NIC East-West Rail Consultation

I do invite people to write in to this consultation in support of a Northampton-Bedford as well as Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge rail link being rebuilt and restored. Northampton is mentioned 2.3 and 3.2 and any further enquiries should be sent to erta.rails6@yahoo.co.uk

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/cambridge-milton-keynes-oxford-growth-corridor-call-for-evidence/cambridge-milton-keynes-oxford-growth-corridor-call-for-evidence

More freight by rail... what is the true cost?

I think the environmental and pollution case demands we put ideology before straight statistics in this case and subsidise a renaissance until it can stand on it's own two feet again on the back of a rolling programme of reopenings. Toll Motorways if it requires it. Small load freight from lines like the Cambrian could be where the renaissance restarts. How we bring it about of course depends on Churches, Universities and Public and that is remote sadly I feel whilst petrol is so cheap. So an escalator commuted to good causes like more freight by rail would be good, but can we trust politicians to do just that akin to Brexit and money back for NHS?! At what cost elsewhere?

http://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/2016/06/07/rail-freight-volumes-at-their-lowest-since-mid-1980s and https://www.facebook.com/Save-Forders-Sidings-620452731425801/

Leicestershire County Council Letter, Great Central and Freight by Rail

Comment: We sent a simple letter and I attach the response. 

May only be a green pathway possibility, but that is progress for protecting a corridor upon which we hope to build. It is not either or conventional rail or preservation, Finmere aspires to 4 miles or so; here we're talking 40+ miles of rebuilt railway, but railway which can do so much more in that 'rebuild' - double deck commuter trains, piggyback, roll-on, roll-off and capacity off WCML*/MML *and M1 - which HS2 does not touch. * West Coast Main Line/ Midland Main Line.

You have to have a vision before a plan. The enlightenment brought us onto doing things scientifically, even theology through a scientific method - everything which can be observed, touched, tested confines to natural order, sociologists sought to transfer to social ordering of societies, using scientific principles. This 'science' is rather suspicious/discounts 'faith' as a valid basis to proceed/claim truths which cannot be 'tested'. But faith/belief systems is an essential pre-requisite to creating, a key reason to bother, for or against surely? Thus, building expressionality out of the vision beit old Jerusalem or a new 'heavenly' citadel coming out of the skies - science can be a servant to help get the vision to plan to design to implementation; but to insist it is the sole and only acceptable prime approach to do anything or business with, is erroneous one might suggest.

You/we need a vision for what kind or reach and range all or specifics we wish for in 'freight by rail'. Is there environmental gains sending more freight by rail? Government seems to cordon type of freight x a cap on freight for passenger and speed than new/reopened rail for medium-longer haul capacity flows.
I'm afraid that some are so narrow in heavenly mindedness, they forget the hands-on upwards which creates bread! 

The reverse one finds equally true and faith is discounted, when it is a part of the engine room/guts which inspires and energizes to get things started. Railfuture could campaign-lead more on a freight by rail renaissance.
The market alone will just go for pop and the easiest structure - roads unless made to/incentivised to consider water and/or rail. E.g. a pre-planning requirement of Blisworth should be they invest in Northampton-Brackmills-Bedford and a recycling depot, likewise the proposed incinerator at Millbrook, Central Bedfordshire, adjacent to the Marston Vale Railway should as a pre-planning requirement be ordered to bring in/make arrangements for bringing in waste by rail and taking the ash/burnt material out by rail. Whatever the qualms on 'smoke'; unless the recycling is bulk-rail enough to volume-ise for aggregate justification of tonnage - you have an army of lorries masquerading behind 'local distribution' and often the unions! Government could do more to sort the frameworks out to encourage pro-rail compliance as a pre-plan thought than addendum to colourise a lorry fleet mecca on an outline plan.

Therefore the accountancy and 'science' has to be squared to practical realities. If our vision is too small, we get small loads of whatever, if too expansive, we fail to build the market incrementally and thus establish a robust operational dynamic. I'm for more freight by rail and can see a component is capacity (hence reopenings), but also you need someone willing to invest in wagons, trainloads, haulage and switch potential.

A niche I believe a campaign could work on is the 3 R's: Renewables, Recycling and Rail as a triangulated unit. Bulk requires Regional scale of operation but you could have regional hubs like Forders Sidings, Wolverton and Brackmills around a triangulated rail network bestriding 3 regions and multiplex warehouse, logistics and distribution hubs Bedford, Milton Keynes and Northampton are. How we get from a to b, is the key and challenge. Conversely if the tracks aren't there, if business has no incentive, even outside our area to it, it falls down and new depots off main lines minus the Northampton-Bedford missing link, just means capacity on the WCML has to give in passenger or other customer terms.

I welcome your help in finding solutions. Thank you.

Further reading:
https://mmetag.wordpress.com/
http://modgov.southnorthants.gov.uk/documents/s15384/Rail%20Central%20Appendix%202.pdf
http://www.brackmillsindustrialestate.co.uk/contact-brackmills-industrial-estate-northampton
http://www.railfuture.org.uk/Welcome+to+Railfuture

Please help us by writing in support of a Bedford-Olney-Northampton rail link

Please help us by writing in to Milton Keynes Council asking them to protect lands for the reopening of a Bedford-Olney-Northampton railway. Development must be tailored to enable the Handley Alignment to be do-able and both sides. For further enquries and guidance ring 020 8940 4399 or email simon4barber@gmail.com.

The Occupier On Behalf of ERTA 20 Fitzherbert House Kingsmead Richmond Surrey TW10 6HT	Duncan Sharkey Corporate Director - Place
	Anna Rose Service Director Planning and Transport
	Our Ref:		15/02299/OUT
	Your Ref:
	Reply To:		Richard Sakyi
	Direct Line:		01908 252509
10th June 2016	e-mail:	richard.sakyi@milton-keynes.gov.uk

Dear Sir/Madam,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED)

APPEAL BY Mr Paul Johnson AGAINST REFUSAL FOR
Outline application (access) for a proposed residential development of up to 50 dwellings, estate road, open space and associated works (appearance, landscaping, layout and scale - reserved matters)
AT Land To South of Lavendon Road Farm, Lavendon Road, Olney, ,
APPEAL START DATE:	6th June 2016

We are writing to advise you that the Secretary of State is conducting the above appeal.

The Council’s reason(s) for refusing the above application(s) are as follows:

(01)     The proposed access in combination with a proposed mini roundabout (onto Lavendon Road), by reason of the roundabout design (lack of curb) and location near to a bend in the road, would fail to give priority to traffic nor encourage traffic to slow down on Lavendon Road before the junction, increasing the risk of accidents within the locality to an unacceptable degree. No other mitigating measures have been proposed to overcome these concerns. The applicant has failed to demonstrate a safe access to the site, and that the proposed development accords with Design Manual for Road and Bridges / Manual for Streets 1 and 2 and MK New Residential Design Guide, and therefore is contrary to Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005 policy T10 and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework.

(02)     No evidence has been submitted to indicate that a suitable discharge point into the River Ouse has been agreed with the Environment Agency.  The Local Planning Authority cannot therefore be satisfied that the scheme is able to incorporate a sustainable drainage system, contrary to aims and objective of the National Planning Policy Framework (and National Planning Policy Guidance) in this regard.

(03)     The applicant has failed to demonstrate that the proposed development would not lead to a burden on or have an adverse impact on existing local social and sustainable infrastructure, education and leisure facilities.  The proposal is therefore contrary to the guidance within Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) for Affordable Housing SPD (2013), Education Facilities SPG (2004), Leisure Recreation and Sports Facilities SPG (2005), Social Infrastructure SPD (2005), and Sustainable Construction SPD (2007) which support the Milton Keynes Core Strategy Policy CS21, Policy P04 of the Milton Keynes Local Plan 2005, and the aims of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF).

(04)     The proposed development, by reason of the concerns raised in reasons for refusal numbers 1, 2 and 3, does not meet the definition of sustainable development as outlined in paragraph 14 of the National Planning Policy Framework.

The Planning Inspector has asked me to notify you about this appeal as it is considered that you may be affected by the proposed development.

It has been decided that this appeal will be dealt with on the basis of an Informal Hearing, which you may attend, and at the Inspectors discretion give your views. The Informal Hearing will be at Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices, 1 Saxon Gate East, Central Milton Keynes. We will notify you of the date of the hearing when it has been arranged.

Any comments made by you at the application stage will be sent to the Planning Inspectorate and if you want to make any additional comments, 3 no. copies must be sent to The Planning Inspectorate, Room 3/13, Temple Quay House, 2 The Square, Temple Quay, Bristol BS1 6PN, quoting reference APP/Y0435/W/16/3147906.

These should be sent by 11th July 2016.  Any representations received after the deadline will not normally be seen by the Inspector and will be returned.  I am obliged to point out that all representations will be disclosed to the appellant.

Representations can now be made on line at www.planningportal.gov.uk/pcs.

A copy of the Planning Inspectorate’s booklet “Guide to taking part in planning appeals” may be obtained free of charge, on request from the Planning Department at the Civic Offices.

The appellants statement may be inspected at The Planning Department, Milton Keynes Council, Civic Offices,1 Saxon Gate East, Milton Keynes, once received, approximately 6 weeks after the appeal start date.  The Council’s statement is currently being prepared and you should check on its availability by telephone before coming to inspect.

The Planning Inspectorate will send a copy of the decision to you provided you specifically ask for one.

If you are not the owner of this property to which this letter is addressed perhaps you would ensure that the owner is made aware of the contents of this letter.

Yours faithfully,

Richard Sakyi

Senior Planning Officer

On behalf of Head of Development Management

The traffic impact of this development, the turning a country lane (Lavendon Road) to a busy thoroughfare, the location of hedgerows which may be lost all has to be weighed with the benefit if lands are used for the railway which will deliver footfall and spend to Olney minus the conflict of land available and parking. The whole area north of built Olney should be declared a mini greenbelt.

Flying Scotsman Comes to Bedford!

Photos up and down are recording the visit of Flying Scotsman to Bedford on Saturday 4th June 2016.
Taken and donated kindly, by Ms. Sue Allen. Thank you.

An extract of email laying out the conservation credentials for reopening and protecting a Northampton-Olney-Bedford rail route

Extract

'Thank you for your email.

Whilst I respect your selection and need to be circumspect, none-the-less we have a situation at Olney where in local, specific and principle terms, the nature of the landscape is changing or on the cusp of a major expansion North of the town, principally because with 2 sides of the town surrounded by the Great River Ouse there is little scope for developing elsewhere. Thus Northern Olney is under threat. From a conservation point of view, 2 well established hedgerows would have to be ripped out - we have already seen it at Biddenham Turn where a newt laden field which had a boggy feel to it, has been turned over to housing, a pond made to act as a drain, has subsequently been filled and is itself to be developed, leaving no conservation patch for remnant wildlife to return but by the whim of gardeners later on. The Lavendon Road, Olney warrants special interest - a Planning Inspector said that the old trackbed should be retained for landscaping purposes - Milton Keynes Council has planning applications and local plan designations for these to be developed right up to the trackbed. 

It would not be incompatible for a new railway to be reinserted by the field which was to be used for Sainsbury's and a fuelling point, presumably for the non-existent bypass (A509) which plys through Olney with many juggernaut lorries as a rat run between A45 Wellingborough and M1/Milton Keynes. 

The sites and fields are a nature conservation area and green border to the existing town in landscape terms. It should not be compromised, adding more cars to the area. Whilst I respect the limits of what you can do, any interest to support the railway and stop these developments scuppering it's passage would be welcome, given the need to reduce over all emissions and ensure flows of sustainable footfalls and spend to towns like Olney, which the railway would uniquely deliver with better timings for commuting to Bedford at just 15 minutes end to end, contrast 25 minutes by bus currently. The wider London commute and issues of 12 miles drive time to and from a nearest station contrast a local station with commuter parking for all day; shows that the railway could make an environmental contribution and could itself have hedgerows bordering it making for a green corridor. A linear park was tried near Great Houghton using the old trackbed for example and these mechanisms help keep the reopening option open for the future.

The great danger is that a select focus' on 'oasis'' for special attention, defaults to a desertification of the wider context of the landscape or 'open to market forces' making wildlife habitat a postcode lottery than a consistent warp and weft of the landscape with the needs of homo-sapiens to be suitably accommodated. Accommodation fine, but stewarding the context to reduce waste of natural resources must surely be a conservation goal?

If you feel you can offer us any support, that is welcome. Thank you.'

End.

If you want to take a deeper interest in saving hedgerows then this website could be just for you too: http://www.hedgerows.co.uk/

Better future to bring Marston Vale Railway into 21st Century (positively!)

25 January 2016

West Midlands Consultation

Department for Transport

4/15 Great Minster House

33 Horseferry Road

London

SW1P 4DR

To Whom It May Concern,

I write on behalf of our association regarding the West Midlands Consultation. Whilst other colleagues have done direct responses this response focus’ on more strategic and operational aspects.

1. Bedford-Bletchley Rail Link alias Marston Vale Railway: This should be made a Micro-Franchise and a round-table of stakeholders established with some public consultation and input, not meeting of professionals only behind closed doors. It should include operators at both ends of the line and Open Access Operators invited to join them with East-West Rail as an umbrella project and stakeholder. It is felt that being a long way from Birmingham, London Midland is too big and unwieldy and tends to lose sight and hands-on touch with day to day operations, the promotion and enhancement of the railway, which is the best foot for retention of the services the line provides, not status quo operation without reference to practicalities. One example is the marketing of the railway as a ‘leisure line’ but law and rolling stock restricts to a maximum of 2 bikes per train and this on a rail link between two cycle networks of Milton Keynes Red-ways and Bedford’s own cycle network and Sustrans Route 51 to Sandy where it links elsewhere. Moreover stations are a long way from the line in examples like Millbrook and so using a cycle to the train makes a lot of good, healthy sense. So bikes are important and yet this is not reflected in the rolling stock, accommodation and management of bikes as a staple usership market niche which needs optimising beit work, leisure or just getting from a to b and further afield.

2. The London Midland Franchise is unwieldy and should be broken between a Southern Franchise (Northampton-Euston) and a West Midlands focus of Franchise and radial commuter centric routes (Northampton-Birmingham and out to Liverpool et al the other side). This could incorporate more competition and varied types of services akin to the East Coast Main Line, whereby Open Access Operators could target and serve stations with a package of marketing to boost usage and attract more customers. For example, Northampton to plethora of destinations, Northampton-London* and places like Tring with it’s extra slow loop and the on-coming East-West Rail project which needs to be speeded up by a sharing of practicalities of infrastructure, services and growth between infrastructure providers, operators and Open Access.

3. Open Access should be looked at to exploit the end to end commute of the Bedford-Bletchley line on top of the basic all stopper train service. For example a Watford-Corby semi fast niche service am, midday, pm peak and maybe a later evening run to give more radial suburban inter-connective links.

4. Other improvements to Marston Vale local services needed are:

a. Lengthening of halts where required, for standard 3-4 coach electric traction operation preparation.

b. A new station and over-bridge to serve the Kempston Retail Park and Kempston Town itself (population 18, 000 +). It would open the Retail Park up to a wider audience, give a modal choice of access, cut congestion and queues of traffic along Ampthill Road and give easy access by a linked cycle-train network to Elstow (Bunyan Trail), Wixams (new town), Kempston Town (leisure) and Woburn Road Industrial Estate (employment). A feasibility study should be done inclusive of market potential. Steer Davis Gleave circa 2000 did suggest such a halt could raise 100 extra train journeys on the Marston Vale Railway, most would be filling lighter used off peak services. The 3 minute delay in stopping, could be mitigated by increased receipts and prestige of relevance of the railway to the major local centre.

c. Sunday and Bank Holiday services. The signalling is automated now and costs overhead-wise reduced accordingly. That saving should be commuted to half hourly frequencies Monday-Saturday and hourly on Sunday and Bank Holiday services. The line is marketed as a ‘leisure line’ but it is also a key local commute for blue collar workers and capturing a slice of the end to end Bedford-Milton Keynes commute, requires adequate rolling stock, adequate frequency and end to end seamless journeying. A point being is that X5 coaches deliver to the shopping centre and Central Milton Keynes Station but the large swathe of the business section of the Central area lies between the shopping centre and the Central Rail Station, so rail could offer a genuine modal choice and relief to congestion on the A509/M1 Junction which tends to congest and hold up Coachway operations in and out during peak times for example.

d. Extension of local shuttle services to Milton Keynes Central. This would best be done if the line is electrified and 4 coach standard 321 or 319 sort of stock is utilised.

5. Reopening a rebuild of the Northampton-Olney-Bedford Rail Link.

This short 21.5 mile link could offer multiple operational and practical benefits to the Franchise and so should be supported:

a. Birmingham, Coventry, Luton and Gatwick Airports via one train, seamless journey.

b. Bletchley-Bedford-Northampton/Rugby capacity loop for extra services to North of Milton Keynes Central, more capacity for freight (avoiding conflict) and local Bedford-Bletchley services being extended to Northampton which could mean additional end to end and stopping services utilising same stock, ideally 319 or Desiro stock + any Open Access e.g. West Coast-Luton Airport without recourse to London and/or Heathrow via Dudding Hill Lines reopening to passenger access, again creating capacity of ‘not via central London’.

c. Northampton is a growing town equivalent to Croydon yet is poorly served by rail links and cross-country services. The A428/A509 corridors are growth corridors and without the railway and a parkway station at Olney (A509) which would serve a 5 mile catchment of some 33, 000 people, which otherwise have to drive up to 12 miles each way to Milton Keynes or Bedford which adds to queues, congestion and parking demand which cannot be catered for. Far better to address the growth nearer to where people live as Olney Parkway would. The new university campus at Northampton borders the trackbed of the old line and could be a prospect for a South Northampton cum Brackmills access station. The line needs protecting and again a study should be commissioned to ensure we don’t allow by default, the loss of a key asset in the modern context.