STANFORDPARISH COUNCIL

Section 239 Local Government Act 1972

AN EXTRA PUBLICPARISH MEETING

To discuss

The proposalb:yCentralRailway to:builda-freightline'"

from the Midlands to the ----Channel Tunnel

_This is a separate -and additionallIne from the High~Speed Rail-Link

Monday 24th June 1996, at 7.00pm -•In

Stanford Parish Room

Please try to attend

STANFORD PARISH COUNCILMinutes of the Extra Public Parish meeting held on Monday, 24 June 1996

to discuss the proposal by Central Railway to build a freight line from the Midlandsto the Channel Tunnel

in-the Parish Room

Present: CUr J OadsweU (Chairman)Cllr A OadsweUCllr R CookCUr E Holt

G Howard (Clerk)

Cllr S Newlands (SOC)CUr J Palmer (KCC)Cllr C Hunter (Chairman, Lympne Parish Council)Mr M Buxton (Agent to Rt Hon Michael Howard)

26 Members of the Public

The Chairman opened the meeting by welcoming aU present. He then introduced the ParishCouncillors and Guests to the meeting.

The Chairman eXplained that the Central Railway proposal had been put before the Government on20 May 1996 under the Transport and General Works Act 1992 and all responses had to be receivedby the Secretary of State for Transport within 42 days, that is by 1 July 1996. This was necessary if theParish Council wished to present its views at any subsequent Public Enquiry. The Parish Council wasobliged to hold a public meeting before submitting its response. The Chairman had prepared adocument on the proposal which Parish Councillors had received and discussed. (A copy is enclosedwith the Minutes). Following public discussion at this meeting, the Parish Council would make adecision which would be recorded and submitted to the Secretary of State.

'--.--' If parliament approved the application by Central Railway that would count as planning permISSIOnand the application would then go to a Public Enquiry.

The Chairman explained that the Central Railway application was independent of the London andContinental Railway Channel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL). The construction of CTRL was due to beginnext year. This railway would come along the north side of the existing Railtrack lines and at virtuallythe same level; noise protection had been promised. The Parish Council had agreed with UnionRailway, the original proposed builders of CTRL, to accept the severing of Stone Street with just afoot bridge.

The Chairman told the meeting that the Central Railway plans were for a "super gauge" railway ­similar to the Channel Tunnel shuttle trains. There was likely to be heavy interaction between the twoproposed new railways and the "Transport Corridor" would always be under threat. The freight linewould ease the. problem of lorry road traffic but the local issue was the damage to the environment.There had also been talk of a freight marshalling yard at Westenhanger, a duplicate of the one atOoUands Moor. Freight going through the Channel Tunnel had to undergo various checks.

The proposed Central Railway would come from Ashford on the south side of the existing Railtracklines and then cross to the north side between Stone Street and the B2068/M20 Junction 11 link. The

bridge to achieve this would be about 100-150 metres long and five to seven metres higher than theexisting ground level. The M20 at Stanford/Westenhanger was three metres higher than the natural

land level and the noise was excessive .. ~ ..

/

- 2 -

The Chairman then paraphrased and explained to the meeting the document he had prepared for theParish Council. (Copy enclosed with Minutes). He said that if Central Railway was granted planningpermission, the building of the railway was due to stal1 in 2000 and due to sta11 running in 2003.

The Chairman pointed out that the present proposals meant six tracks at WestenhangerlStanford usedby three independent operators - the existing Railtrack, London and Continental Railway's CTRL andCentral Railway. The Parish Council was of the view that four tracks would serve and thedevelopment should be a joint venture. The Central Railway would spoil the noise protection put inby CTRL.

CUr Newlands said that SDC had passed a resolution on the case they wouled present. This coveredStanford adequately.

Asked by a member of the public why Central Railway had to have a crossing over the existing track,the Chairman explained that the railway was coming from the Midlands, via Reading and was alreadyon the south side of the existing line. Also, if the London and Continental Railway was built therewould be no room to bring Central Railway in on the north side. However, it could not continue onthe south side all the way to the Channel Tunnel because of Saltwood and Sandling tunnels.Tunnelling under the existing track would not be practical and would be very expensive.

Asked if the Westenhanger freight yard was back as a possibility as part of the Central Railwayapplication, the Chairman said that it was not included in the plan. If the crossing of the existing trackwas made where proposed there was no room for a freight yard but there would be if the crossing wasmade earlier. He pointed out that a lot was not yet included in the plans.

There was no alternative route proposed - this was the only one.

A member of the public was concerned about the devastation that would be caused to theenvironment. she felt that endangered species would be threatened. She named various birds andotters. The Chairman confirmed that his proposal for a four-track system would protect the wildlife.

The Chaiman said that the proposed four-tracks would be the two existing Railtrack lines andtheLondon and Continental tracks to the north.

Cllr J Palmer told the meeting that the KCC would debate the issue the following day - 25 June 1996.He said that the KCC welcomed moves to remove freight from the roads but felt that that the KCCdid not feel this was the right move. He supported the views of the Chairman (as did KCC)that six tracks from Ashford was too much. He completely supported the views of the Chairman thatfour lines were sufficient.

Cllr Palmer said that the KCC would oppose the present proposal from Central Railway.

The Chairman re-iterated the Parish Council's objection to the proposal as in the document he gaveto tge Parish Councillors and expounded to the public meeting.

On a show of hands, the members of the public were unanimous in supporting the Chairman'sdocument. The Chairman~id agree to amend it to include concerns about the environment.

WITH THE UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THE PUBLIC MEEING, STANFORD PARISHCOUNCIL AGREED TO OPPOSE THE APPLICATION.

~~.~~e" of the publk thanked~U~IIYthe C'hai,man, fm the wmk on the ••

'--./'

STANFORD PARISH COUNCIL

Railway Links to the Channel Tunnel East of Ashford.

Stanford Parish Council mindful of the application by Central Railway Pic on 20th May 1996to build a railway from the Midlands.to the Channel Tunnel have considered the implicationsfor local communities. This paper presents a summary of the effects of proposed developmentto the "Railway Corridor" east of Ashford and suggests an alternative proposal seeking toreduce impact on our local communities. Irrespective of the outcome of the Central Railwayapplication there seems to be a definite need to provide a railway system that matches thecapacity of the Channel Tunnel. This paper suggests that an integrated approach should betaken rather than separate approach by each developer.

In presenting these suggestions Stanford Parish Counci.1are not expressing either support oropposition to the proposals by Central Railway Pic to build a "Super Gauge" freight railway.The intention is to show that should such a system be considered, it should be integrated withLondon & Continental Railway CTRL and existing Railtrack system.

Summary

Central Railway applied to the Secretary of State for Transport on 20th May 1996 to build aseparate rail link to the Channel Tunnel. This is in addition to, and independent of, theChannel Tunnel Rail Link (CTRL) proposed by Union Railway and awarded to London &Continental Railways (L & C) in February 1996 for development.

It is recognised that whatever the outcome of the Central Railway proposals the existing"railway corridor" east of Ashford is likely to be the subject of ongoing development proposals.The location of the Channel Tunnel alongside the North Downs and general topographymakes the corridor east of Ashford a logical choice for railway development. The existingRailtrack railway freight capacity is limited by third rail electrification and the loading gaugeconstrained by the width of Saltwood and Sandling Tunnels.

The existing Railtrack twin track serves Eurostar and Freight trains for the Channel Tunneland the railway services to Folkestone, Dover and East Kent. The new railways would createa corridor of six rail tracks east of Ashford to Dollands Moor and the Channel Tunnel. It

seems excessive to provide six rail tracks to serve the Channel Tunnel which only has twotracks and the railway route to Folkestone and Dover .•

London & Continental Railway and Central Railway are proposing totally separate tracksystems, both designed to be independent of the Rail Track system. Furthermore the Railtracklink to the Channel Tunnel must be maintained during construction of these two new railways.It is suggested that these constraints have caused major complications in the alignments andforced costly and complicated engineering solutions that could be avoided by an integratedapproach between the three systems. Major compiications in route requirements occur atSellindge, Stanford/Westenhanger and Saltwood Tunnel.

Railway Corridor - 2nd June 1996 Page 1

The construction of these four additional railway tracks east of Ashford will have a majorimpact on communities along the route. The fact there are to be two separate new railwaysystems constructed at different times will only extend the disruption and blight oncommunities laying along the corridor.

It is considered that an integrated system comprising of a total of four tracks could beengineered to provide all the required capacity and maintain the integrity of the ChannelTunnel link throughout construction .•-Furthermore it would create the opportunity to demolishor modify Saltwood Tunnel which, by many estimates, is in poor state and probably of alimited life.

Complications with existinQ proposals

The London & Continental Railway is designed to run to the north of the existing Railtracksystem. The Central Railway route is designed to run to the south of existing Railtrack systembecause of the approach from west to Ashford on its route from the Midlands. The proposal ­includes a cross over in the Westenhanger area to take the tracks north side to the provide ..Jconnections to the Channel Tunnel systenifroni the northern side of the L&C CTRL. This alsorequires an additional bridge over the M20 Motorway in the Dollands Moor / Newington area.

Sellindge

There is very limited space to accommodate Central and L&C Railways through the area ofGrove Bridge and Barrow Hill. There is no room to run Central Railway to the north ofRailtrack with the L&C CTRL system. Large embankment or bridge structures will be requiredthat will intrude into adjacent housing and retaining walls to separate Rail Track and Centralrailway tracks will be needed for the southern route.

Stanford and Westenhanger

Central Railway propose a cross over from the south side of Railtrack to the north side of theL&C Railway, located between Stone Street and the B2068/M20 Junction 11 link. Theproposed road on the perimeter of the Motorway Service Area to Stanford South must be '-/maintained as it is intended to demolish the Stone Street road bridge. The cross over andassociated embankments will take the Central Railway track through the centre of villages atan estimated height between 5 to 7 meters above the existing ground level. This would betopped by barriers and overhead line structures. It will require a substantial overbridge,estimated at 300 feet long to affect the crossing. From local knowledge it is believed that thiswpuld place the overbridge on bad ground. This would only serve to increase the bulk andlength of the structures. It must span the equivalent of five tracks and then drop to pass underthe B2068/M20 Junction 11 link road.

Saltwood Tunnel.

This is a Victorian "Cut and Cover" brick lined tunnel carrying the existing Railtrack line. Theproposed L & C Railway and Central Railway requires a complicated bridging supportstructure to pass over Saltwood Tunnel without causing undue loads to be transmitted on tothis tunnel. Central Railway proposals appear to require addition structures and engineering..Railway Corridor - 2nd June 1996 Page 2

to "thread" past both L & C Railway and Saltwood Tunnel.

An Alternative Proposal

Six tracks seem an unnecessary over capacity. An alternative is to provide a "quality fourtrack" system built to service the need of the Channel Tunnel and local rail services eastof Ashford. The system should be designed to incorporate the High Speed CTRL of Londonand Continental Railway, the freight- service of Central Railway and local network services.It is assumed that such a system could be engineered to provide similar traffic flows as theChannel Tunnel tracks. The Channel Tunnel "packs" both shuttle and through trains on to atwin track system. It therefore seems logical that four tracks should have twice the capacityof the Channel Tunnel. This capacity should readily service the freight trains for assembly atDollands Moor and the Railtrack trains to Folkestone, Dover.

The principle is to contain the railway corridor within the L&C CTRL route on the north andexisting Railtrack outline. The Railtrack tracks should then be modified to provide a route forCentral Railway "super gauge" track along the existing alignment with some minor variationto accommodate the greater width. This would constrain the southern boundary of the corridorand ease construction problems at Sellindge, avoid the costly cross over at Westenhangerand the costly complicated structures to protect Saltwood Tunnel. Furthermore the existinglinks and bridges to the Channel Tunnel system would be used so avoiding the need foranother bridge over the M20 and significant intrusion into Newington. The disruption to theBlackhouse Hill road bridge and the Rugby Club would be reduced to that required by theL&C CTRL.

This proposal would allow the rail corridor to run at a more level contour avoiding the steepergradients required to traverse over Saltwood Tunnel and ease the connections into DollandsMoor. It would allow full overhead electrification thus offering the opportunity of using Class92 Electric Locomotives for "local" freight trains. It is considered that noise amelioration wouldbe more easily engineered for a four track corridor than six track.

It would be necessary to by pass Saltwood Tunnel as this cannot accommodate the loadinggauge envisaged for both new railways. This could be achieved by a forming a cutting to runnorth of Saltwood Tunnel, and south of the M20 Motorway to provide a by pass route andallow connections to be made at Dollands Moor. The "dual direction" running arrangementof existing Rail Track lines would enable Eurostar services to be maintained while modificationto Dollands Moor connections were made. The cutting should be designed to take threetracks, two for L&C and one for Central Railway "Super Gauge". Once connections weremade, the L&C CTRL would use the "by pass" so releasing existing Railtrack lines andSaltwood Tunnel for modification. This could either be to modify or demolish and reform, soas to take a track of sufficient width and clearance suitable for Central Railway "Super gauge".Thus this would be the fourth track of the proposed four track system. Early provision of theSaltwood Tunnel "by pass" would enable local network services to continue.

This proposal would require a joint venture between L&C CTRL, Central Railway and Railtrackto provided an integrated system. It is considered that such a joint venture would only takeplace if actively supported and promoted by the Secretary of State for Transport. Should theCentral Railway application fail there is still merit in providing a quality four track system

Railway .Corridor - 2nd June 1996 Page 3

linking the railways to the Channel Tunnel in anticipation of future demand. It suggested thatan integrated approach is superior to the piece meal approach imposed on the existingpromoters of the two new railway systems. The "Four Track" integrated approach wouldsignificantly reduces the impact on the communities along the line east of Ashford.

There is a widely published policy at National and County level to move freight from the roadsand on to railways. That policy does not seek to eliminate road born traffic but to transfer longdistance traffic on to railways. Th~. Central Railway system and the "Piggyback" systemprovide a means for this transfer. The "Piggyback" system has the advantage of Nation widelinkage whereas the Central Railway "Super Gauge" has only limited connections.

It is considered that now or sometime in the near future the railway system linking theChannel Tunnel and the European Railway network must be rationalised. Part of thatrationalisation must surely be to match the capacity of the Channel Tunnel to the service links.The rail links must be capable of carrying freight to the European Loading Gauge andequipped with overhead electrification. It is suggest that the time to provide this "quality" rail ­link is now. It should not be dependant on separate developers seeking to build systems for ---./specialised use and markets. The principle of DO IT ONCE, DO IT RIGHT and DO IT NOWshould be adopted.

John DadswellChairman Stanford Parish Council1st June 1996

Ra~lway Corridor - 2nd June 1996 Page 4