Northampton and Bedford Rail Links

The east-west rail could come into extended bays and reverse out east or west at Bedford Midland. Bedford-Willington area-North of Blunham-Tempsford is much easier than the hilly northern route laden with blockages. Peterborough via the proposed Corby/Luffenham Curve yes, Cambridge via Tempsford and Cambourne okay, but via St John's is the better option. Still serves Bedford Midland, still enables through running, but saves £'s and is quicker/easier/on the flat via St John's. Cardington Road needs traffic calming anyway, so bridge or dispensation for a Level crossing should be sought ditto invoking the bypass A421 clause of 'in the event of a railway being sought, DoT would give favourable consideration to over or under the bypass provision.' I paraphrase.

Bedford-Northampton needs pursuing alongside and the two junctioning north of Bedford being inclusive not exclusive in design. The A6 Bypass makes things harder, but it is not insurmountable at this stage. 

The last meeting of the Northampton Meeting ERTA tabled in Northampton seemed to come to a consensus that re-railing the Brackmills Branch with some sort of initial light rail configuration like a Parry People Mover (PPM) be implemented with halts at places like Waterside Campus (doubles up for Delapre), Brackmills and Great Houghton for example.

However, we are all aware of the challenges getting this done presents practically, politically but also we need someone with some capacity and time on their hands with a professional twist to spearhead the project with ERTA supporting/interjecting from behind.

It needs all on board to succeed and the quest is on to find a captain and inform a team to take the project forward.

I have drawn some thoughts together as a starting point. 

I welcome your thoughts and support.

Hopefully our tabled Zoom Northampton Meeting can consider this (an agenda will be drawn up) on Friday 18th September. 

We need outcomes tangible and specific from that meeting and it shall be tabled bi-mothly to show we are taking the matter seriously and want action. Otherwise we get development, more of the same and dysfunction and potentially lose the corridor. I am sure we all want better public transport and this is a way to go preluding more.

Studies at every step are needed and someone to take on to bid for Rail Reopening Funds would be advantageous - it is free Government money which can add to any sponsorship pot. 

ERTA is too stretched, too small and resource constricted to lead, we can usher and encourage and reify where appropriate.

Please give your support. I appeal to Bedford and Northampton Borough Councils, Milton Keynes/Olney and England's Economic Heartland (EEH) please do not throw away options, help us keep them open and support Bedford-Northampton as a strategic missing link now and going forward. A428 may be sparse, but end to ends are Brighton-Bedford, 3 airports and London and Northampton, 1 airport, several campuses and Birmingham/West Midlands and wider strategic links. There's a 21.5 mile gap in the rail network and both Bedford and Northampton would be pivotal. Thank you.  For pdf of paper/correspondance richard.erta@gmail.com

Draft Transport Strategy for Green Recovery

I am responding to the consultation for your draft Transport Strategy for green recovery, with the following comments:

In the main document (DRAFT TRANSPORT STRATEGY) Transforming Journeys p.38 East-West Main Line - the Central Section must be completed before 2030 at the latest, ideally even earlier. Furthermore I have reservations in regard to the chosen route option for the Central Section and I would prefer the original route via Bedford St John's ( as per the attached diagram). In fact your organisation should call-in Bedford Borough Council's non-rail development plans for the old St John's Station area and get them rejected to keep contingency options open should the chosen route prove problematic for any reason. Comparative costs and challenges should be done and approaching Tempsford from the south-west avoids the need to negotiate A421/Black Cat Roundabout/A1 and descent to Tempsford Flood Plains. Please also see: https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/ (7 and 21 July). Furthermore, there should also be stations on the East-West at Kempston Retail Park, Claydon and Calvert (which is the potential site for a new town).

Transforming Journeys p.39 Other East-West Arcs - both these other two arcs (Banbury - Northampton- Peterborough) and Bucks - Herts) are vital.These are also referred to in the PASSENGER RAIL STUDY Phase 1 pp. 81-82

Connecting People with Opportunities p.45 Transport Orientated Development - both the Mass Transit Systems for Milton Keynes and Cambridge (also see p.88) are top priorities. As regards Milton Keynes, its Council's Mobility Strategy Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2018-2036 had proposed a Light Rail Transit. In addition the old Wolverton - Newport Pagnell railway should be re-opened and much of the original track-bed survives. As regards Cambridge, the Mass Transit system should be a Metro which should not go underground since this could bring more cars on to Cambridge's roads ,many of which are not designed to modern standards.

I had also looked at the PASSENGER RAIL STUDY Phase 1, and referring to the section Upcoming Rail Enhancements in the Heartlands p.91 Midland Main Line - Associated Enhancements & Schemes. The Midland Mail Line electrification (already in delivery) should be extended beyond Market Harborough to Leicester/Nottingham/Derby/Sheffield.

In the section Gaps in the Rail Offering throughout the Heartlands pp.80 etc., the following railway lines should also be re-opened and much of the old track-beds survive in these cases: Bedford-Northampton; Northampton-Market Harborough; Great Central (Calvert-Brackley-Rugby-Lutterworth-link existing Nuneaton-Leicester line at Narborough); Luffenham Curve (linking Midland Main Line eastward with Leicester-Peterborough line); and Northampton - Wellingborough. All these routes need protection, urban corridors need protecting for integration and coordination,and furthermore most of these routes could also be used for freight traffic. Banbury-Northampton (Northern Arc) needs to link with the Great Central somewhere in the Woodford Halse area.

The Southern Arc should involve the re-opening of both the disused St.Albans Abbey - Hatfield and Watford - Croxley lines.

I would also like to add that the delivery of the rail components must be made at the earliest opportunity to meet Climate Change targets.

Finally, I do not support the Oxford-Cambridge Expressway since it will bring no benefit at all to the Englands Economic Heartlands.This new road will affect Green Belt areas ,and will also be an incentive to build new housing and will not solve traffic congestion at all,and in fact, the road will bring in more traffic which is already increasing with the significant housing growth between these two towns. This increase in traffic will in turn increase CO2 emissions and also air pollution (a serious health emergency), both of which the Government is pitifully complacent.

Yours faithfully,

Simon Barber

ERTA Vice Chairman

T. 0208 940 4399, E. simon4barber@gmail.com

Great Central Corridor Re-railing

Great Central Corridor Re-railing between Oxford/Banbury/

Woodford Halse or Oxford/Bicester/Calvert and Brackley-

Woodford Halse and onwards to Willoughby, Rugby, Barby, 

Lutterworth and the Leicester/Nuneaton Lines Gatewaying to/from 

East Midlands Direct.

Who

The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) is an unincorporated voluntary membership-based association which takes a particular interest on the agenda of forwarding better public transport especially rail around the English Regions.

It has a growing membership across the regions and welcomes more.

What

Our concern and interest here are the re-railing of the former Great Central corridor which we believe could play a significant role in the areas and inter-regional connectives it could serve for both passenger and freight. It is not born of nostalgia but of the fact that if we are serious about climate emergency matters, modal shift pro-active is an essential ingredient to get traffic volumes, congestion and pollution down and re-railing incrementally is a key part of that.

Where

The section of Great Central corridor we are focusing on is in scope between Calvert and Narborough and possibly Banbury and Northampton as an interceptor link with mutual benefit. Places like Brackley, Woodford Halse, Willoughby, Barby and further north Lutterworth need re-railing. They are busy areas, loads of upgraded roadways, but a long way from rail connectivity.

Why

Currently trains between the triangle and all between Southampton/Bristol and Leicester/East Midlands have to go via London or Birmingham. This means few paths are available, restricts growth and takes capacity other trains could utilise.

GC re-railing would enable. Freight, South Coast-East Midlands, South West and Wales-East Midlands and all in between and vice versa.

East Midlands being a gateway to wider distribution networks. Currently there’s a feeling that East Midlands is being shadowed and second fiddle playing to West Midlands spotlight and both should be equally getting new/reopened lines and investment to optimise potential and that sustainably with a view to environmental impacts. That means rails and this is a prime example. The ambition of vague ‘defaultive capacity’ created on the backs of HS2 for example, still leaves no direct rails to/from the East Midlands but via London and/or Birmingham and that is a capacity problem compounded unless new/rebuilt rail links are provided like this GC re-railing idea. Passenger-wise direct access ‘not via Birmingham or London’ means Cross-country could be beefed up to offer more diverse services like Penzance/Paignton-York/Scarborough via Oxford/Banbury or Bicester/Brackley – Leicester and East Midlands principal stops and vice versa. New audiences and new markets.

A real chance for rail to woo off roads reliance to rails and a Nottingham-Bournemouth service is also potentially in the frame as well as new links and services between East Midlands/Leicester/Burton and Derby for example to Marylebone (London), Old Oak Common (via Princes Risborough or a rebuilt Calvert-Grendon link), Heathrow (a link between Chiltern Main Line and the Guildford-Heathrow Southern Proposal has been made to the DfT in numerous communications) and finally via a new chord onto the east-west rail Oxford lines via Bicester to Reading for example and via the Didcot avoiding lines to Bath and Bristol for example. In reverse these new flows to Leicester and beyond offer sustained flows of footfall and spend, visitorship and exploration including access to the Peak District if the Matlock-Buxton line is reinstated and Sheffield-Manchester via Woodhead. All called for rebuild in recent years to take traffic pressure off the road system and cut emissions as a result whilst enabling more mobility to all.

How

The missing rail links are between the Oxford-Bletchley line – Brackley – Woodford Halse/Banbury-Woodford Halse-Willoughby-cross WCML/M1 on new viaduct to cross back to either serve Lutterworth or a wider area station and freight interceptor station east of the Mi with links between rail and the merging M1/A14/M6 Junctions and onwards to west of M1 to link anew with the Nuneaton-Leicester existing lines. At Knighton freight for further afield and indeed a diverse passenger alternative to Leicester could be to divert to the Knighton-Burton line for quick access to Derby with connections. The Knighton ‘Ivanhoe Line’ and Leicester access lines could share the passenger and freight business on offer and enjoy more apiece. There would be plenty of business and benefit on offer and buoy up any business case and that could work back as a plus for the case to re-rail by return. It needs backers, funding study support and on-the-ground action.

Calvert or Banbury - Woodford Halse

Our original proposal wanted to take a spur off the being rebuilt Oxford-Bletchley lines onto the redundant GC trackbed to south of Brackley and via a new descent to raised trackbed in the valley to go to the east of the town intercepting the busy A43 and a bus link to Silverstone to make the most of the catchment served initially by a railhead station. The old formation was lost years ago with demolition of the old viaduct and houses built to the north of the old station. Thence a Phase 2 would be to extend to the north of the GC trackbed unimpeded with more or less relay to Woodford Halse where some realignment or relocation deal would have to be struck.

Now HS2 wants to utilise the old GC formation adding extra complication and cost and the ‘throw everything at Calvert area’ by multiple schemes of one sort or another means getting a chord onto a new domestic line alongside HS2 is potentially problematic. Moreover, the trackbed or alongside new domestic build to that of HS2 would require more land and some demolition/compulsory purchase upheaval. That is always controversial even as big brothers seem to have more ability to assume that displacement role than domestic others. So, getting to north of Brackley and indeed serving Brackley is the most expensive bit, complicated and controversial. North of Brackley, with HS2 veering away to Solihull at a north-westerly angle, we assume the old trackbed.

Another suggestion has been to utilise existing tracks and rebuild a new rail link north of Banbury to Woodford Halse with modest distances and negotiations, albeit would have to negotiate M40 and HS2 and maybe some smaller developments en route. This gets you there quicker, this cuts the cost of the Brackley link, but also means Brackley is still disenfranchised by being served by rail.

Once in the Woodford Halse area we proceed to south of Willoughby (new station) and a split with a link off serving Barby and linking to where the WCML fast and Northampton Loop lines diverge on a graded flyover which going south would veer to the west. The other GC route – old alignment would go into Rugby and have a second station (Rugby Central) and cross the WCML via new viaduct.

Our view is we don’t mid overly. Both have merit and should both be studied. If HS2 brigades were to offer to passively design rail access for domestic link to serve Brackley, that would be a kind and welcome gesture given they have no intention of providing such a station.

Both options should be studied and weighed on their merits. In terms of getting things done, the cheapest, least protracted option and quickest to deliver should be done.

Direct link to Rugby Central and beyond
We have already mentioned our suggestion of getting into Rugby (WCML) for linkage (passenger and freight). The old Rugby-Leicester formation and line would have been useful even as far as where they intercepted with the GC/M1 area so a loop and chord onto the GC ‘new build’ could be considered.

Deviations around built areas would be required. But again, the idea of a new link between Rugby and Leicester with their connectives commends itself for consideration. Likewise, a direct new viaduct GC cross and go alongside the M1 to Lutterworth/A14/M6 Junctions and onwards crossing back over or under M1 to lands west entering via a new chord to descend to flat junction link with the Nuneaton – Leicester lines.

You could have a west and east junctioning, which from the Nuneaton line direction, would enable early GC access and reduce transits along WCML between Nuneaton and Rugby for example or vice versa accessing WCML or West Midlands via Nuneaton. It is all direct routing, all new capacity and catering for growth not just on existing lines or default, but instigationally. You cannot have default capacity if the lines don’t go where the business is and that is plundering road congestion, not competing between rail companies!

Summary of Passenger AND Freight Benefits:

• Direct AND Default capacity creation
• Re-railing a corridor unserved nearby by rail access
• Taking on the roads, not other railways and operators
• Open access, open to all
• Provider of infrastructure must benefit from use
• Outlying area re-railed giving modal choice
• Regions better linked not via Birmingham or London dependent
• Direct, faster uninhibited access enabling more by RAIL
• Enabling and underpinning sustainable growth

ERTA, 24c St Michael’s Road, Bedford, MK40 2LT (01234 330090)
Join our free email loop/request this as a pdf:
E richard.erta@gmail.com

All support welcome.
1. Join ERTA
2. Join Our Teams
3. Give funds
4. Write to MP's and Councils
5. Trackbed watch and object to potential threats
6. Encourage bids for Reopenings Funding Grants to study further

7. Let's together over-come the problems and re-rail this much needed rail solution!

https://www.ertarail.com/become-a-member

Transport Chaos predicted by lay people for next 5 years! Is Government listening or caring?

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

FYI We have roads coming out of our ears! What we need is a rail alternative for people and goods. It needs a Government 'project nightingale' to speed up delivery of a full Oxford-Bedford-Cambridge rail link and more. Alas, like the tide out to sea, no passive accommodation for the rail link in Black Cat Roundabout scheme, no forwarding of a Retail Station at Kempston on the Bedford-Bletchley line (allowing park and ride/rail and ride from south of the River Great Ouse enabling avoiding the 20 minute crawl across the Prebend Street bridge to the Bedford Midland Station). Our regional body the English Economic Heartlands (EEH) seem to be working to a rail delivery of 2050 whereas the Climate Emergency gives us 10 years to have alternatives to guzzling emissions pandering infrastructure in place. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736 is a good summary of where we are at. 

These patterns are apparent across the English Regions. We can't export best practice if we ourselves are not prepared to make the changes to lead by example. No-one here is saying road improvements are not needed, indeed the conundrum should have been foreseen when the Great Barford Bypass was built. But roads alone cannot cope, they deliver to growing urban areas and they lack the land, capacity and ability to cope/provide parking and avoid congestion/frustration and please multiple access users beit drivers, pedestrians, cyclists, bus users, rail users and motor scooters. Witness no contraflow lane for cycling and motor scooters along the new High Street in Bedford and what is happening is encroachment upon the pavement spaces. The conflict and inherent risk is palpable. Sandy needs a better deal, but alas, after campaigning since 1987 for Bedford - Sandy 'in good faith', it is lost and a new route is required. But unless the Government acts to protect and formalise a rail route, then it too will be parked up in a file 'as closed'! 

The buzz word is 'Research and Develop' (R&D), but Planning surely seeks to fit the pieces of the given jigsaw or mosaic in some sort of coherence? Hence Wixams, you build your station first, then develop a mix of housing, schools, places of work, recycling and greening and much more, not station last and then stuck for somewhere to put it? I fear the same at Tempsford and that is why more housing there should be curtailed and a junction for physical rail links for a joined up rail net-work would be far better and let people from St Neots, Cambridge and East Bedfordshire travel by rail direct to Bedford and beyond, not have to change at yet another station and suffer cost, delays and probably will drive or use the existing bus/X5 for access? Grant Shapps is in Spain and then has lock-down time to do. But really we need a Transport Tsar to ensure these sorts of considerations are properly taken into account as we go 'forwards'!

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

ERTA Chairman

Consultation closes today on Highways England’s proposals for the A428 improvement, Black Cat (A1) to Caxton Gibbet (Bedfordshire/Cambridgeshire).

 

HE are seeking views on their plans to “improve” journeys between Milton Keynes & Cambridge. They are proposing a new 10-mile dual carriageway (part of the Oxbridge Expressway?) between Black Cat and Caxton Gibbet roundabouts with new and improved junctions along the route.

 

Go to www.highwaysengland.co.uk/a428 if you wish to comment.

 

Also info@highwaysengland.co.uk

 

Tel 0300 123 5000

 

It is not clear whether their latest proposals take account of EWR (east of Bedford), because it is evident from EWR’s latest route preference that the rail route is intended to serve Bedford Midland (via the MVL) and then head eastwards towards Tempsford/Little Barford, the ECML & Cambourne. Black Cat roundabout is slightly to the west of the ECML & Tempsford/Little Barford. It is presumed therefore that the “new” dual carriageway will cross the ECML in this vicinity. Is it the intention that HE and EWR share a broadly similar, parallel route? One hopes EWR, Network Rail & HE are talking to one another!

 

Rail Reopenings, Rebuilds and select new build means a new Woodhead rail link is needed.

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place/Woodhead,+Glossop+SK13+1JD/@53.4967409,-1.8701638,15z/data=!3m1!4b1!4m5!3m4!1s0x487bce3038b1bd91:0x4b20a2b276dc139b!8m2!3d53.496729!4d-1.861409?hl=en

#ertarail The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) is a nationwide membership based association independent of management or unions. We are committed to seeking local, conventional rail links restored and improved across the English Regions including and mainly reopenings, rebuilds and select new builds. 

In the north, we wish to see the following lines rebuilt: Keswick, Colne-Skipton, York-Beverley, Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton, Matlock-Buxton/Chinley and finally the Woodhead line.

We are concerned that as population rises and (in normal times) traffic and development inform more of each other, we need to embrace that these select rail links could find a new role in today's society and going forwards. 

The past is one thing, but you cannot live on just nostalgia nor scenery. The railways help to reduce road traffic, cut congestion, save precious land and beauty spots from being overrun by endless demands for land for parking, when there's a need for that same land to be used for other things beit employment, housing, landscape or conservation. 

I appeal to your support especially reopening the Woodhead line:

1. It would take on the following roads A628 direct, M62, M1, A629, A6018. 

2. It would give more rail capacity between Sheffield and Manchester

3. It could handle freight and passenger demand

4. It could have a new tunnel and realignments where necessary or expedient.

5. It would feed and be fed by other local and regional rail links enabling more by rail overall.

6. It is not just a local consideration, but part of a land bridge between Europe/North Sea/Hull and the North East to Liverpool/North West/Atlantic and America potentially, ship to rail and vice versa. 

7. Rail is the best way to conserve the best of our National Parks in a sustainable fashion, checking volumes, cutting pollution and informing footfall and spending minus the traffic.

We are concerned about HS3 and High Speed generally, being expensive, serving mainly passenger only, wide gaps between principal stations, leaves all in between to whatever rail exists or default road more. We believe that lines like Woodhead need:

1. Protection from further erosion/intrusion/keeping open for potential re-railing

2. Please round table and apply to the Government's Rail Study Fund for informing a pot to commission a study to evaluate it, compare it and see what is to be gained on and off the rails.

3. We believe in a mindset which seeks to overcome the problems of reopening this rail link, and looks at the wider gains and the throw-away of an asset which stood for many decades and survived Beeching only to be axed under the Serpell Closures of the early 1980's. There was no democracy about the closures, they were implemented often against local people's wishes by stealth and the result is we are poorer and less equipped now in a time and situation whereby we need these strategic rail links and the benefits they afford.

When unlock is lifted and things get back to some sort of normal, we hope to table forums and meetings to bring people together. Meanwhile we urge councils to talk together, work together and put this rail link at the centre of revival and regeneration plans please. 

ERTA welcomes all kind interest and support. For all responses and potential liaison and working together, please contact my colleague Mr Simon Barber (T. 0208 940 4399, E. simon4barber@gmail.com) who undoubtedly will create a growing database of support. It is an investment in ourselves. You may also find perusal of our Blogspot useful: https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/ Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

ERTA Chairman

https://www.ertarail.com/

23 July 2020

Press Release

Rail Reopenings, Rebuilds and select new build means a new Woodhead rail link is needed.

ERTA supports the rebuild of the former Woodhead Railway linking not just Sheffield and Manchester but Hull-Liverpool land bridge and all in between. We are concerned that some new lines may only cater for passenger only and freight by defaultive lines, relies on existing lines which between the Midland Main Line and Manchester are scant and inadequate. More lines mean more capacity and in normal times catering for more usership on the rails and more freight by rail also needs to consider the environmental benefit of sending more by rail and modal shift being catered for. You cannot do this without rebuilding lines like the Woodhead Rail Link and Matlock-Buxton/Chinley is another line ERTA fully supports for rebuild.

In our view the line would:

1. It would take on the following roads A628 direct, M62, M1, A629, A6018. 

2. It would give more rail capacity between Sheffield and Manchester

3. It could handle freight and passenger demand

4. It could have a new tunnel and realignments where necessary or expedient.

5. It would feed and be fed by other local and regional rail links enabling more by rail overall.

6. Rail is the best way to conserve the best of our National Parks in a sustainable fashion, checking volumes, cutting pollution and informing footfall and spending minus the traffic.

End of Press Release

Further comment: Mr Richard Pill, Chairman 01234 330090 or richard.erta@gmail.com Further information via our Blogspot: https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/ Useful contextual web link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48964736

Bedford Local Plan Review - Please wade in and support #ertarail

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

re: https://www.bedford.gov.uk/planning-and-building/planning-policy-its-purpose/local-plan-review/

This plan review is upon us. I attach our input of ideas for the sweep of way forward. If the Borough can listen and work with us that is much preferred. If it can't for whatever reason, then the consequences will be less-than what we wish for and locks-in the congestion, parking issues and associated exhaust emissions of long standing traffic with no where to go. Please give support where you think you can. Another call is to make Grant Palmer Buses serve the railway station as part of their overall routes as well as the main bus station. It may encourage more day time off peak Stagecoach participation on the back of it. Thank you.

Yours sincerely,

Richard Pill

ERTA Chairman.

East-West Rail Central section – a consideration

1. The Bedford St John’s site: A housing development threatens to block this site and portal access to the rail corridor to the east of Bedford down to Cardington Road, Bedford.

a. ERTA is not against social housing but believes this site and rail option being retained in this case outweighs the other pressure to deliver more urban housing.

b. ERTA believes the Borough needs to look elsewhere to locate social housing and improve facilities to conjoin with it.

c. The St John’s site would be poorly road accessed and cul-de-sacked in all probability.

d. The land needs to be protected either by interim rail use like a washer plant or a park amenity area with a cycleway down to Cardington Road, utilising the corridor meaningfully until a railway is re-laid.

e. If we block the site, it means trains cannot access it from the west (Bletchley direction) or north-east (from Bedford Midland direction). That locks in the current mooted East-West Rail Companies (EWRC) Northern Route, which in our view is unsatisfactory.

2. The Northern Route. This route rightly facilitates the running through Bedford Midland clearing platforms for other services in an intensively used railway station but is problematic because:

a. No provision on A4280 Road Bridge for extra tracks to join the slows from north or south.

b. mooted fields for the junction south of the Western Bypass Link Road have been built on and so that means junctioning north of the Girder Bridge.

c. North of Girder Bridge conflicts with that same land for a Northampton-Bedford rail link flyover from the slows over the main lines going west.

d. North of Girder Bridge has less than 10 metres to go to a height to clear juggernaut lorry height to cross the A6 Clapham Bypass, cross flood plains to cross the River Great Ouse and old Clapham Road before hitting a hillside.

e. Tunnelling or cuttings from where to where as it is hilly and extra hills around North Brickhill, Cleat Hill, Ravensden plateauing to Wilden, avoiding built Renhold to Colesden.

f. From Colesden area, avoiding Great Barford, you have to engage with A421, A1, Black Cat Roundabout reconfiguration, River Great Ouse/Ivel conjoined ascending to the Tempsford flood plain to intersect the ECML from a north-westerly direction to head off easterly, the exact formation lineage to yet be determined.

3. The alternative Southern Route:

a. From an automatic points reinstated triangle and double-track railway, you head off to Cardington Road on the flat.

b. Cardington Road needs the road bridging the railway and could be made single carriageway as a part of a traffic calming exercise. Level Crossings are controversial and difficult to secure, even though such would be visually less intrusive and cheaper in all probability.

c. From Cardington Road, you head eastwards on a straight flat trajectory. 3 old railway bridges would need replacing with double-track specification bridges. The Sustrans Cycle Route would need redirecting either alongside on new embankment or re-routed via Barker’s Lane for example to Goldington Road and Castle Mill for example.

d. A level crossing would be required for Priory Park entrance or a new bridge link to the roundabout north side of current Barker’s Lane if flood barriers were erected/metal girders put in to direct river flood overflow.

e. You then head on flat land directly eastwards and the A421 Bypass needs to be raised with a bridge over the old railway formation to double track specification and accommodating a cycle-cum-footpath/equestrian access. This was raised in the 1993 Side Roads Order 199 whereby the Department of Transport said were the railway pursued they would give sympathetic consideration to accommodating rail access. This clause should be evoked and worked on to the aforementioned specification.

f. From east of the bypass the railway leaves the old formation at an angle to go through Willington Woods (largely a gutted quarry) to cross the River Great Ouse and bypass-built Willington. It would then cross back the other side of Willington and curve round to go under the Willington-Great Barford Road and continue erring to the left to align and bridge the Great Barford-Blunham Road. From here, on embankment to avoid River Great Ouse flooding, to continue to north of built Blunham to access the Tempsford flood plains from the south-westerly direction.

g. Crossing the A1 and River Great Ouse/Ivel on embankment you ascend the plains north of Station Road Tempsford.

h. Our preference would be a multi-aspecting flying junction interceptor with the slows of the ECML rather than another station. This would enable passenger and freight integrations from:

- Peterborough/all south including St Neots-Bedford/Oxford corridor and vice versa

- Stevenage/Thameslink/East Bedfordshire direct access to County Town of Bedford and the Oxford Corridor and vice versa.

- Peterborough/St Neots – Cambridge via Cambourne direct including access to/from Addenbrookes.

4. Land West of Bedford Midland: The former goods shed should be saved for extra parking and second booking hall (capacity) as new bays or through tracks will displace current parking and require extra lands to spread out. Losing this capacity to other-than-rail development would seem short-sighted if growth of usership from current broad range catchment is envisaged.

5. Retail Park/Kempston Town Station: Residents of growing populations south of Bedford River Great Ouse need better rail-based access to Bedford Midland as driving adds 20 minutes to journey time. We recommend the Retail Park on the Bedford-Bletchley Railway be given a station. Studies hitherto have shown positive and expanded parking off Southfields Road could avert any local residential concerns from the Magnolia Close quarter.

Summary:

It is our view this would significantly enhance reach, range and diversity utilising same tracks. Our route avoids hills, avoids housing conflicts and in all probability would be much easier, cheaper, retains the Northampton-Bedford integrative option and enables through working via Bedford Midland ‘north-east’ and vice versa, whilst trains from Oxford could bay at Bedford Midland if adequate bays are provided, and reverse out to Cambridge and vice versa. Key detail is savvy end-to-end train swaps by drivers and even on X5 that is always a bug bear for passengers as is constantly having to change from a coach to a bus at Bedford for whatever reason, resulting in a downgrade often.

For this reason, we ask that the St John’s site development is rejected and that the route we are suggesting is given a fair and objective evaluation contrast the northern route with the wider gains added to the benefit/cost ratio listing and that comparison to be placed in the public domain.

R. B. Pill 21-07-2020

ERTA says Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton is a crucial part of the jigsaw of better rail links in and around York.

Rail Magazine edition 909 pages 30-33 has an interesting article on 'NR plans more platforms and tracks for North East railways'. The map on page 31 shows a huge focus and concentration on York and the stretch of ECML between York and Northallerton being sole bearer of increased demand and capacity issues abound by the lack of an alternative. The map fails to show what the inclusion of a Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton could offer: more capacity, more paths for York, more passenger and freight by rail, modal shift, environmental gains, land saved for other things, less pollution. It goes to the heart of the editorial control, focus and mindset of these journalists in what they DO say and include and what they leave out? They seem fixated on HS2 and where is it planned to go? YORK! If you want more, something either has to give or reopening Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton makes a whole load of sense. Please support by a. writing to Rail rail@bauermedia.co.uk and saying you want Harrogate-Ripon-Northallerton, likewise contact Network Rail and b. Join ERTA and swell our Northern Team working towards this and other select reopenings like Woodhead for example. It makes good sense and should be worked up and included in the frame, otherwise we have a stitch up and oh... Boris indicates he wants Parliament or a Government Office established in York, requiring more paths and trains... again a relief line is required. Our suggestions are not so daft and should be given fair coverage surely? Please join #ertarail ERTA and vote with your wallets as well as feet! https://www.ertarail.com/become-a-member