|
Title: Another potential development via Trowbridge and Chippenham Post by: grahame on August 06, 2021, 20:57:32 (http://www.wellho.net/pix/roxrel.jpg)
From ERTA (https://ertarail.co.uk) by email - comments on Solent to Midlands Multimodal Freight Strategy Quote Dear Friends, Colleagues and Elected Representatives, re: https://www.networkrail.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Solent-to-the-Midlands-Multimodal-Freight-Strategy-Phase-1-June-2021.pdf Clearly if we are to see growth and sustainably predicated, and if we accept existing rails and roads are at capacity, modal shift and reducing emissions and congestion means shifting more freight and people back to rail and that in turn demands more rail routes, duplicate routes and capacity creation. Southampton-Reading-Oxford-Birmingham/West Midlands and beyond, fanning out across a wide spectrum of the country, means we need creative thinking and planning now, not some way-off date of 2050 when the threshold of irreversible climate change is 2030! https://www.un.org/press/en/2019/ga12131.doc.htm Whether you believe in Climate Change or not, we cannot keep taking land share for widening roads, catering for congestion, pollution and delays. We have to get more by rail. The English Regional Transport Association (ERTA) has done a 13 page response to the Solent-Midlands Report which I trust you will find of interest (attached). Principal rail options are: 1. Western flank Chippenham-Kemble-Hereford via Ross-on-Wye onwards to Shrewsbury, for non Birmingham centric freight by rail and passenger services to Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty/AONB which have upgraded progressively A40 trunk roads, but are a desert for rail. Likewise bringing Malmesbury and Cirencester back onto the rail network makes a lot of sense, ditto Witney in passenger terms, but we need end-to-end connectivity also. 2. A new build off the Winchester line (north of Winchester) to Newbury-Didcot could help declutter Reading as well, but issues of new build and accessing the Oxford lines at Didcot via a flyover, are a challenge. 3. Broadening out South Coast Portal handling with more through Portsmouth, Shoreham and elsewhere is another aspect. WE have called for a Shoreham-Guildford reinstatement of a direct rail link, which would give access from Oxford and north, direct to Brighton 'not via London' and quicker than changing at Reading for example. However we also call for support for more joined-up design and planning with the proposed Southern Heathrow Link: https://heathrowrail.com/heathrow-southern-railway-limited-welcomes-uk-transport-secretarys-invitation-proposals-privately-financed-southern-rail-access-london-heathrow-airport/ It must go on to interface with the new Old Oak Common (OOC) Interchange and via a tunnel, to physically link with the Chiltern Rail Network with radial links to Oxford, Banbury, a new domestic Great Central spinal line alongside HS2 to serve Brackley (east of)/A43/Silverstone via a new Parkway Station and onwards to Rugby, Lutterworth and the East Midlands via Narborough/Leicester and also a curve in the Nuneaton direction. 4. Birmingham should have the freight centric to it, not be lumbered with freight for beyond it and not specifically for it. That will free up pathways and enable more modal shift to rail with subsequent environmental benefits as well as wider shares of footfall and spend based on sustainable transport modes. Please have a perusal and help get MP's on board and urge the Government to speed delivery up. East-West Rail must physically link with the East Coast Main Line in the mooted Tempsford area for completeness. Likewise, given existing north-south rail lines are at capacity now (a basis for arguing HS2's contribution eventually), the spinal resurrected Great Central corridor including Calvert-Grendon for quick domestic access to OOC and beyond, would enable East Midlands specific freight and cross-country operations to access without recourse to London, Birmingham or existing lines more, enabling more with benefits. We need a joined-up vision that delivers, not the status quo. We would really welcome your support and interest. However good existing rail upgrades are, Reading-Oxford is at capacity now, so alternative routes are required to keep things moving and cut road reliance more. It is in everyone's interest to do so: https://blog.greenflag.com/2019/tyre-particles/ Yours sincerely, Richard Pill ERTA Campaigns Coordinator. Attachment mentioned - mirrored for members at http://www.firstgreatwestern.info/mirror/erta_sol_mids.pdf Title: Re: Another potential development via Trowbridge and Chippenham Post by: Lee on August 06, 2021, 21:30:30 Somebody at ERTA obviously had their 3 Shredded Wheat this morning. I was thinking that I would probably end up doing a naked victory lap of honour past the Abbey with my Option 24/7 hat on if we managed to get the 2 buses an hour from Chippenham that Malmesbury previously had at the beginning of the 2010s back, let alone have trains coming through!
Title: Re: Another potential development via Trowbridge and Chippenham Post by: ellendune on August 06, 2021, 22:04:01 Not aware of the (obviously top secret) line between Chippenham, Malmesbury and Kemble that they wish to reinstate. There was a small branch from Dauntsey to Malmesbury, which could not carry much freight as is was a country branch line. However there was no line from Malmesbury to Kemble that I know of!
Title: Re: Another potential development via Trowbridge and Chippenham Post by: grahame on August 07, 2021, 07:48:00 I would remind you, gentlemen, that there have been a number of "impossible" things that have happened over the years. Passenger trains have returned to Waunfawr, Gorebridge and even run where they have never run before such as Nant Gwernol. On a much more local basis, my local station at Melksham was closed and demolished in the late 1960s, with never a thought of it seeing passenger trains again, but here we are today (fingers crossed!) with 8 trains each way.
There are "schoolboy errors" in the ERTA report which you have picked up, and an unconventional style and elements of their report and techniques which overwhelm (me) when I read them. But I am minded that a "silly" or "crayonist" or even "April fool" idea can develop into something which if worth taking forward to a feasibility, then an outline, then a full case, then done. Of course, at each step forward, two or three dozen case fail where one passes on so the change from this report is (I guess) 1 in 30 * 30 * 30 * 30 - almost literally one in a million. And, no, I don't expect to see trains roaring past the town where St Eilmer was the first to practice winged flight. But this is an innovative part of the country, right up to modern Dyson days. Title: Re: Another potential development via Trowbridge and Chippenham Post by: Lee on August 07, 2021, 08:21:23 I think you are misunderstanding my comment there, grahame. I was admiring the ambition and optimism of the authors, whilst - in an admittedly jocular way - trying to be realistic about what may be required to make some elements of it a reality.
As someone who has worked closely together with you since 2006 on projects that some once considered "impossible" such as Melksham/TransWilts, you more than anyone know that I have always championed and encouraged people to be ambitious with these kind of public transport proposals. Indeed over here, the Pontivy Reopening Project that is now a key part of our current rolling programme actually started as just one member of the public's idea in 2017, and already the first phase is open and completed. Also, as I have posted from time to time on the forum, one of my roles regarding future planning is to carry out regular surveys of our former trackbeds to ensure that they remain clear and able to be utilised at any point in the future that they may be required for rail purposes. Title: Re: Another potential development via Trowbridge and Chippenham Post by: eXPassenger on August 07, 2021, 18:25:12 If that comes off I will put £1,000 on Lord Lucan winning the Derby, riding Shergar.
This page is printed from the "Coffee Shop" forum at http://gwr.passenger.chat which is provided by a customer of Great Western Railway. Views expressed are those of the individual posters concerned. Visit www.gwr.com for the official Great Western Railway website. Please contact the administrators of this site if you feel that content provided contravenes our posting rules ( see http://railcustomer.info/1761 ). The forum is hosted by Well House Consultants - http://www.wellho.net |