Update at 07-08-23
Dear All,
I email now to share that we wanted a different route to the Northern Route E idea. We wish they were worked up together and see what saves money, what is flatter and less distance and gradient and what makes getting over A1, two rivers and entering current flood plain south-westerly of Station Road, Tempsford or (in your route case) north-westerly towards north of Tempsford.
In any case (see attached) we believe physical rail arms would optimise market share and versatility of routes and people and goods operations via the East-West Rail which we do support in principle and notwithstanding our reservations on routes.
Our junction rather than a station idea makes rail more competitive as people north of Stevenage, south of Peterborough and East Bedfordshire can alight at a station near their home and commute/travel east or west direct to Bedford, Oxford corridor and/or eastwards to Addenbrookes Hospital, Cambridge and beyond and vice versa as well as the direct Oxford-Cambridge end-to-end pattern.
Given Whitehall has thrown development to allow the railway at it, beit 44, 000 houses, 300 or 144, 000 in various parts east of Bedford/west of Cambridge; unless the open land as is now has those physical links built-in, the opportunity will be lost in coming years due to non-rail development.
Are people in let's say Sandy or St Neots going to await a ECML local train, change at the proposed Tempsford Station and await another east-west train to get to Bedford or Cambridge at cost and time, when a bus or car can do it in less time-cost and save hanging about? Our idea means Sandy-Bedford by rail direct within 15 minutes, beating any problems or delays or cost-time issues. What is not to like and prefer?
Happy to discuss if a window can be available for you and your good offices to genuinely appraise the pros and cost and costs and the costs on and off the rails if you don't have physical rail connectivity in the Tempsford area?
I attach our recent newsletter, our diagram and another scheme diagram which could also feed to the A43 rail alternative of Northampton-East-West Rail - Oxford and vice versa.
There is no west-north curve from the east to existing radial north-south main lines and our route idea gives that option as well as non MML trains to avoid the Bedford Midland 'box' via a reinstated junction at St John's.
If the Government found £10 billion, not £5 billion you could at this point have both routes! But for Southampton-ECML north-east to/from and vice versa, you need a physical link from the west to the ECML, otherwise it does not work. Huntingdon-Cambridge South for Addenbrookes, avoids driving and Cambridge Cities chronic congestion, so make a load of pragmatic sense, if traffic choice and reduction with associated benefits is what the goal is?
I am open to discuss and work with anyone, if real mileage can be forthcoming. What we don't want is double-glazing hard-sell that existing arrangements with 000's of new developments is adequate, I don't believe it is, sadly.
To oppose the rail link is daft given the rapid increases in east-west traffic and nil rail choice in the same axis and areas of growth. However, some fine-tuning is required and if, like Crossrail and HS2 costs rise, you have to pit 60 houses and Ravensden to how many properties needed to be relocated via the old route, albeit they cost more and are des-res? Upheaval has to be balanced, but the lessons for elsewhere in planning and governmental terms (with compensation?) should be a. protect old rail corridors/realignment spaces and b. study a proposition first before dismissing it out of hand - gets out of route protection as 'no need' - when lo, there is! Not least, such prudence and providence can save money and give modal shift a choice and chance back to rail more x nationwide in scope as well as specific local schemes like Northampton-Market Harborough and Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham ERTA supports. We'd do more if we had more resources - human and financial and membership is available to all via our website: https://ertarail.co.
Glossary for non rail people: ECML = East Coast Main Line between Kings Cross-Sandy-Leeds and York for example. Midland Main Line (MML) runs north-south from St Pancras to Leicester and beyond and vice versa. WCML is West Coast Main Line (Euston-Birmingham, Crewe and Manchester) for example. Newsletter not included in this email. Copies available via this email or retro on our website page: https://ertarail.co.uk/
Yours sincerely,
Richard Pill
ERTA CEO
.png)
The battle for Tempsford – ERTA appeals to Government and scheme promoters to think again!
ERTA wants a physically joined-up rail linkage between East-West Rail and the existing principal north-south main line slow lines of the East Coast Main Line (ECML) in the Tempsford area rather than as proposed, a segregated station without physical linking rail arms for multiple benefits and optimal market reach and ranges.
ERTA is against 44, 000 houses* being dumped in a green field site, north and south of Station Road, Tempsford, which will require significant social infrastructure akin to a new town development. We are not NIMBY objectors seeking to de-rail the rail link scheme, but notwithstanding we have a preferred route east of Bedford via St John’s and approaching Tempsford from a south-westerly direction, our call for physical rail linkage stands in its own right. * from above: https://www.bbc.co.uk/
Richard Pill CEO ERTA said “It is crucial the new railway has physical linkage for south of Peterborough, north of Stevenage and East Bedfordshire to get on a train where they live and travel direct to Bedford or Cambridge without changing. Who wants to change in the middle of nowhere and await another train, when car, bus and our rail ideas offer seamless journey access, saving time and cost?”
ERTA calls on the promoters of the new east-west railway and Government to think again and accommodate the physical rail linkage as per our diagram suggests which needs working up if so interested. Once the development happens, the curtain comes down on available land and scuppers the option we are suggesting, locking in a less-than optimal situation.
On the link between Milton Keynes and Aylesbury for South Bucks scope, the following news has been communicated as well:
'Greg Smith MP for Buckingham raised the issue of the Aylesbury Link in the Transport select Committee.
Welcomed funding in Spring Budget for current work on EWR.
Is DfT confident it has funding for next stages of EWR?
Does DfT see the Aylesbury spur as part of EWR?
Huw Merriman, Rail Minister:
Funding for Phase2 and 3 to Cambridge is £4b-6b. Current Phase ( to Bletchley) £1.3b.
Economic benefits are £103b are high return.
Treasury is committed to EWR as sees the economic benefits to UK.
Aylesbury Spur is not in current delivery scope but as an existing line with some enhancements part of HS2, it is to be hoped that the case will become apparent in the future.
He is committed to it (?DfT) and feels that once EWR is operating, a case may be made as has happened with other rail re-opening schemes.
Issues over HS2 disruption were again raised including HS2 working on unauthorised land at Elm Tree farm at Steeple Claydon 2am and roads not being built to standards.
End.
Thanks for listening. Please give us your support and contact Department of Transport, your local MP and demand these physical rail links are considered properly and factored in, with any development off the tracks being tailored and properly designed with facilities like hospitals, schools and so forth, not just dumped in the middle of nowhere overloading existing facilities and ruining the green and pleasant land used for food production. We need the railway for connectivity and modal choice to land-guzzling road development, piling up congestion in urban and junc
tion interfaces.
Useful link: https://members.
Demand our alternative route which is probably cheaper, be worked up and assessed for expediency to gain the railway but reduce the pain of the Northern Route.
Our rough sketch of what we would prefer at Tempsford:
This is what we would prefer at Tempsford north or south of Station Road, not 44, 000 houses in the middle of nowhere, on a flood plain and without social infrastructure? History repeating itself with the mistakes of Sandy?! Join our email loop: richard.erta@gmail.com It is free and without obligation, although we love it when people join and offer to help as reliable, assisting volunteers.
Update at 27-05-2023
Our route would not require 60 houses be demolished and bureaucracy like level crossings being given special dispensation across Cardington Road and at Priory Marina entrance, would result in a mere 5 minutes delay, but the benefit would be a railway direct, on flat ground, linking Bedford with East Coast Main Line (ECML), Cambridge and East Anglia and those audiences to Bedford and the Oxford corridor.
I also enclose our statement on our preferred route. It is no panacea, cost is always with us x whatever route is chosen. We want a Bedford-Northampton 'new build' rail link as well for Cambridge-Northampton South Midlands to get people and goods off roads through choice, saving land and making for a better and more sustainable urban and rural landscape. Whilst a railway has to be better than no railway, none-the-less we need amendments to the east-west rail design, to ensure proper links. Our route would enable freight from east to north at Bedford, the Northern Route E does not allow such a linkage. It is really a segregational design and needs to be more integrational.
A dossier breakdown is available free as a pdf doc via email richard.erta@gmail.com
Also: https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/breaking-news-east-west-rail-corridor-announced/ and https://eastwestrail.co.uk/routeupdate
Our Press Release:
27 May 2023Press Release
ERTA ‘disappointed’ on the designs and route for an east-west rail link Bedford-Cambridge and calls on Government for a rethink with a Plan B route ERTA has long suggested.
ERTA is ‘disappointed’ that more-or-less Northern Route E has been selected. There’s been a failure to properly compare and contrast with our suggested alternative route using part of the traditional rail route. Key issues are:
· The proposed route requires 60 houses be demolished, yet less than that at Blunham and north of Sandy was dismissed!
· Our route requires very few properties be demolished or moved. Mostly extended back gardens
· The new route fails to have arms to link with the north-south main line at Tempsford which curtails through-train (passenger AND new freight) south of Peterborough, North of Stevenage and East Bedfordshire likewise a south to east arm would enable direct Huntingdon and St Neots to Addenbrookes (Cambridge South) reducing a need to drive.
Richard Pill, CEO ERTA and Media Spokesperson said “These physical rail arms to the main line at Tempsford would increase the scope of the railway. I think people are far more likely to use it if they can board a train where they live and travel direct to Bedford, a County Town, and the Oxford corridor for a variety of purposes and vice versa. They will not want the delay and hassle of changing at Tempsford to a segregated station in the middle of nowhere. Lands will probably be developed and that locks-in a lack of wriggle room.”
ERTA has put forward its own alternative rail link route between Bedford and Tempsford via the old St John’s site.
End of Press Release
Further contact and comment: Mr Richard Pill T. 01234 330090 /
Mobile: 07752096392 E. richard.erta@gmail.com
An anouncement of new Bedford-Cambridge route by Government due to take place this month we are told, exactly what date as yet unknown, but watch this space. The East West Rail Company seem to have set their hearts on Northern Route E and numerous parties including ERTA will doubtless object. ERTA wants a rail link east of #Bedford via St John's. No route is a panacea and there's pros and cons, winners and losers whichever rail route. Do we need the railway at all? Often asked question by many who tend to drive everywhere and rely on cheap fuel. But the strategic weakness is that there's no east-west rail link for 100 miles of the North London Lines and that means all into and out of East Anglia for a wide gap, has no choice but to go by road. Over last 3 decades bypasses, dualling and road expansion has happened and traffic has grown to fill that capacity. They deliver to urban cordons, but then the urban roadscape cannot deal with the volume and congestion happens. That causes delay, that proliferates pollution and side-effections which are dysfunctional and adds costs we have to pay for. The rail link would give choice, enable genuine overall traffic reductions - people and goods - and save land which we need to do. If you support our route idea and want a rail link, why not join ERTA and give us your support. It is one thing to say what we do not want, another to put a Plan B in its place so we offer something now and for successive generations. To support us, you can join ERTA as a member and offer to help as part of a team: https://ertarail.co.uk/ and join our free email loop via requests to richard.erta@gmail.com
.JPG)
