710ff9&source=email-share-button&utm_source=email

Thank you!

P.S. Can you also take a moment to share the petition with others? It's
really easy – all you need to do is forward this email or share this
link on Facebook or Twitter:

https://www.megaphone.org.uk/petitions/cut-their-profits-not-our-ticket-offices?share=73dafe16-cc80-42bc-878b-bdf155710ff9&source=email-share-button&utm_source=email

East-West Rail Link, East of Bedford conundrum

19-08-2022

ERTA has put an alternative rail route to Northern Route E for a rail link between Bedford-Oxford corridor and both the East Coast Main Line (ECML) in the Tempsford area with physical linkage and East Anglia via a new-build cross-country rail link to connect with radial rails at the Ely area for Norwich, Ipswich/Felixstowe and Cambridge/Stansted direct. Action and support in principle and plans are needed now to ensure land is saved for it to be done and a push from Government to be done. Government finds money for road building, but rail is stalling and told no money! https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/green-light-given-new-10-24803114 The irony is not lost on us and the protection of land and environment with what rail could offer to cut emissions and congestion now and medium term, should not be lost on us. Roads only upgrades are a false economy as traffic builds to fill new capacity resulting in a worsening situation which folly then thinks 'we need more roads' and so self-perpetuates. Time and resources are running out, we do need the rail alternative fast.

The attached diagrams (below) can be used when discussing east-west rail links to show a quicker, cheaper and faster option than that of the ill-fated Northern Route E. 

It is not perfect but gives enough of a flavour to show how our option could be done. Key is to support the principle, gather a coalition, push for what you want in unity. Route E is flawed and with freight and extra longer trains, bays, platforms and track access will need reform at Bedford Midland in any case. 

That we have yet to see a diagram or plan for that station reform, shows how daft and synthetic the whole consultation process has been. I'm happy to discuss and explore with any other agent beit Borough, EWRCo, DfT or whosoever. 

Problems need to be overcome, but unity around a focus which does not demand housing be knocked down, surely has the credentials which deserve special dispensations to enable the rail link to take place. Lose this window of opportunity, block it or make it harder and Bedford stands to lose out big time. But we must get it right. It needs support now. Rt Hon Grant Shapps could come down on our side and usher the parties to work it up, list what is required and then consult giving people this alternative option. 

On Tempsford and getting that right, north of Stevenage, East Bedfordshire, south of Peterborough and the arm from north-east for south of Huntingdon-Cambourne, Addenbrookes and Cambridge arm would be a public transport boost. But a new railway from the ECML to Ely for links to Cambridge, Stansted, Norwich, Kings Lynn and Ipswich via Soham also needs to be considered. If the Cambridge arm did passengers and this new link regional passenger and freight, that could free up capacity and help solve the Cambridge conundrum more.

Unless we protect these routes and endeavour to deliver now, 10 years of pontification will mean no east-west rail centred on Bedford.

We need optimal railway connectivity, physical links at Tempsford, north or south of Station Road. That is why there's an urgent need to turn the ship around now and get behind this shorter strategic rail idea. Important as Cambridge is, it was always like Sandy, a nodal point of reference; whereas getting this rail network right, informs the whole of East Anglia to the Oxford rail corridor via the prism of the Bedford area.

Whatever you do, it will cost, but they found the money and support for dualling the A421, upgrading other east-west roads and congestion blight is a very real issue from social, economic and environmental/public health points of view. Business as usual is not an option. Media seems partisan and makes its excuses, whereas 1980's media suggested roads and bypasses would reduce congestion, alas, pure fantasy!

re: https://www.newcivilengineer.com/latest/east-west-rail-branded-unachievable-by-ipa-25-07-2022/

This is a sign the system whilst checking and balancing, is not working at the design-delivery stage. Wrong design in fundamentally flawed 2019 Consultation has worked out to raise many objections. The original route which the former East West Rail Consortium supported for over 20 years, was abruptly junked.

However ERTA believe that Bedford St John's to the Willington area could be rebuilt on the original route/trackbed and be much easier with no demolition of houses required. Likewise, new build to Tempsford as Sandy is obliterated land-wise, could be done much easier than via the flawed Northern Route E.

The fact this article does not name the responsible Civil Servant and no-one else does, means lay people don't know who to contact to make their views known except focused representatives in-the-know. Personally, I wish the DfT would ring me and discuss the relevant issues to find constructive common ground and look at maps together and come up with a revised Bedford-ECML link and then Phase 2, Tempsford area to Cambridge and/or new link across to Ely for Greater East Anglia and portal links for example. From Ely trains can head south for Cambridge and Stansted as well as go onto Norwich and Ipswich via Soham.

If we dither 10 years, development blight blocks these options as per the old route at various places Sandy-Cambridge.

Please give us your support:

1. Encourage those involved to listen and work with Richard Pill, Campaigns Coordinator of ERTA, who's been on the case for 35 years!

2. Write to your local MP and those involved and lend support to the ERTA views.

3. Make a donation to ERTA to help us with our work and associated costs: https://ertarail.co.uk/ Any problems making a payment to ERTA of whatever kind, please let our Treasurer Colin Crawford know: 

Mobile 07836-693977

E: colin.crawford1@btconnect.com

We are doing all we can, but need David A. Devenish, Cllr Michael Headley, Mayor Dave of Bedford, Bedford Borough Council, East-West Rail Company, Department for Transport and others, to be willing to meet with Richard, sit down, look at maps, discuss issues and find solutions and re-consult again. Thanks very much.

Great Central Corridor New Rail Appeal

Notes from 09-07-2022 Meeting:

ERTA Notes of Rugby Forum – Saturday 9 July 2pm food, 3pm -5pm business Rupert Brooke, 8-10 Castle Street, Rugby, Warks. CV21 2TP https://www.jdwetherspoon.com/pubs/all-pubs/england/warwickshire/rupert-brooke-rugby

Present: Cllr Peter James, David Ferguson, Simon Barber, Richard Pill

Apologies: Cllr Tim Douglas, Cllr David Bill, Adrian Carter, Richard Cooper

Preamble: We had a loose interpretation of the agenda, to discuss the way forward and the issues and plan accordingly. It was agreed that the two schemes of Northampton-Market Harborough (MH) and that of the Great Central (GC) should be dealt with under one meeting, especially as North of Northampton and Rugby are concerned as are both glaring gaps linking two principal main lines. If we are serious about modal shift, we need these lines back in some form and order to enable that rails to take more of the lion’s share of what business is on offer. ERTA and colleagues would seek to do both under one meeting.

 

1.                 The two schemes are:

a.                 Northampton-Market Harborough and

b.                 Great Central corridor new build from Old Oak Common-Narborough (where it would link to the existing Nuneaton-Leicester lines. ’b’ can be broken down to a Phase 1 focus of Rugby-Leicester/Nuneaton and the re-railing of Lutterworth and Magna Park – one of the largest industrial depot complexes in Europe with no rail connection (a planning oversight!). and ‘c’ south of Rugby to Calvert for connectivity to east-west rail (Oxford, Bristol and Southampton arcingly) and those audiences – people and goods to Leicester/East Midlands. That is more capacity (road and rail). Bletchley-Northampton on West Coast Main Line (WCML) is premium and with extra traffic from Oxford-Milton Keynes – East Croydon-MK Central has been scaled back to Watford due to capacity constraints and Bedford-Bletchley also is vying for access – then the GC re-railing idea makes more sense and is more direct.

2.                 Northampton-Market Harborough (MH) is shorter, has a road scheme being placed slap bang on it by West Northants Unitary Council, which is a huge problem and set back. Likewise, a new deviation south of MH is needed to link physically with the Midland Main Line (MML). This link could:

a.                 Bring freight in by rail to Brackmills Industrial Estate, Northampton new rail-linked depot and with a north-west curve, link direct into DIRFT.

b.                 Enable Southampton, Bristol and Oxford arc and all in between to Milton Keynes, Northampton and Leicester/East Midlands and Felixstowe by rail and all in between

c.                  Boost both locations and have an intermediate station to serve Brixworth on the A508, it would also provide rail-based competition to M1 and associated traffic relief both ends and intermediate places.

3.                 ERTA: we are still relatively small, have upwards of 40 members scattered across the English Regions and have many projects of a similar nature at varying stages to deal with and are meagrely resourced. That means at best we can:

a.                 Plant ideas

b.                 Work with others to develop flyers and feed into meetings

c.                  Need able-others to lead, help head up and make contacts who can invest in these ideas and take them further, growing in such wake, a consortium for delivery.

 

4.                 Action Stations and taking these projects forward:

It was decided that Cllr Peter James from Harborough District Council would set up a meeting at MH to bring people together and inform a regular meeting to:

a.                 Appoint a head-up advocate team or set of individuals

b.                 Aim to get councils and agencies of Midlands Connect and England’s Economic Heartlands (EEH) on board

c.                  Invite a speaker of relevance for first 20 minutes with Q&A to draw them in for support like Gazeleys, Maritime and others who may be willing to invest in the projects, studies, enablement.

d.                 ERTA can help promote these meetings as ‘open to all’ but with a clear message, we expect people to offer to help and be useful to advancing these projects.

e.                 Richard to draft potential diagrams and send to Cllr James for him to help find a willing volunteer to work them up for possible deployment on a flyer. Likewise, the flyer, once notified of the details of date, time, place of meeting in MH, would provide a flyer using what is available and Cllr James would help inform distributor volunteers. Every meeting could have a donations bucket and that could help fund printing costs and hall hire. Light refreshments would be provided. The meeting may concentrate to volunteers only committee style and lay foundations as a consortium.

5.                 Other Actions:

a.                 David to carry on leafleting on a regular basis whilst weather clement of Brackley, Woodford and Hinton, Willoughby, Hillmorton and Braunston and Barby and finally Rugby.

b.                 Richard to notify Lutterworth T.C. of the future Methodist Hall Meeting when Cllr James notifies him of said details.

 

There being no other business, the forum ended at 15.25pm

 

Notes: Please encourage any interested people or organisations to email richard.erta@gmail.com to join our loop and/or see our website for joining details/fill in a flyer. Membership and considering what people are reliably willing to do is welcome.

The Executive Committee cannot be responsible to do it majoritively, to work, it must come from local people. EEH Website is: https://www.englandseconomicheartland.com/

I attach the Rugby Forum Agenda. Simon to please bring spare copies. Please encourage others if you can to attend and make common cause with us/help take a lead.

ERTA is not about reinstating a literal old GC corridor railway, but a new railway along a similar corridor with new build where old has gone to link London, Southampton and Bristol with West Coast Main Line/WCML, Leicester and East Midlands and vice versa and all in between. 

We, as a small association of upwards 40 members, are in the business of planting ideas. Pushing all traffic through the Bletchley-Northampton WCML portal is not going to work with Oxford-Bletchley, as the WCML is congested and so more capacity is required. 

Northampton-WCML-Leicester via Market Harborough is under attack from a roundabout junction being placed on it by West Northants Unitary Authority as a scheme over from the County Council days. It is a setback, but we need an authority to hold it to account to ensure a railway can be rebuilt.

Similarly, Rugby-Lutterworth-Narborough needs route option identification and moves towards advancing and making the case in delivery candidacy terms.

ERTA does not have the resources, so we need to court with our ideas, bigger professional bodies from councils, agencies and developers, who may be interested and willing to invest to see what is in it for them. Any help with sending contacts, ideas, suggestions, people and helpers to us, would be gratefully appreciated. 

Our website: https://ertarail.co.uk/events/ lists opportunities to meet and engage with us and if we get demand, a zoom meeting can be arranged. But we need others to take an interest please.

Any questions feel free to ask, but we look towards you to help inform the upwards of £50k for commissioning studies to look at 'how to...' and 'business case' and 'environmental impact' and 'demand' etc. Local Councils could do more to protect remaining route and infrastructure and ask HS2 to support a domestic line and new alignment from Calvert-Claydon-Brackley East-northwards to Rugby Central (possible Parkway Station) and options for onwards to Lutterworth via new viaducts and/or via  a new construction to the Northampton Loop Line for accessing WCML into existing Rugby and/or arcing around with connection to DIRFT and onwards to Lutterworth-Narborough etc. These things need to be looked at, but if we want a modal shift, planning them, determining them and courting investors, is exactly what we need now please.

Join our free loop via requests to richard.erta@gmail.com