East-West Rail – the doom, gloom and truth!

East-West Rail – the doom, gloom and truth!

Things are taking a turn for the worse on East-West Rail even as tracks are progressively being laid in and around the Bletchley flyover and Winslow areas. Divide as ever, there’s Oxford/Aylesbury-Milton Keynes Central and Bedford and then the Central Section of Bedford-Cambridge.

Starting Oxford-Milton Keynes, the conundrum of whether HS2 should go over or under the east-west formation remains to be resolved and we get conflicting stories. Someone said “as long as they get built, I don’t care”. But if the east-west rail is to haul more freight from road to rail, it needs the benefits a straight and flat railway course can provide, not humps. Likewise, Aylesbury-east-west rail has had tracks removed in the Calvert area and the land-take of HS2 means a new alignment east of former formation and a new ‘Claydon Junction’ east of the old one. ERTA has long called for a Claydon Station to serve a growing catchment and relief to Winslow in a context of growth north of the arc. These issues are remaining to be resolved and delay, conundrum and a need for fixing is palpable.

Meanwhile, ERTA calls for the same approach to the former Great Central corridor, for a new junction off the new Claydon Junction going northwards to serve a new course of railway serving East of Brackley ‘Brackley Parkway’ – the Brackley area being one of the largest towns in England without a local, accessible railway station and HS2, because of its nature will not provide stations between Solihull and Old Oak Common, so plenty of scope for a local, domestic rail line as well.

On Bedford-Cambridge – Central Section, we have a vehement lobby against the railway, against the Oxbridge Arc concept and to be fair the bate was given in the perverse 2019 East-West Rail Consultation whereby the original route via St John’s Bedford was not included, and either bypass Bedford to the south or go through Bedford Midland and head north-east up a grand hill and yet more hills and scant detail as to how it would negotiate Black Cat Roundabout (A1) being expanded with more road space. Politicians have made the northern Route ‘E’ a do or bust in their support for an east-west rail and have also discounted the former old route with counter proposals to block it with infill housing. This is again a wrong approach and lacks both creativity, imagination and realism.

The former Bedford-Cambridge route ERTA has called for as a lone voice in the wilderness, requires:

·                    No housing in Bedford urban cordon and as yet opponents have failed to identify what housing specifically is at risk.

·                    The old formation is flat land on embankment, following the Great River Ouse.

·                    Two level crossings and a raising of the A421 Bypass is required and a realignment around Willington and new alignment north of Blunham to approach the Tempsford plains from the south-westerly direction.

·                    ERTA has long called for direct east-west and north-south rail links to be physically linked at Tempsford, not segregated as the 2019 Consultation purported.

Although diagram below should have the GC Route Re-alignment proposal going off the east-west rail further east than it displays, none-the-less this ‘map of intent’ is a fine effort from our friend Mr Harry Burr:

Useful Summary:

Old Route Comparison/ERTA Notes	Objections, fallacy and/or extras
ERTA prefers the old route via old St John’s. Whether that means reversing into and out of Bedford Midland and new south-facing bays, should be studied as a part of new station design.	Argument, we must focus all links on Bedford Midland, you can’t have two viable stations. Yet, Bicester on east-west rail has two stations with connecting bus links and does adequately well.
If you made the old St John’s an 8-coach long station, you would not be able to divert tracks from east to north, it would be a straight east-west and north-south divide. However, if you come from west-north via the Route E option, you discount any east-north direct running anyway as you abandon that route completely!	That may be true, as we state, 2 stations co-existed for best part of 100 years and ability to get a connecting bus link going, maybe part of a new orbital serving new stations, Tavistock Street and the refurbished High Street (footfall and spend) should be looked at. Using the Hitchin arches and a diamond crossing rail, you may still be able to do a direct east-north movement.
It can be argued the old route east of St John’s causes no housing to be demolished.	Route E demands housing in Poets and Ravensden to be demolished or tunnelled under.
The old route east of St John’s requires 2 controversial level crossings and raising the A421 Bypass.	Route E requires a steep inclined flyover over A428 and A6 trunk road bypasses to ascend the hills and descent via Black Cat Roundabout to a flood plain.
ERTA proposes using the former formation until west of Willington and a deviation around built Willington to head north of built Blunham. We reject the can’t, won’t and don’t brigade psychology as head-in-the-sand. Yes, you can is the answer, it requires studies making the case, it requires lobbying including the Office of Road and Rail (ORR).	You can’t get levels crossings these days! You can’t raise dual carriageway bypasses for a local railway these days! You can’t slew cycle/footpaths for railways nor a bird sanctuary at Willington. Reality is, had studies been done to address and call-for these instead of getting north of Bedford Midland, we would not be in the pickle and conundrum today. Can we learn lessons? A thousand miles begins with a single step!
ERTA believes, get Bedford-East Coast Main Line (Tempsford) built and then look again at options to Cambridge and Ely respectively for wider East Anglia disseminations to and from.	The northern route e, fails to deliver, needs huge expense for a design of a switchback! Useless for freight and at huge cost to residential housing and much else. It can be avoided via St John’s with or without a second station.
Richard Pill has been associated with calls for East-West Rails East of Bedford since 1987. A basic railway can always be upgraded.	The East-West Consortium was founded from 1994. The old route was removed 1967 and built on from mid-1970’s starting with Sandy.

Addendum:

We are making progress, but need the Government to play its part, recognise the environmental and land-use stewardship issues require local rail not road building and inform more measures for affordable, accessible, comprehensive rail alternatives to just roads which create more congestion and associated parking demand. Please help us and write to your local MP and media outlets about these and similar issues. 

https://members.parliament.uk/member/4598/contact and

https://members.parliament.uk/member/3912/contact

To reject one rail link in a 100 mile desert of dearth of east-west rail links makes no sense when east-west roads are being progressively dualled such is east-west travel demand. On the other hand, if blight can be avoided via the St John's route we have mooted, then why not shape the footpaths, cycleways and fauna and flora accordingly? Thank you.

Great Central Corridor Re-Railing new-build makes a whole load of sense - please give your support!

 

Schemes:

1. Heathrow Links:

 

Scheme	Status
a. Reading- Heathrow
b. The Windsor Link
c. Southern Heathrow Link
d. Crossrail
e. David’s Waterloo/Byfleet-Denham Link
f. Another including Heathrow-Gatwick via Guildford, Horsham and Three Bridges?

2. Key Goals of ERTA:

a. Great Central Corridor Re-Railing

b. Lands at Calvert to be made available for Aylesbury-East-West Rail link and connection

c. new route junctioning off east-west rail west of Claydon for link near to the former Great Central corridor

d. new build domestic rail for mixed traffic (passenger and freight) with Parkway Stations at east of built Brackley – Brackley East Parkway – adjacent to A43 roundabout with connecting buses to Silverstone and elsewhere.

e. new alignment to Woodford Halse area, Willoughby and hence Barby to link with either WCML/Northampton Loop into WCML Rugby and also a terminal branch to a new station ‘Rugby Central’ with road access, parking and facilities.

f. Rugby WCML – Magna Park-Lutterworth-Narborough via Midland/GC corridor amalgam for links with through running to Leicester/Nuneaton/East Midlands and vice versa/wider connectivity for more passenger and freight movements by rail.

3. GC Corridor Re-Rail:

a. Southampton/Bristol-Oxford-Leicester/East Midlands linkages. Quicker than via Bedford for example. Relief to existing north-south radial main lines and decluttering M1 and associated trunk roads networks and urban interfaces.

b. WCML/M1 modal shift/relief/capacity and enabling more.

c. MK Central is inadequate as per capacity issues and accommodation between Bletchley-Northampton and Rugby even with HS2 and/or modal shift from roads to rail more.

d. Bedford, Aylesbury, Oxford, West London, Euston + freight + fast services and growth all vie for access to Milton Keynes and more. Can’t be done with current constraints, so GC corridor re-railing could free up for more by rail overall and ensure MK Central can cope better.

e. There is a need for a nurturing of a government tiered led plan to declutter M1 end-to-end and all in between. Unless we nurture these rail options, it defaults to more roads, road building with associated bads of congestion, delay, costs, fossil fuel burning, pollution, hazards and waste, let alone land take which could be used for more environmentally sustainable uses like rail, like housing, like farming, like conservation or employment.

f. The former GC corridor from Old Oak Common to Leicester has a growing population, is being developed rapidly and Brackley is one of the largest towns in England without ready rail access/station in close proximity.

4. Old Oak Common (OOC):

a. Chiltern needs to have 2 twin bays for terminal capacity access and enabling more, if not built-in design now, when and how and problems ahead with retrospective costs.

b. a tunnel linking Southern Rail Heathrow project to OOC and Chiltern Lines with a subsurface station for OOC connectivity (HS2, GWR, Crossrail, Underground, others) on a north-south trajectory. This would enable Portsmouth/Guildford-Aylesbury/Banbury respectively and if our GC corridor is built, Leicester and via East-West Rail, Milton Keynes, Northampton and Bedford.

c. Southall-Brentford make a through link for Reading – Waterloo lines and South London orbitals.

5. SW Main Lines – Denham new link via Byfleet:

a. needs working up with identification of population catchments it may serve

b. define stretches overground and underground approximations

c. sites for stations potentially

d. needs local government support and buy-in

needs formal studies to build the case, engineering and advocate to tiers including TfL, Greater London Authority, DFT and Treasury for example.

e. land for stations, connections and junctioning designs need to be established as per feasibility. This must include tunnel requirement specifications.

f. East-North curve not west-north as that would rival and compete with established professional campaign, we support of Heathrow Southern scheme from Woking.

R. B. Pill 15-03-2022

Conclusion and appeal: ERTA has goals, aims and wishes for aspirations to be met. We believe them to be good and in the wider societal interest. I attach a dossier put together and diagrams for your kind perusal and possible support. 

It is too easy to be prisoners of the past and past glories or failures. We need to think of where we are now and build back better investing in nurturing all-weather-proof solutions which do not cost the earth. 

Please join us in the quest for modal shift from road to rail more. We are not anti car but pro choice, which thanks to the closures is denied in many cases. We need your support and shared vision to get it moving more towards what we wish for, the re-railing of Britain.

Enquiries to richard.erta@gmail.com

Below, although not our own diagram, we thank harry Burr for this contribution:

 

Report on Brackmills Meeting, Northampton 26-02-2022 by Richard Pill

Report on Brackmills Meeting, Northampton 26-02-2022 by Richard Pill

The Brackmills meeting was intended to discuss matters pertaining to the re-railing of the Northampton Castle Station to Brackmills Industrial Estate as a rail link for better public transport, freight by rail and general accessibility more than the current situation informs. In a background of growing developments of various sorts across the whole Northampton area beit business, warehouses and residential estates, the direct linkage to increased traffic and associated congestion is a major local problem and ever apparent.

Northampton has a reasonable north-south West Coast Main Line (WCML) railway but a lack of east-west radial rails and a lack of a direct rail link with its regional partners in the East Midlands like Leicester, Nottingham and Derby for example, means all north-south movements tend to go by road including the congested M1 and A508 for example. ERTA dearly wants to see the Northampton-Market Harborough rail link put back with deviations where blockages exist and new build where necessary. The end-to-end linkage and benefits should not be under-estimated. However, the way ahead to get it delivered is equally as challenging and Government seems to be sending mixed messages to say the least on road and rail. Road has a much, much greater budget for expansion than rail and yet, despite COP26 and the concerned about a need for modal shift, cutting emissions and the sheer inefficiencies of congestion, Government panders to the construe of a roads-based society with rail as a nicety, but acting as if expendable commodity and approaching it as a middle-class play thing, whereas it should be mainstay for most freight and local-regional people movements. It once was, the closures secured the trend towards roads locked-in and only reopening can rebalance our transport infrastructure and inform more modal choices for all.

The meet, the first of its kind, attracted some 12 representatives and was generally a constructive and outward looking event. It covered yes, the Brackmills Branch Re-Rail Project, but also other rail issues across Northamptonshire specifically but reaching out for partnerships where common support could be found. So items included taking Brackmills Re-Rail forward and the technicalities involved like Northampton Station layout, capacity, reconnecting the branch to north-south lines and through running into platforms. The road bridge could be reconfigured/replaced, platforms could be reconfigured, and these issues serve a wider purpose than just Brackmills interest, it could create more tracks and capacity for current and future other growths including serving DIRFT and Northampton Freight Depot, trains to Market Harborough and Leicester northwards and Milton Keynes, Oxford, Swindon, Aylesbury and Old Oak Common southwards.

Other highlights were in sum:

A, Daventry: Harry Burr is pioneering a new station and/or new rail link to the Daventry area

B. David Ferguson flagged up a new station for Roade to catch growing development and the A508 south of Northampton saving people driving into the town centre if they wish to travel to places like Milton Keynes and London for example or indeed visiting further north beyond Northampton with less drive-time.

C. Northampton-Market Harborough serves multiple linkages and could enable, with a north-west curve at the Northampton end direct running to DIRFT.

D. On the Northampton Loop Line, a third track could be looked at for more freight by rail. HS2 is supposed to free up capacity, but more by rail needs more tracks on existing lines and reopenings for greater connectivity as to what rail can provide/tap into new markets.

E. Stations on the Midland Main Line, now electrification to Corby and Market Harborough has/is happening. Places like Oakley, Sharnbrook, Irchester (serving wider Rushden), Burton Latimer, Desborough and Kibworth should be looked at. The slow lines can provide separate local services to fast-lines which only stop at principal stations. Spacing stations out at 5–10-mile distances enable even distribution of patronage and spreads the load with the gains.

F. Brackmills needs better public transport for people and goods options. The No. 41 bus service linking Bedford and Northampton has been cut to 1.5 hours interval frequency and takes 1.5 hours journey duration. This is unacceptable for courting regular usage and serving the potential commute, business and visitorship the two towns could be doing with each other if a new faster end-to-end service was fostered. Spiral up or down, it is down currently and for those who want more flexibility, X5 Bedford-MK Central and train to Northampton is the best option it appears, albeit more expensive!

Conclusion: Oh, that all Under 65’s were given concessionary bus and rail passes if on £20, 000 p.a. or less and Government backed a drive to greater usage of the public transport system. What will it take to inform modal shift? A lot more than the spiralling down of public transport and the ability to make public transport much more amenable, affordable and accessible. Currently this is not the case and whatever it takes, should be where Power, Authority and Resource Stewardship should be leading from the front. Meanwhile, incremental line and station reopenings, offer a life-line for optimising the getting more people and goods back on the rails in greater and lesser volumes. We can all do our bit and ERTA will do what it can as well.

https://ertarail.co.uk/ For a copy of the notes from the meeting, please email richard.erta@gmail.com

People at the meeting:

Guildford-Horsham rail corridor threat by a canal planning application - object now and support local rail reopenings!

Agenda for Horsham Public Meeting Saturday 26^th March 2pm at the Meeting Hall, Horsham Unitarian Church, Worthing Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1SL

https://horshamunitarianchurch.com/how-to-find-us/ This agenda is approximate.

1. Chairman’s welcome and any health and safety guidance

2. Speaker Mr George Bathurst with questions and answers after 20 minutes (approx.)

3. Second speaker to be announced around Guildford-Horsham rail/trackbed protection

4. Colin Crawford on the Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham rail link and associated threats.

5. Discussion

6. Drinks, sales stall and networking/banter

7 Pack up and exit safely.

For more information on ERTA, please check our website: https://ertarail.co.uk/

For a reader around some of our campaigns, please check our Blogspot: https://ertarailvolunteer.blogspot.com/

We have a free email loop for updates requests to richard.erta@gmail.com

Add your contribution and join the association. We are stronger together!

Re: Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham Rail Link Route Protection and re-rail promotion.

I apologise for a bad copy (received) of a letter from Waverley Council regarding a re-run of a Planning Application for a canal along part of the former railway corridor which already doubles up as a footpath/cycleway. ERTA has long called for and has a view that re-railing the corridor would serve the greater good in terms of alternatives more to road usage, cut congestion, reduce emissions, free up land for other things to meet ever more parking demand and so forth. I have produced a basic template letter and invite people to either do their own, print and send and/or fill in, scan and email or email, whichever you prefer. This is a golden opportunity to call on councils and other agencies to support the rail option, canals, cycle paths and footpaths can go along a widened 'green' corridor and/or be directed elsewhere, railway links between principal towns are not so easy and using former routes make some practical sense and does not necessarily exclude others, but others exclude/make harder re-railing the corridor.

Please also find our diagram, which gives a rough guide to connectivies the rail link offers, freeing up wider on/off road and rail capacity. If you need any more information either contact the Council direct (Waverley Borough) or our lead member who undertook to liaise and represent us on the matter via Mobile 07836 693977 or email him via colin.crawford@btconnect.com It is not very often we have a chance for a second bite at the proverbial 'cherry' but this is a window of opportunity for the rail link. Our events page shows we have a public meeting scheduled for 26th March and all are welcome to compare notes. https://ertarail.co.uk/events/ Please give us your support, however remote you may feel - it is our nationwide interest, reach and range which makes ERTA significant to mobilise for more and better rail and select other public transport matters. We welcome people to join if not already and add their weight. It is amazing what people-power can achieve sometimes, despite the odds. So there can be a hope for the rail option if enough support can be found. Thanks very much. For relevant docs, please contact me via richard.erta@gmail.com and also see Waverley contact page: https://www.waverley.gov.uk/Services/Council-information/About-Waverley-Borough-Council/Contact-us

Closing date I believe is 21-02-2022 - there is time is we can act 'now' please and together can make an impact. Act now please.

Waverley Council contact to object to Canal Threat to Rail Corridor is e. kate.edwards@waverley.gov.uk 

Reference: WA/2020/0004

Below is original letter for perusal and if inclined, support the railway as other options for the canal do exist. Meanwhile, a timely reminder if we do not re-rail Britain: https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/70604/-pause-english-roads-programme-too-says-goodwin

Email from Surrey County Council says: "From reading the documents you kindly sent me, I believe that you are seeking to make a case to object to the diversion of the Wey and Arun Canal on the premise that it will prohibit the potential reopening of the former railway line between Guildford and Cranleigh, and potentially onward to Horsham and Shoreham. I am afraid that the reopening of the railway is not supported by the County Council, which means I cannot support your case. As I am sure you will be aware, the original Guildford to Horsham via Cranleigh line was opened in 1865 by London Brighton and South Coast Railway. It was a single-track railway with passing loops. The line was never very profitable and the 1963 ‘Reshaping of British Railways’ report (Dr Beaching’s report) indicated a flow of under 5,000 passengers per week. As a result, the Guildford to Cranleigh line was closed in 1965. In pre-Covid, the A281 suffered with peak time traffic congestion and all the problems that brings; pollution, frustration and delay to commuters, negative impacts on businesses, etc. The County Council and the rail industry have looked in detail to see if it is viable to reinstate the former line between Cranleigh and Guildford. Work has shown that an engineering solution is feasible, although it would come with some environmental impacts as construction would affect many walkers, dog walkers, horse riders and cyclists. Locally it may not be supported by all, or indeed a majority. In the mid and late 1990s, the Council commissioned work looking at rail improvements in the County, including detailed work on a few specific projects, which included the Guildford to Cranleigh line. The economic analysis suggested that the reopening of the line would not be feasible. The first-year income was estimated at only 3% of the capital cost, even without taking into account operating costs. Research also showed that only 12% of trips made from the area were to Guildford or London, with 60% of the trips made to other parts of Surrey, many of which would not be accessed by reopening the line. More recently, our 2013 and Surrey Rail Strategy notes that reinstatement of the Guildford-Cranleigh line... “was rejected because of the lack of a viable business case. Previous detailed feasibility studies into the scheme carried out for Surrey County Council concluded that patronage would be insufficient to justify the significant cost of rail line re-opening. There is no evidence to suggest that the fundamental drivers of demand have changed substantially since these studies were carried out in the 1990s. The County Council therefore decided to undertake no further work on this proposal. However, it supports the retention of the track bed of the old railway as part of the “Downs Link” transport corridor for walkers, cyclists and horse riders. Substantial improvements to the quality of the Downs Link have been made and this has resulted in considerably increased use of this very popular local facility. The new Rail Strategy for Surrey published in 2020 does not support the reinstatement of the railway for these same reasons. Critically therefore, detailed studies have shown that a reinstated railway would never cover its operating costs, let alone repay the capital cost of construction, even with the new homes coming into the area. A further problem is that (pre-Covid) Guildford Station is at capacity, so there would be nowhere for a new rail service to go. Even if Guildford Station could accommodate an extra train service from Cranleigh, it would be for an interchange only, given there are no train paths available for onward to travel to London. We have previously looked at guided bus and trams as a solution using the former track bed. Whilst less costly in terms of infrastructure costs, the local impacts are similar and, again, there is no business case to deliver them in terms of potential patronage. This is compounded by the need for these alternatives to fight for road space on the approach to Guildford. I strongly support the former railway line being used as a transport link for walkers, horse riders and cyclists. However, whilst reinstating the railway is an interesting idea in principle, significant work has shown that it is simply not feasible, and it is not supported by the County Council." My response is: Para 1. He doesn't support the rail link and likewise the county council at Surrey. Local elections in May, could change their complexity Para 2. History can inform lessons, but we are not bound by history per se. What of now and the future short-medium term? Long term is a luxury we cannot presume with Climate Emergency. Para 3. If the corridor cannot be widened for a railway, fence and a pathway/cycle way, how much less a canal? You have said other options are available? The 'majority' are not always right, even if votes in it. However, this local railway could be part of a wider net-work and larger dynamic appeal e.g. Reading-Brighton 'not via cluttered London', save on changing and much more. Para 4. Again wider rail network and regional scales of traffic, not just parochial. The through route to Horsham, rather than a branch to Cranleigh - was that looked at in scoping terms? If not why not look at it now before throwing it away forever, locking in a growth of road usage with implications? Para 5. A widened 'green corridor' could encompass walking/cycling fenced off. The railway does not have to use every inch of the old route, some realignment, deviation or new stretches witha dditions like a link to the Horsham-Shoreham line direct and also the Arundel/Chichester line. Para 6. Deadlock but puts all growth on the local and regional roads. That is detrimental and corrosive. Para 7. Guildford capacity - we raised in Zoom meetings but was played down by some locals. By depositing and going elsewhere clearing the tracks, it lets other people in and enables more. If capacity has and remains an issue, constraints means growth of existing services require more platform capacity, why has this not been planned for re: town centre/bus station redevelopments etc? Para 8. Guided Busway is no panacea or cheaper than conventional local rail. Examples of Cambridgeshire and elsewhere bear this out: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway ](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridgeshire_Guided_Busway) If no business case and preference is for walking, cycling and canal over 'this' route specifically, why both looking at Guided Busway? No good for freight movement, taking lorries off local roads. Para 9. Business Cases are expensive and beyond what a voluntary group such as ERTA can do. If you want to know more, please email richard.erta@gmail.com and help us defend keeping and supporting the rail alternative to a roads only future.coalitions to share costs and seeking optimum rail potential including reviving other lines like North Downs, this seems remiss. Is cost an issue making a negative reaction easier behind the excuses? These are my views, hope of interest. We need ambassadors to take up this and other similar rail causes and challenges. It only defaults to more on the roads if we do not!

17 March 2022

Press Release

Notice is given of Horsham Public Meeting – All Welcome – on Saturday 26^th March 2pm-4pm 2022. It is with Guest Speaker Mr George Bathurst, on the Windsor Rail Link and possible others.in the Meeting Hall, Horsham Unitarian Church, Worthing Road, Horsham, West Sussex, RH12 1SL https://horshamunitarianchurch.com/how-to-find-us/ To discuss the rebuilding of a Horsham – Shoreham and Guildford rail links and associated matters. All enquiries and offers of help like pre-event leafleting please contact Richard Pill richard.erta@gmail.com See https://ertarail.co.uk/events/ for details/other events too.

Route/corridor protection is crucial to keep Guildford-Horsham-Shoreham rail options alive. Other uses like walking, cycling, canals must go either alongside a widened corridor or elsewhere respectively.

We feel some councils have under-estimated the potential the re-railing offers in local and regional modal choices and shift back to rail. Links with Guildford, Reading

and Heathrow - Horsham, Shoreham and Brighton and vice versa would commend themselves and carry people and goods off the roads and provide more capacity

on the heavily used Brighton Main Line. In short it is a win, win and should be studied further with calling on Government support very much in mind.

End Press Release

Further comment: Any comment is welcome to entertain via Richard Pill 01234 330090 or Colin Crawford

(Mobile 07836-693977).

Addendum: The Canal project which threatened to block the railway corridor has been thrown out, but may be subject to an appeal. We welcome people to write to respective local councils, MP's and the Department of Transport to support re-railing the corridor and slewing cycle/walkways alongside with suitable fencing and sound barriers. It can be done and for example, direct Reading-Brighton 'not via London' would be a huge benefit for end to end as well as intermediate public transport choices and getting vehicles off the roads whilst relief to the capacity Brighton Main Line to boot! Join us and help us win this battle please. Enquiries via richard.erta@gmail.com and visit our Facebook site: https://www.facebook.com/groups/Brighton2Guildford

Reopen part of the East Lincolnshire railway with caveates where necessary.

If you live in or around the Lincolnshire (UK) area and/or are supportive of an idea to rebuild a terminal branch link to re-rail part of East Lincolnshire, please don't carp from the sides or nit pick but join ERTA, donate, offer to help and campaign for it. It does not have to use every inch of former line, realignments, deviations may be needed or a like HS2 'here's the cheque, move please' with relocation packages built in. But the greater good, the benefits of rail connectivity with the wider country and people/places, must be such as to court widest support and ideally, if Government tiers ever listen, to get them sufficiently galvanised to move it towards a delivery in a timely manner, to plan ahead to nurture conditions for delivery and ensure win, win not losership is the order of the day. Please join ERTA and help us help others. https://ertarail.co.uk/become-a-member/

Meanwhile, a timely reminder if we do not re-rail Britain: https://www.transportxtra.com/publications/local-transport-today/news/70604/-pause-english-roads-programme-too-says-goodwin