Development galore, but no rails east of Bedford?! Object to development threatening the rail link option?

27-10-2025

re: https://www.constructionenquirer.com/2025/10/27/700m-east-west-rail-tender-race-set-to-hit-the-tracks/

Probably the Northern Route not ours! 

People have been wanted and told, but 1000 houses west of Willington kills off our route through or bypassing Willington in access terms for our rail link. It defaults to Northern route, here is a committed statement of intent. No rail link is not an option surely, but a more championing and leadership for our route, could have and may make a difference, but is anyone concerned or interested beyond extolling Oxbridge Arc development credentials on Linked In and letting the new road links clog up the urban cordons more with ill-public-health as a side effect?

Our call is for people to object to the Willington development and argue with us for our route to be included in any future consultations prior for the route set in stone?

The ironic twist is that from 1987-1997 Local Authorities at Bedford told us 'the route is blocked' and 'there's no case to justify outlay'. So 20 houses max is pitted against 60 houses in Poets Area of Bedford, let alone beyond the Bedford urban cordons?

Please give us support and help for Bedford's sake. 

More links and information via our website: https://brtarail.com/ewrail/

blogspot: https://brtarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/ Please scroll down. Thank you.

Update 23-10-25:

re: https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/letters-bfare-calls-on-residents-to-challenge-ewr-co-at-upcoming-public-meeting/

BRTA wants a rail link between Bedford and Cambridge, NIMBYs do not! Please engage for a railway, 'east of Bedford St John's' and object to 1000 houses blocking the old rail route proposed at west of Willington, Bedford and that a route to Tempsford is retained for a railway as new-town 40, 000 homes proposed and minimal if any infrastructure beyond bog standard Section 106 - East Beds will be approaching 100, 000 population by 2040 and so an A&E Hospital will be required, water and sewerage alongside schools, community centres, shopping and bus links. Some carry on as 'business as usual' with order on-line or commute into Sandy as the default or St Neots!

I do my desktop mailing to alert and did send an objection in to the Willington threat, but was blocked by the Council, albeit Customer Services said they would pass it on, but have heard nothing from anyone and phones not being answered despite selecting the Planning Department. It is a shocking shambles and our democracy is poorer for its cynical approach when so much is at stake.

So, please read our Blogspot (scroll down): https://brtarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/ and help make a difference! Thank you.

On another track, Northampton Station non-rail development deferred, but Ransome Road development, jeopardising reopenings to Peterborough and Bedford for Universal, are compromised, not on top, but who wants rumbling trains at the bottom of their gardens or pollution and noise from gridlocked congestion, locked in?! Very few, but as the old song went "not for nothing are we losing in the fight!" but at least we try and voice for the benefit of all if we succeed. Cowley Branch in Oxford reopening, Witney has a good case, but no money, and the government flags up Oxbridge arc growth corridor, but puts carts before horses by imminent developments without imminent rail links?! It does not add up, it needs to join up! Join our free email loop/enquiries welcome via info@brtarail.com

18-10-25 news:

British Regional Transport Association (BRTA)

~ A voluntary association seeking more 

and better public transport and environment for all. ~

If you want…
Ø  Support for East-West Rail (get the route right!), Stations North of Bedford (Oakley and Sharnbrook), a new station on the Bedford-Bletchley Railway for the Retail Park Kempston, Bedford-Bletchley Railway Upgrades, Universal Theme Park Rail Access, and implications/opportunities better considered and Better Buses...
Ø Then act now! Email/contact the following in support of them:
Ø Mohammad Yasin MP for Bedford and Kempston Constituency: https://mohammadyasin.org/#contactlink office@mohammadyasin.org 01234 346525
Ø Richard Fuller MP North Bedfordshire Constituency: https://www.richardfuller.co.uk/ richard.fuller.mp@parliament.uk
0207 219 8602  
Ø Cllr Tom Wootton, Elected Mayor of Bedford: https://www.bedford.gov.uk/your-council/councillors-and-senior-staff/mayor-bedford-borough  MayorsCasework@bedford.gov.uk
01234 718840
For more information about BRTA, see our website: https://brtarail.com/events/ and for a good read: https://brtarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/

BRTA seeks more reliable volunteers: Ø Someone to assist the CEO Ø Someone to double up on seeking and manning stalls Ø Someone to help research and apply for grants Ø Someone to compile business cases Ø General assistants in the Bedford area or with a wider geographical flexible spread and presence. Email Richard Pill info@brtarail.com for more information.

BRTA Bedford Area Forum meeting: Wednesday 18 February 2026 upstairs at the Costa Coffee, 20 Silver Street, Bedford, MK40 1SU at 12pm food and 1-3pm business. Email ceo@brtarail.com for numbers. Everyone buys their own food and drink. We tend to discuss local rail, bus and how we respond together to them and organise volunteers to help with projects, getting our message across and recruitment potential. BRTA is voluntary and welcomes donations of money and time.

 Membership of BRTA is as follows:

Family Membership £25 o_____

Ordinary Member (Individual) £15 o_____

Corporate Members (Business/Organisations) £50 o_____

Concessionary Membership (Any kind of Welfare/Disability) £10 o_____

 Students £5 o_____

Please send completed forms, payments, and donations to
BRTA Membership and Finance: BRTA, Mr David J. Start,
2 Leigh Road, Hildenborough, Tonbridge, Kent, TN11 9AB Mr David J. Start T. 07535 641055 E: davidjstart63@gmail.com  
Membership Payment can also be done on-line via our website: https://brtarail.com/become-a-member/
Bank Details are Sort Code: 40-45-27 Account Number: 92086808 Please help and enable all of us with YOU to make a difference!

16-10-25 Update - please wade in and object in support of having a rail link east of Bedford please. Enquiries info@brtarail.com

re: 25/01839/EIASCP Environmental Scoping Request Application

Re:  Land to the North of Bedford Road, Willington Bedfordshire

On behalf of the Bedfordshire Regional Transport Association (BRTA) and as BRTA Bedford Area Rep, I wish to object to this development principally:

1. It could block the former Bedford-Sandy/Cambridge course of the old railway and make reopening more difficult. This route and variation east of it (avoiding Willington or recovering the former route and relocation of some leisure outlets and back extended gardens for example unless it is bypassed) was studied in Report issued by Bedford Borough Council; please see and scroll down webpage: https://brtarail.com/ewrail/

2. We want the corridor kept 'open' for a new rail link east of Bedford via St John's as it would require less demolitions and we wish to keep it open, as opposed to the Northern Route E which wants 60 houses demolished at least.

3. This rail link corridor is flatter and more versatile than Northern Route Route E albeit certain technical issues need leadership, champions and lobbying to ensure dispensations on infrastructure like a level crossing where a bridge over the railway is not feasible due to adjacent New Cut water course at Priory for example would deter a railway.

4. The development itself at 2.5 cars per average household, next or on a flooding area perennially adds to problems down stream on the River Great Ouse and congestion on the busy A603 combining with all other traffic into Bedford and vice versa (Bedford Midland and Wixams emergent being the principal rail access for things like commuting, airport access and leisure travel by rail), means that this location should put the railway first and tailor access and development where responsibly opportune. 

5. The former Willington Rowing Lake was found, I recall, to court development to pay for it and facilities courting 500 houses, tagged onto Willington, now this development is more than double that annexes the village to urban cordons.

This is not our final word on the matter, but if this and similar developments along this corridor go ahead, it means Northern Route for East West Rail East of Bedford or a possible southern route which avoids the town and principal Bedford Midland Interchange Railway Station completely, Bedford losing footfall, spend and visitorship/social capital banking on the range of outlets the town has to offer (need I expand?).

Please loop me in on progress and end date of objections, representations and updates generally. 

https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/major-development-submitted-for-1000-homes-at-bedford-river-valley-park/

10-10-25:

Going, going, gone! That is the stark reality for our rail link east of Bedford via St John's if development sprawl is allowed to block and savage the former Bedford-Cambridge rail route towards Willington.

The reality is no constructive and inclusive of us comparative study has been done on which route Northern Route bE or our preferred route or indeed going via Sandy with a south-of new-build south of Potton and Gamlingay and linking to the Hitchin-Royston rail link near Addenbrooke's new station (Cambridge South) would require less houses being demolished than Northern Route E which comes in at least 60 houses, albeit not as expensive ones as at say Blunham for example (realignment may be possible) - no evaluation was done, only whittling down a maverick 33 routes to a top 5 (none of which in 2019 included the old rail route with amendments as an option for the public and £10 million was paid for this botched consultation job to present routes alien to the people of Bedford.

Please wade in an object to the development west of Willington - all details are on our Blogspot (scroll down).

Thank you. BRTA will state its position, but if our route goes and Northern Route E is deeply unpopular, then bypassing Bedford or the unacceptable spectacle of Cambridge and East Anglia being disenfranchised from the Oxbridge Arc core rail-based transport infrastructure, undermining any claims of inclusion or sustainability.

Time is running out and a lack of joined-up Government signals makes us despair rather than hope that Big Brother really knows what it is doing.

BRTA CEO

https://brtarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/ and https://brtarail.com/ewrail/ and to email your local MP: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?sort=1

09-10-2025:

re: https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/major-development-submitted-for-1000-homes-at-bedford-river-valley-park/

Ref: The reference number from Bedford Borough Council for the application to the Land to the North of Bedford Road Willington is 25/01839/EIASCP

This and https://committees.parliament.uk/writtenevidence/141291/html/ Leave much to be desired:

Development at Tempsford without infrastructure like new A&E Hospital, sewage works and an east-west rail link, will be unsustainable. Biggleswade, Potton, Sandy and now Tempsford will bloat and harmogenise to a big urban new town area exceeding 100, 000 people in a very short space of time. That is land take and unless we set aside land for a rail link for example as well as the usual bog standard Section 106 (school, shop and community centre for example) where will the railway go? This is not being thought through cohesively, it is just a development dumping ground like Wixams, to fulfill quotient housing stats - yes a real need, but communities need other things beyond mere 'estate' development.

Likewise, west of Willington blocks our rail route and access, lacks facilities, puts a strain on the A603 into Bedford and parking/existing railway station for commuting and with the precarious and controversial Northern East-West Rail Route in jeopardy/opposed by the Conservatives and everyone else (consensus at last! But for all the wrong reasons!); the default is either an orbital rail route that disenfranchises people and does not serve the town centre of Bedford, resuscitating through footfall and spend, the heartlands of the town and what it has to offer - many hidden gems!

I have spent myself trying to reach out to politicians.

The rail link lacks champions, any kind of visible leadership, direction and timescales of implementation are hard to come by. Loads of unsuited people on the board, loads of secrecy and a lack of transparency, accountability and democracy, cripples proper integrated nurturing and trust. 

Our rail route is available now but it is an 11th hour situation. There's a whiff of a lack of faith, vision and sense of direction. Public majoritively want a rail link; but local government has failed the people through dithering, other agendas and pontifications on routes than rail links. 

I just wonder if any audit was ever done on how many houses and at what cost comparatively would be lost were the old route to be pursued and new linkages near Shepreth Junction (new linkage rather than Trumpington Junction) at the Cambridge end as East-West proposed to get people to Addenbrookes for example contrast the Northern Route? The old route blockages are most expensive houses than northern route, but I am still unclear about beyond Bedford urban cordon like Ravensden - will any demolitions be happening there or all in tunnel?

BRTA encourages the public who want a rail link to:

1. Join BRTA and offer to help, organise and get involved for the rail link we wish for: https://brtarail.com/become-a-member/ Donate time and money, this is a last throw of the proverbial dice and this is our town and its future gain or disablement!

2. Email your local MP about these local-regional-national matters: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?sort=1 

Government purports to be behind it all, where is the leadership and timescale of means and ways for implementation? They have yet to deliver the long promised passenger service between Oxford and Milton Keynes/Bedford nor the missing Aylesbury rail link, bringing South Buckinghamshire and links with Heathrow and Old Oak Common to the frame?

Unless there's action, discourse and leadership on Bedford-Cambridge rail link, it will be lost within a decade to us with great injury to the local Bedford scene. Politicians and Government have only themselves to blame, the people have spoken and we have held out to all who will work with us: https://brtarail.com/ewrail/

If one says one is 'green' but fails to support this rail link as foundational to underpinning all greenery beyond airbrushing and petty planting whilst macro developments sweep away habitat, food production lands and congestion proliferates with pollution, making water courses, public and wildlife sick; it begs whether such claims are worth of being called 'green', rather tepid at best and in denial at worse! This is decision and crunch time: 

https://www.cieh.org/ehn/environmental-protection/2024/july/road-runoff-is-a-toxic-cocktail-polluting-uk-waterways/

If we but go through motions and fail to deliver cleaner choices in a timely manner including mandating every council and agency to sign up to a Traffic Reduction Strategy (TRS) per area/region, with rail more for modal shift as a part of that; credulity is rightly to be questioned and whether we are better off without such outlets if they are failing the people, nation and planet we all rely on for basics and dailies?

BRTA is playing its part, but would welcome more engagement from all shades and the public getting behind rail alternatives more please.

re: https://www.bedfordindependent.co.uk/major-development-submitted-for-1000-homes-at-bedford-river-valley-park/

At the turn of the century, it was a rowing lake, which was found only viable if 500 houses were built. The project was certainly a clash, but also a blocking tactic too. Now this development which on a flood plain offers no rail link, blocks our rail route and locks-in either Northern Route, Southern route (avoids Bedford) or no route for a rail link. 

Local councils have had decades to sort a route out, we and our predecessors have lobbied and been up and down hill on routes and met protracted vested interests and misconceptions on the benefits of rail, running scared of any financial risk and liability, when in fact the railway would bring flows of sustainable revenue to the heart of the County Town and surrounding areas. 

Please email your MP's and join us in calling for local champions for our rail route and tailor development around rail corridors, not on top of them. Cycleway can be slewed with a fence between it and a railway. Speed is not everything, a local railway can beat congestion and deliver hundreds of people to what an area has to offer.

Please wade in! Trackbeds for reopening chiefly! We need your help!

re: https://yorkmix.com/old-dales-railway-line-route-to-be-turned-into-a-cycle-path-despite-opposition/

​Ruth Annieson is a long term campaigner like me and knows a thing or two. 

My experience is old routes mooted for other uses on the grounds of protection, often court beit cycle use, walkways, guided busways canals or preservation, then turn from that when reopening is advocated to become blockages and objector-campaigns orchestrated against the rail-way. 

One to watch and others in such wakes across the nation... Has Railfuture got a view I wonder? 

Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham-Shoreham another example, Northampton-MH for Leicester, Bedford-ECML via Sandy, South West Launceston too? Whichever organisation seeks to be the No.1 'pro-rail AA' needs to get the vision, find means and ways grassroots and top-down (power) and turn things around as with the push nationwide for development without proper safeguards and tailoring required. 

It makes old rail routes and indeed corridors for realignment, re-building, deviations and new pieces of build of local rail - that much harder or gone for good. 

So, this is an 11th hour in many cases, only campaigning can turn it around, but BRTA is too small, thin on the ground and so more money and members who double up as volunteers is needed. 

That is a priority for the Executive Committee, but can Area Reps keep me as Campaigns Coordinator abreast on such examples, maybe do a list and feed it back. 

If you want me to highlight stuff externally, let me know. If the M&GN, MS&JR, Woodhead and Great Central had of been protected, our job would be easier now. 

Diminishing windows, diminution of natural resources other than oil sending costs up all translates and Business Cases with complicated equatorial maths seems out of reach to us and a job for a dedicated person/s. 

What gives x what takes = 'it' my old NR friend used to say, but greater or lesser is the challenge now and that translates to the extent or limits of modal shift back to rail. 

Urban LRT and include LRT Freight too, rural (Borders Local Rail example) and on the question of preservation to community rail to full blown reopening for regular passenger, freight and innovation to optimise revenues is a catchment we need to work on. 

When I say 'we', that means all who share this vision. Emissions cannot really come down without such a nationwide joined up programme. But strangely it requires grassroots upwards and top-down Government tiers lending power, resource switching to rail and PLANNING to tailor and ensure the infrastructure is commensurate to the development push now 'on'. 

Join and donate to BRTA if you share that vision! Thank you.

https://brtarail.com/become-a-member/

Yorkshire National Park Strikes Back! BUt will the railway if pursued for reopening be given priority? Email your MP and demand it is:

Thank you for your email.  The report you highlight was presented to the National Park Authority yesterday and approved.  Members did raise the issue of the how any new multi-use route might affect the future re-instatement of the Upper Wensleydale railway.

 

In terms of addressing the points you raise:

 

1. We are in regular contact with local railway campaign groups, such as Upper Wensleydale Railway, to update them on our plans.  I understand that group members are broadly supportive of the proposed multi-use route, with assurance from the Authority (both in terms of Local Plan policies and an additional recommendation to the Authority report presented yesterday) that it ensures the development of the Garsdale – Hawes multi-use route will not compromise any future opportunity for railway reinstatement.

 

2. In terms of a cycleway-walkway alongside the railway – this option was considered as part of a feasibility study carried out in 2020.  This concluded that the former Hawes branch railway line infrastructure would not be able to accommodate both.

 

I trust these answers are helpful and offer some re-assurance that the Authority understands your and others concerns regarding the Upper Wensleydale railway.  If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to get back in touch.

 

Yours sincerely

Elliott Lorimer

 

 

Elliott Lorimer Director of Park Services Direct line: 01969 652365 Mobile: 07818 048772

Here's a taste of what happens when we lose trackbed and settle for second best: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10286668 Guided Busways are not as versatile as conventional, local railways which connect to and from a nationwide network, bringing in footfall and spend in a sustainable manner. https://www.gosport.gov.uk/article/2829/Regenerating-Gosport-s-Waterfront Many called for reopening the rail link, now too late?! Sadly, the model repeats. Daft some may call it, but tragic when rail delivers both versatility, masse footfall and spend to regenerate places and the possibility alive of more freight by rail great and small - let your area be wiser!

Northern Update of a similar vein:

re: https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/local-news/stop-tinkering-pleasantries-like-peak-10527445?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1758812259

Derby-Manchester direct, North West-East Midlands direct, rail alternative access to a National Park and modal choices for modal shift - why not slew the cycle path and walk way for the railway inclusion agenda?

Please give it your support by emailing your MP: 

https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?sort=1

Maybe email the media outlet carrying the story. The pro rail organisation is doing their best, but if you think you can add to the case for the railway, please feel free to support them, wade in and take a lead x plethora other similar cases x nationwide and by 'nationwide' we are dealing with England, Scotland and Wales!

If you want us to consider highlighting rail agendas nearer to where you live, then get involved, join, campaign and make the news. That is how BRTA works.

Join our free email loop via info@brtarail.com

re: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce3yk284d2yo

It is my belief that it is far better to reinstate the railway and make the Wensleydale Railway as a through-route for passenger and freight potential. 

A cycleway-walkway could go alongside with suitable fencing surely? It does not have to go on the trackbed itself? 

The view that a walkway-cycleway will protect the route is a falsity in my experience as numerous examples like Bedford-Sandy, Northampton-MH and elsewhere like Monsal Trail, the users turn and become objectors to rail reinstatements? Please wade in as individuals and encourage others likewise if you agree with the above.

Maybe in an ideal world, Northallerton-Garsdale could inform through passenger and freight by rail, linking ECML and WCML on a North Westerly to South Easterly and vice versa axis. That may inform more capacity for more by rail, which would be gain. Could whoever does it, sell paths or auction paths for customers to buy into the scheme? GBR without capability or ambition but laying waste these rare rail examples, is a blunt instrument unless it is pushed by government of any tier?

It is interesting to note the Settle-Carlisle including Garsdale, was threatened with closure and now is being used heavily by passenger and freight because of its through potential and makes one ponder what other closed lines as 'uneconomic' were closed which today would be really useful railways? Maybe an audit should be done matching potential versus practicalities on the ground to ascertain what could reasonably be done. 

Meanwhile Colne-Skipton is ready-to-go and yet, the Government seems to be promoting airport expansion (mainly in the South East) without improved and expanded rail infrastructure. That is bad, as more congestion in such wakes is the default outcome and that is dysfunctional and hinders good health and growth at one and the same time, but delays fuel inflation in all our pockets. 

What you can do:

1. Join BRTA and give us your support: https://brtarail.com/become-a-member/

2. Email your MP and support our calls: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?sort=1

Thank you.

Press Release - Government gives go-ahead for Gatwick expansion

How much is government taking into consideration this? https://www.ice.org.uk/news-views-insights/inside-infrastructure/how-can-the-uk-remain-a-global-leader-in-net-zero

re: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c9v7rz24z23o

Press Release

BRTA is increasingly concerned at the way the Government is making decisions about transport and planning without consideration of the wider impacts.

So far this government has given permission for expansion to Gatwick, Heathrow, Luton and Stansted and the latest Gatwick is located in the heated South East and all 4 airports carrying the connotation name 'London' before them. They are outside the M25! It bunches the pros and cons to a concentrated regional spread which is already heavily congestion prone, does not consider the side effects of that exacerbated congestion, which these expansion projects inform. The pollution informing ill-health, puts a strain on the NHS and Mental Health Services all inflating waiting lists and costs spiralling alongside erosion of the quality of life, loss of land and exacerbated development rather than inter-regional sharing and spread of development with more and better rail links.

On Gatwick, the British Regional Transport Association (BRTA) calls for government to consider, study and include investment in the following rail improvements and to address these airport expansion packages. They need to demand contributions and working up the business cases by the Department for Transport (DfT) themselves than demanding out-of-pocket from lay people who want more and better local rail solutions. Even when studies are done for the DfT to turn and say "no money" without negotiating developer contributions to match fund better outcomes for people, places, land use and the environment for example, is misplaced.

The Key Local Rail Projects BRTA wants is as follows:

1. Gatwick:

a. Reading-Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham-Three Bridges - Gatwick - just needs re-railing the Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham section for wider inter-regional access 'not via London'

b. Southern direct curves from both the North Downs Line and that of Tonbridge to Gatwick Airport for direct running to it and Brighton/South Coast and vice versa.

c. Upgrade and capacity enhancement of the existing London-Brighton Main Line with a complete rebuild and gauge enhancement to enable Holland-style Double Deck Trains to enable rail to carry more on this overcrowded and busy principal regional rail route.

2. Luton Airport:

a. Bay platform provision for an 8-coach train to run alternative hourly to Heathrow and Reading respectively via a reopened Dudding Hill North-West London rail route.

b. For a study and route for a new direct Luton-Milton Keynes rail access direct.

c. For a new Northampton-Bedford Thameslink new-build rail route for enabling the missing gap in a Brighton-Bedford-Birmingham local rail arc to be filled with through tracks.

d. A new rail link between Luton Airport Parkway and Stevenage enabling North Herts and Cambridge direct access to Luton and the Midland Main Line and vice versa.

3. Stansted Airport:

a. Extend the tracks to Stansted Airport to Colchester and Braintree respectively. Development is happening now, so saving land corridors for a rail alternative to roads only mayhem is required now - where good planning, land use and modal choice comes into its own.

b. A Lower Thames Crossing to be made rail-based linking Kent with Stansted and East Anglia by rail including Norwich-Canterbury-Channel Tunnel direct arcs and vice versa.

4. Heathrow:

a. For government to give the go ahead to the proposed Heathrow Southern rail link which should be extended to both Old Oak Common Interchange and link physically with the Chiltern Main Line for direct running and arcing between Milton Keynes/Aylesbury and Heathrow and onwards to Guildford, Portsmouth, Chichester, Shoreham and the South Coast and vice versa.

b. For business case studies and support for rebuilding the Guildford-Cranleigh-Horsham rail link which would like by rail direct Heathrow and Gatwick Airports - whereas currently there is no direct rail link and that gap means more road-based usage, congestion, fumes and pollution with often delays.

CEO Richard Pill says "These airport expansions need better radial rail access choices and tie in the issue of land use and development balances with what rail can offer like green corridors, balance and regeneration predicated on a sustainable platform. Alas, it is BRTA's view, there is a lack of joined-up-ness and appreciation of the imperative to improve rail access to these emergent centres of development and global portals. In any case, wider regional models of spreading the load and impact should also be considered with a plan to make reasonable rail access affordable and easier to engage with for modal shift in the national interest. Government must grasp this nettle to optimise the potential wider quality of life benefits. Otherwise, it will be mayhem and sweating of assets, which is dysfunctional."

End of Press Release 

Further contact: Richard Pill, BRTA CEO 01234 225068 or email ceo@brtarail.com

Website: https://brtarail.com/ and 

https://brtarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/

Government's Infrastructure Push? What about local rail infrastructure and capacity on existing lines?!

Is there a cohesive rail reopening plan in government?

re: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/crkjln80x21o.amp

1. Northampton-Leicester via MH gets goods to and from quicker

2. Even Oxford-Bedford-Midland Main Line, keeps growth impacts off main line capacity issues and avoids delays more.

3. Please email your MP about these matters: https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?sort=1

4. I am hard-pushed to find any take-up of the missing Aylesbury rail link - yet a vital link for all of South Buckinghamshire to link with Milton Keynes and Old Oak Common Interchange and all in between.

Yet more! At 28-09-25 but what about more local rail infrastructure and capacity enhancements? 

Please get onto this: 

Hereford - Ross-Gloucester rail corridor needs protecting and reopening: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/new-towns-taskforce-report-to-government/initial-government-response-september-2025

Thamesmead is getting Docklands apparently. 

Tempsford East-West Rail if lucky (!).

These places must be rail-served and if existing rails, to have capacity. 

Tempsford needs A&E Hospital as 10 miles either way to existing overused /lacking capacity Bedford, Cambridge (Addenbrookes), Lister (Stevenage) and Hinchingbrooke (Huntingdon). Combined populations of Biggleswade, Sandy, Potton and Tempsford will warrant such, but are any politicians like Richard Fuller MP 'aware', 'caring' and willing to gauge demand-supply?

Hope of interest.

MP's can be found via: 

https://members.parliament.uk/members/commons?sort=1

re: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6853c606df3015b374b73656/UK_Infrastructure_A_10_Year_Strategy_TEXT_PRINT.pdf

At a time of austerity and shortage purportedly of spend availability, government launches a discussion for more infrastructure! Yes, £9 billion found for Lower Thames Road Crossing, which BRTA believes would have better been spent on a rail-based solution even spawning an inland roll-on, roll-off option using rail as a main carrier and also revisiting a modern-day motor-rail train service for longer hauls. Instead our railways seem second or third in line for packing order of spend. 

Put £80+ billion for HS2 apart, it is to all intents and purposes a dedicated, segregated railway which avoids freight and only offers default capacity and won't get done for around 10 years hence. A great hypothecation!

Rail is made to be qualified with costly business cases which are out-of-pocket to many lay advocates of rail and industry is siloed so focuses rather than wider picture standing back of what we are trying to address and achieve beyond singular focuses, is lost to swathes of the industry and public alike?

Good to talk, but Government should provide leadership and direction and put all planning on a rail-based infrastructure from day one, with principle concerns and care for people, places, land use and the environment central to all departments and the National Infrastructure Commission - remember the water grid it touted, how much progress in the last 10 years and our recent long, dry, hot summer reminds us of how near we came to no water in some places? Can we afford to ignore it and likewise ignore the health costs of emissions and rubber tyres on hard surfaces infusing harmful particulates and of course polluted water going into water courses and land?

At a fish and chip supper recently, I spoke with a leader who agreed we need Leadership and Direction for a number of rail-based solutions. 

1. East-West Rail - lacks 'known' faced people heading it, a lack of hands-on, grassroots upwards connectivity and identifiable to key lay people; who is in charge and where the project is going. Drift rather than Dirft! Bedford-Cambridge, Northern Route deeply unpopular, our route lacks a champion muddied by ORR ruling against level crossings and special dispensations for reopenings where no other facility can be done e.g. Priory Marina entrance in Bedford. Outer routes are floated without much research or longevity of commitment translating to viable routes and comparatively our route 'east of Bedford via St John's' wins hands-down, but the Elected Mayor of Bedford is not exactly coming across as in favour of it per se and so a leadership and champion deficit exists. The inability to get Unions and Management to ACAS and resolve amicably the Driver Only Operation (DOO) contract cost of a conductor delaying passenger services between Oxford and Milton Keynes and that of Bedford avoided until 2031 and where to bay trains from Oxford at Bedford not resolved until 2031, leaves a 6 year gap of disenfranchisement for rail users. https://brtarail.com/ewrail/

2. Northampton, excess of 200, 000 population, central to the heart of England and yet lacks radial rail routes from the principal county town! Northampton-Leicester via Market Harborough, Northampton to Bedford via new-build for Thameslink/Universal Theme Park courting 8 million visitors from day one in 2031, and a sluggish approach at glacial speed to address even a redesign of Bedford Midland Railway Station. Old station had 7 tracks, new will have about the same, but the old did not require half of Ashburnham Road to be knocked down, the new one does, so has come unstuck again. Local and National Politicians are looking at their seats, new-comers bang drums on single issue agendas and public need to dare to scrutinise and ask difficult questions around policy, what would you do if... and what have you done about x, y or z even with the 'powers' you have as a would-be, wanna-be member of the public first and politician if elected second?  

Let the government start here, then nationwide of similar patterning. Cut away bureaucracy tieing us in knotts and putting costs through the roof for political and planning correctness, when pragmatism and a Victorian pioneering sense of imperative is required. https://brtarail.com/n2mh/ and https://brtarail.com/b2n/

Colne-Skipton, Plymouth-Tavistock, Seaside Resorts, Criss-Cross country links including Stratford-upon-Avon - Cheltenham and the small piece of rail new-build for Stratford-upon-Avon-Long Marston for a more direct route between top tourist centre Oxford and top tourist centre Stratford-upon-Avon - small rudder style projects like that, but can free up capacity, enable rail to do more and sustainably get the wheels turning based on a humane and environmentally prudent platforming?

BRTA needs more public support beit join, donate, offer to help and email your local MP all can make a huge difference. Thank you. But as Danny Owen once sang, this is not the time for talking, it is the "time for action"!

Let's work together for best results for all we care about and hopefully, collectively hold dear together - love, life, people, places, environment and land use for all sustainably for example?

Oxon keeping on with the rails?

This must be, apart from photos, one of the shortest reports I have ever seen? https://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/25474194.oxfordshire-must-choose-new-rail-or-gridlock/?utm_term=Autofeed&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1758173257

Education, Education, Education David Blunkett once touted and you would have thought Oxfordshire folks get plenty of it and enjoy a good read?

BRTA have submitted to the consultation via EC Officer Simon Barber:

"

• Oxford Station - We must increase capacity to support more services across the county and redeveloping it into a landmark station and national gateway. This would be a catalyst for housing, jobs, and public services, while strengthening connections to Oxford’s universities, hospitals, and innovation clusters.
• Oxford-Didcot - Four-tracking is a top priority.
•  The Electrified Railway – We must build a zero-carbon network for Oxfordshire, anchored by the Electric Freight Spine.
• The Oxfordshire Metro – We should create an integrated transport network that brings together rail, bus, walking and cycling.
• Oxford Railreight Interchange - The former Upper Heyford Air Base (between Bicester and Banbury) is a top priority. Meanwhile the proposed station at Ardley is adjacent to that interchange and that should go ahead. Meanwhile some of its freight could be coming off the new East-West Rail from the Midlands and the north.
• Cowley Branch - This should be re-opened and there must be a new station at Oxford Cowley.
• Wantage & Grove Road (between Didcot and Swindon) - That station is a top priority, since the surrounding population has increased due to new housing.
• Oxford-Witney Branch - That line had closed to both passengers and freight about 60 years ago and we would like to see it re-opened. A study commissioned by West Oxfordshire District Council found that a new line could reduce congestion on the A40 while offering a more affordabe alternative to car travel. Also, new housing developments will increase the population which will in turn increase more road traffic. The proposed rail link will boost access to jobs, essential services ,education and reducing congestion and CO2 emissions.
•  Cotswold Line - Although some of this is outside your Council, the reinstatement of the Stratford-upon-Avon - Honeybourne - Cheltenham rail link feeds into the Cotswold Line from Oxford to Worcester and will have a direct impact on Oxfordshire's services. The recent Stratford-upon-Avon District Council (Refresh study, Stantec, 2024) confirmed that fully realising the benefits of these new developments dependent on providing transport connectivity that maximises travel opportunities between areas of high economic concentration including Birmingham, Coventry, Oxford (which also provides interchange with East-West Rail), Worcester, Leamington, Warwick, Gloucester / Cheltenham and Stratford. At the same time Stratford’s poor public transport connectivity creates a dependence on car-based travel and can lead to inequalities associated with ‘forced car ownership’.  This also locks in many of the negative external impacts of car travel including congestion and poor air quality  which will be an impediment to future land-use development. Meanwhile Stratford-Honeybourne also creates a Birmingham-Oxford alternative route, which is only 3 miles longer than the Cherwell Valley/Banbury route and severed for 6 weeks in 2015 by the Harbury slippage, a route which has a history of geological instability. Furthermore the double-tracking of that line between  Hanborough and Wolvercote is also a top priority.

Meanwhile the road schemes which include a bypass to Ardley, a relief road to Middleton Stoney and improvements to Junction 10 of the M40 should not go ahead."

End.

Also, can I make a plea for a study into reopening too the former Oxford-Cowley-Wheatley-Thame-Princes Risborough rail link? Yes, Cowley is proposed, yes, new rail bypass of Wheatley and maybe a new Parkway Station for off the M40/A40 area, yes ploughing through Thame may involve some relocational pain, but then the gains:

1. Re-railing growing corridor populations

2. Makes a loop from London to Oxford via Bicester, through and out south towards London via Thame

3. Paddington and Marylebone could share trains and a new Chiltern Main Line to Heathrow and Guildford (Heathrow Southern - see: https://heathrowrail.com/); would give many new by-rail options, likewise to the north the Oxford-Long Marston-Stratford upon Avon would again be a winner alongside a Witney and Carterton new-build.

Government needs to switch the priority of funding from roads to rails, cutting congestion, giving modal choices more, cutting pollution and NHS waiting lists as well as the sustainable footfall and spend the rail choices offer.

It is deeply regrettable that Oxford-Milton Keynes and Bedford passenger services are not operating and of course a conductor /guard on a train can check and sell tickets, can give out information and reassure passengers accordingly, Driver Only Operation (DOO) abandons people to aftercare CCTV and pays yet more people with outlays on barriers, penalty fares and policing teams. We need to see a false economy and ensure our railways are properly staffed.

Please give us your support: https://letstalk.oxfordshire.gov.uk/oxrail-2040

BRTA facilitated London Forum - help make the best even better!

 re: https://clondoner92.blogspot.com/2025/09/transport-for-london-reveals-update-on.html

The BRTA London Forum is on:

Saturday 27 September 2025 2pm lunch 3-5pm business

Venue The Barrel Vault, Unit 23, St. Pancras International Station, Pancras Road, London N1C 4QP

Venue Website: www.jdwetherspoon.com/pubs/all-pubs/england/london/the-barrel-vault-st-pancras

Phone: 020-7837-5151

Main convenor is Simon Barber: Email address: admin@brtarail.com

Phone (landline): 020-8940-4399

Phone (mobile): 07522-374740

Agenda can be downloaded from the website: https://brtarail.com/events/

BRTA has supported the reopening to passenger services of the Dudding Hill Lines, not just as a localised 'London' centric idea, but also - hence the dual use and versatility of railways - for a Luton Airport Parkway Station to Heathrow and Reading alternatively 'South Chilterns Link' avoiding changing in London and freeing up for capacity across the network. Likewise we want a rebuild of Kentish Town to Gospel Oak curve for integration with Thameslink Sutton Loop-Barking potentially or Stratford at least? We need support, we need volunteers and welcome donations/people to join.

London suffers from chronic congestion, the South East of which London is a part, is overheating, pollution rife and the public are being made ill by roads and the vehicle pollution congestion compounds. Given substantial growth and development - if we do not have the rail-base transport solutions, the negatives get worse. Therefore please email your MP to support our calls and ensure a switch from road to rail spending for schemes like these to be better developed, used and multiplied. LRT/Trams for Central London and the West End and also extension of Docklands along the North Circular corridor for linking East London with Brent Cross Shopping Centre and the new Brent Cross Railway Station on the Midland Main Line, would again give people quicker, cleaner and healthier choices to gridlocked, pollution exposure which is a daily issues.

https://content.tfl.gov.uk/technical-note-20-what-are-the-main-health-impacts.pdf

We need a chairperson for the meeting and should convene 3-4 times a year. If we want a venue, we need funds or sponsorship to pay for it and a kind volunteer to help organise it with us. Thank you.

Meeting discussed as follows from Simon Barber, BRTA Convenor:

"Yesterday the BRTA held its London Forum at the Barrel Vault in St.Pancras and apart from our member David Ferguson, there was one other person that was in fact Peter McBeath. David Ferguson in fact chaired the meeting.

There were three apologies - Sam Moema (Greater London Authority), Andrew Bosi (Friends of Capital Transport Campaign) and Cllr. Adam Harrison (Camden Borough Council). Also David Start was unable to attend due to work commitments.

The following points were raised:

• Lower Thames River Crossing - This must be a road and rail crossing. This would link rail from Felixstowe Port to the Channel Tunnel to transport railfreight to/from UK to Europe and passenger services as well. Having redirected Mega Container ships to Felixstowe each ship carries 24,000 containers.
• Old Oak Common - Apart from an HS2 station, there must be access to the Elizabeth Line ( East - West Crossrail) including Heathrow and on to Staines and Woking, and also both the North London Line ( Stratford - Richmond) and West London Line ( Stratford - Clapham Junction) of London's Overground, Chiltern Railways, and  LT Central Line. 
• Willesden Junction Low Level - There is apparently space and capacity for new platforms which would be an opportunity for both London & North Western Railway services and Southern services from East Croydon to Watford.
• Docklands Light Railway - The extension to Thamesmead seems to be going ahead.
• Crossrail 2 (SW -NE) - The route should go from Clapham Junction, Victoria and Euston. Later the north-eastern extension should go on at least as far as Cheshunt where it joins up with the West Anglia Main Line which serves Seven Sisters and is already stretched to capacity. In fact the next station is White Hart Lane which is close to Tottenham Hotspur Football Ground and on match days that line is extremely busy.
• Croxley Link - Watford Stadium station is a top priority. Meanwhile I will write to both Watford Borough and Three Rivers District Councils to review the current situation.
• Muswell Hill Metro - I shall write to Haringey Borough Council to review the current situation.
• Extend LU Lines - The Central Line must be extended from Epping to Harlow.
• Sites close to railway lines offering potential locations for Railfreight terminals - There is spare land at Woking. Meanwhile there are plans for a new flyover separating the Portsmouth line and Southampton/Exxter lines.

Incidentally Peter McBeath also made a donation of £5 which included a copy of our London Pamphlet. Peter also mentioned that digital signalling on the railways will create capacity and real-time visibility more as well, and some of our rail network has already taken place like the ECML."

Please identify the threats of lands for reopening rail links

re: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgqny1jw7peo

We do need social housing but a mix of it where existing communities are mixed urban and rural locations, so people can stay if they wish with their friends and families are? But junctions, other lands which could be used for rail links, reopenings, freight infrastructure etc means selling off rail land like the old St John's location in Bedford, would be detrimental for rail causes and growth. 

Please make representation to the government, Network Rail and your local MP.

Thanks very much. Email ceo@brtarail.com with any local examples or other useful information please. See our projects: https://brtarail.com/our-campaigns/ 

Some examples: