21-12-2022 Another diagram showing what we need to do for our rail link choice to be done, contrast nil specification on East-West Rail's Northern Route E. We want them worked up, compared and contrasted and then a local referendum to let the people decide once and for all and then all parties including ORR to work constructively at 'can do' solutions, not rote prohibitions. I know this is the season of Good Will. Some principles are common, so getting common principles right, could result in a load of appliations. It is ERTA's view that we need a nationwide plan of action to reinstate select former railways and select new builds to make the rail network more robust, more engaging and relevant for more people and goods to be sent by rail. That saves land, that reduces emissions, is good for environmental and public health and gets things done in a more sustainable fashion. Currently as a nation we are heading the wrong way from a Climate Emergency perspective. 2030 is cut off date for going beyond the bar of global climate change being irreversible. Much of Government is planning on a 2050 date, whilst greenwashing serious climate change denial, deep rooted, deeply embedded in quasi belief systems, which, if we read our Bibles carefully, does not counsel sitting back and being passive, but being alert and doing what we may for good stewardship of planet, resources, sharing and ensuring everyone has the basics for life and everything treated humanely. It is ERTA's view that local to global, so comes down to what we do in our own backyards. Will you be a part of the answer? This is your chance!
.png)
18-12-2022 Updated and more detailed diagram!
Here is, following feedback, our submission for our ERTA preferred route option for rails east of Bedford via St John's area. Not the final word, but more detail than East-West Rail have given on their Northern Route E, which apart from a line on a map, has given us no technical breakdown detail whatsoever. Really, both route options should be worked up to a full specification with a local referendum to decide once and for all and start building it to challenge growing traffic on widening roads along the Oxbridge corridor principally via A428 and A421 for example. Rail is essential going forward and in Climate Emergency lineages, time is not on our side to get these rail-based modal choices sorted and cut emissions and associated 'bads' on the back whilst keeping the wheels turning more sustainably! We welcome support, we are not nIMBY's, we are constructively seeking to engage via our limited resources - human, skill and financial. Steep gradients and long, heavy freight does not go well, our route is on flat land and half of which was formerly the direct Bedford-Cambridge rail corridor. ORR and Government needs to adopt a more flexible and versatile approach to rail. Level Crossings aren't popular, but often is road tresspass rather than poor maintenace, likewise bridges get bashed and are not panaceas. There needs to be room for negotiation, pragmatism and keeping costs down.
01-11-2022
I make no apology for a lion's share of an article I wrote end of August/beginning of September. Since then of course we've had 2 more Secretary of State for Transport and that latest one RT Hon Mark Harper MP remains unknown. An accountant with Jeremy Hunt as Chancellor and Rishi Sunak as PM, money, money, money seems to be their whole world and obsession. Pragmatically money matters, but if we value life at all and things beyond the mundane, then there's more to life than mere money and other values like people, communities, the environment and quality of life issues should also matter. We've gone down a path where commodification of life and privatisation for profit, still wants us to believe it offers the best prospect for value for money and service ethos with a smile. The jury is out surely. For my money, I can see some things the private sector can do admirably, others the public sector and to mix and match the two, can come unstuck.
On East-West Rail the Mayor extolls the benefits, but then insists on Northern Route E, i.e. north of Bedford. Doesn't want houses knocked down, so cramming passenger and freight extras to the existing slow lines is being insisted on as 'do able'. Our route, east of Bedford via St John's is put before these audiences and we would welcome them to pick up the phone, liaise and work at finding solutions to problems, demand it is worked up and the two route options put before the public maybe in a local referendum. It is such a crucial matter, worth getting it right. Northern Route E will have such steep gradients and demand things like pylons are relocated, our route, whilst not without challenges, is where campaigning can prove itself, not us, but bigger fry like councils, consortiums and companies working together, having appreciated the benefits our route offers: a. flatter, b. less distance, c. probably cheaper, d. yet to identify any houses to be demolished with it and e. links East Bedfordshire with the County Town and vice versa, having recently lost the No. 73 Biggleswade-Sandy Bus link after 100 years (formerly the 176). Likewise, and note this, Route E does not offer any east-north interfacing for freight to/from the Midland Main Line North, nor do any other north-south lines being Bletchley, Bicester and Oxford. Our route does offer that as well as allowing east-west freight to bypass the busy Bedford Midland Interchange. Bedford-Northampton bus is cut back to mainly terminating at Turvey, disenfranchising Olney and onwards to Northampton. So for end-to-end commuting between these big towns, apart from the need to bypass Olney (rail), studies prior showed it would do end-to-end in 35 minutes as a Thameslink sort of operation and crucially with rails from the east via our route, takes freight to Northampton for depots and onwards to West Coast Main Line. That in turn frees up routes into, across and out of London and indeed capacity at Peterborough for example. Northern Route E makes no provision for this and is a load of cost for a straightjacket return.
Foundationally, the Government needs to switch from new roads to local rail solutions in budgetary terms. It needs to have a nationwide plan and get on with it now year-on-year. Instead of sitting on the fence to put it politely, favouring new roads is even more accurate as a description, which sends all the wrong signals.
ERTA will continue to try and get its message across, but as ever from education to proof of the pudding in the eating, delivery is still the only goal which informs more modal shift from road to rail. Thank you. Our newsletter is now out and anyone wanting a free pdf copy can send email requests to richard.erta@gmail.com
At last there seems a groundswell of movement to actually taking a consultation around rail links east of Bedford to the places affected:
But what ERTA would like, is for our route options on east of Bedford to be worked up and the two options set before the public once and for all so that post Public Inquiry, we can get on with a rail alternative that adds up and is cost effective, not steep gradients, but on flat former rail alignment (for part). Problems to be overcome and worked on, finding innovative solutions like Cardington Road, Priory Level Crossing and much more, not straightjacketed rigmarole based on flimsy evidence it is a lack of maintenance that endangers level crossing usage, but public need for an education programme. It needs a more pragmatic approach of what fits a given scenario and landscape. Why should a local rail solution be held back by a dogmatic insistence that bridges and tunnels or bust for rail?
There's always more, email if you wish to discuss. May I clarify we do not want to reopen the old St John's Station as one of my colleagues mistakenly said, but use the land for putting the railway back for a triangle and a railway east of Bedford.
Our appeal to Cllr Headley, Mayor Dave Hodgson, East West Rail Company and other promoting outlets and partnerships to talk with ERTA more. Big business is backing the IDEA of a rail link, but what we need is a comparative analysis of fine detai and get the process of formal consultation, Public Inquiry and outcome to be sorted by the end of 2023. Doing projects like this for decades - 35 years I've been involved and counting! - rather than say a 5 year or bust cut off deadline, means the potential to drag on. Now, if ever, we do not have that luxury. Development is happening and critical lands are being compromised. Unless we sort this sorry tale out asap, access and lands to link with the East Coast Main Line (ECML) in and around the Tempsford area, will be lost. That is like a business doing fish and chips saying "sorry we only do fish!" Optimal links for optimal use makes more business sense and public benefit by better and more sustainable transport options? So options need to be kept open.
Meanwhile, getting the government to say 'yes' to the proposed rail bypass at Ely to enable more freight by rail, would be a winner and should be supported by all. Thus, it is our view that were Ely to have a direct link to the south off Ipswich and Norwich lines, and link to our proposed route for East-West at the ECML Tempsford area, which is code for 'south of St Neots, north of Sandy'; then Cambridge would only be for passenger use mainly. Again, both options should be worked up and put before the public. There will always be NIMBY objection whatever route/s are put before the public, always some interest or not; but for my view, speed is not everything, any railway will beat the unadulterated traffic congestion on east-west roads and junctions, so even at a minimum of 25 mph, you will get to Cambridge as a nodal point of regional reference and links to other lines, quicker than road. Dualling the A428 Black Cat Roundabout - Caxton, still leaves the fact urban roads are gridlocked now, more traffic for more volume capacity facilitation, will result in compounding a bad situation, not making it better.
Politicians love the photo opportunity to cut ribbons. But we need to be more selective. What really matters? If we save that piece of land for conservation, but ignore masses of lands where hedgerows are cut to minimum, where topsoil erosion for want of trees and other foliage is rife and where birds have nothing to eat because production and chemical spraying takes precedent, are we really being 'green' or green-washing?
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
