March - Wisbech reopening

[ocelocelot]

This article also mentions that half of a £6.4m funding request would go towards the rail study

http://www.fenlandcitizen.co.uk/new...nce-for-wisbech-says-council-leader-1-8023243

And i believe this article from yesterday is saying that the funding request has been approved :
http://www.heart.co.uk/cambridgeshire/news/local/wisbech-garden-city-plans-move-ahead/

 

[yorksrob]

Its good news it's progressing. If we can't reopen a short mothballed branch with minimal structures, frankly we might as well give up and go home.

 

[FenMan]

I wish them well with their plans, but am unconvinced on the merit of reopening a rail link.

I won't dwell on the practical problems of reopening, but question if such a link would generate sufficient new custom to the railway to make it viable.

My comparison is with nearby King's Lynn, currently a significantly larger town than Wisbech but also the railhead for a large hinterland stretching to the North Norfolk coast, a total of 150,000 people. This hinterland is the key difference. King's Lynn has approx. 1,000,000 entries and exits a year.

Much of the sparsely populated hinterland around Wisbech is already reasonably well served by rail links at March, Peterborough, Spalding, Downham Market and King's Lynn itself. Regarding Wisbech alone, the X1 bus serving Peterborough and King's Lynn offers a viable alternative for travellers without a car.

I don't see a Wisbech reopening changing this except at the margins. So what would the viability criteria be - 300,000 entries/exits per year over and above cannibalisation of custom from existing rail links, say?

 

[DarloRich]

Its good news it's progressing. If we can't reopen a short mothballed branch with minimal structures, frankly we might as well give up and go home.

once again - mothballed ( depending on vegetation & asset condition) after such a length of time = potential rebuild. ( lets be honest bout the cost of that) We also have the level crossing problem to consider, especially the A47 one.

I hope the passenger usage can be accommodated without impacting on operations at Whitemoor yard!

 

[ac6000cw]

Would the Ely North problem be solved once the planned junction improvements there happen?

One problem with the Ely North Junction improvements (to improve capacity through it) is that there is a set of three level crossings just north of it, one on each of the main routes - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...0xd5c9b00306add425!8m2!3d52.399539!4d0.262363

My understanding (based on what has been published) is that with current LC safety rules etc. some of them at least might have to be replaced with bridges/underpasses in order to allow a significant increase in rail traffic (and/or I guess the rail lines or roads would have to be re-routed). This problem has changed the economics of the Ely North Junction project from a re-work of the just the rail junction layout into a larger civil engineering project. So basically (as far as I know) it's in the 'we can't afford it at the moment' category, like the Ely-Soham doubling project.

 

[70014IronDuke]

I wish them well with their plans, but am unconvinced on the merit of reopening a rail link.

I won't dwell on the practical problems of reopening, but question if such a link would generate sufficient new custom to the railway to make it viable.

My comparison is with nearby King's Lynn, currently a significantly larger town than Wisbech but also the railhead for a large hinterland stretching to the North Norfolk coast, a total of 150,000 people. This hinterland is the key difference. King's Lynn has approx. 1,000,000 entries and exits a year.

Much of the sparsely populated hinterland around Wisbech is already reasonably well served by rail links at March, Peterborough, Spalding, Downham Market and King's Lynn itself. Regarding Wisbech alone, the X1 bus serving Peterborough and King's Lynn offers a viable alternative for travellers without a car.

I don't see a Wisbech reopening changing this except at the margins. So what would the viability criteria be - 300,000 entries/exits per year over and above cannibalisation of custom from existing rail links, say?

You make very valid points. I think a lot depends on what service is offered.

a) A Wisbech-March shuttle? I think this would indeed create a very marginal change.

b) Wisbech-London via Peterboro or Ely would be ideal - but won't happen. (will it?)

c) So we are left with some kind of other service or combination of services which would take some time to see a build up of traffic such as

Wisbech-Ely-Cambridge or

Wisbech-Ely-Cambridge-Stansted (perhaps the best option for limited investment, but probably no capacity at the Cambridge-Stansted section)

Wisbech-March-Peterborough (perhaps too slow to attract London travel)

Or (as I suggested some months back)

Wisbech-Ely (change for London)-Soham-(via reinstated chord)-Newmarket- Fulbourn-Cherry Hinton (new stations, some new doubling of route)-Cambridge.

This latter option would need significant additional investment, of course - but would, in effect, create and merge two, or three, new commuter routes. And allow Cambridge-Ipswich services to be accelerated (could drop the stops between Cambridge and Newmarket, except in peak hours or Sundays).

I think it would be a huge benefit to the region if implemented.

Of course, all bar the Peterboro option would also necessitate work on Ely level crossings, as mentioned.

 

[Tio Terry]

One problem with the Ely North Junction improvements (to improve capacity through it) is that there is a set of three level crossings just north of it, one on each of the main routes - https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...0xd5c9b00306add425!8m2!3d52.399539!4d0.262363

My understanding (based on what has been published) is that with current LC safety rules etc. some of them at least might have to be replaced with bridges/underpasses in order to allow a significant increase in rail traffic (and/or I guess the rail lines or roads would have to be re-routed). This problem has changed the economics of the Ely North Junction project from a re-work of the just the rail junction layout into a larger civil engineering project. So basically (as far as I know) it's in the 'we can't afford it at the moment' category, like the Ely-Soham doubling project.

As a general rule underpasses are not a good idea in The Fens, tend to flood easily because of the water table.

 

[snowball]

The three level crossings are on one road, the B1382, which has, within three-quarters of a mile, lots of buildings on both sides of the road, plus the three LCs, one bridge over rail, one bridge over the Great Ouse, and a staggered junction with a road that runs alongside the river. Looking at the OS mapping (or Google Maps as linked above), any improvement scheme seems likely to require a mile of new road and four or five bridges. Some of the LCs might have to remain open to maintain access to bits of the old road that would otherwise be severed. Presumably NR would try to get some contribution to the cost from the highway authority.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Is there no prospect of freight returning to the line? I appreciate its 30 years a go but back in 1987 there was a daily train of a dozen cargowaggons carrying food products from Wisbech.

 

[The Planner]

To where? 12 cargo wagons worth will be cheaper to do by lorry.

 

[RichmondCommu]

To where? 12 cargo wagons worth will be cheaper to do by lorry.

If it makes any difference the cargo wagons were of the bogie type and were running to Scotland. Just curious that's all.

 

[Bald Rick]

Is there no prospect of freight returning to the line? I appreciate its 30 years a go but back in 1987 there was a daily train of a dozen cargowaggons carrying food products from Wisbech.

It was Pet Food IIRC. No chance of that coming back.

 

[Firesprite]

I wish them well with their plans, but am unconvinced on the merit of reopening a rail link.

I won't dwell on the practical problems of reopening, but question if such a link would generate sufficient new custom to the railway to make it viable.

My comparison is with nearby King's Lynn, currently a significantly larger town than Wisbech but also the railhead for a large hinterland stretching to the North Norfolk coast, a total of 150,000 people. This hinterland is the key difference. King's Lynn has approx. 1,000,000 entries and exits a year.

Much of the sparsely populated hinterland around Wisbech is already reasonably well served by rail links at March, Peterborough, Spalding, Downham Market and King's Lynn itself. Regarding Wisbech alone, the X1 bus serving Peterborough and King's Lynn offers a viable alternative for travellers without a car.

I don't see a Wisbech reopening changing this except at the margins. So what would the viability criteria be - 300,000 entries/exits per year over and above cannibalisation of custom from existing rail links, say?

Fenland has lower than average car ownership, and the bus is slow and often late in peak hours, many of the local services start to late and finish to early. The nearest station to Wisbech is March. Yet the first bus (56) does not arrive at the station until 9.57 am and last one to service the station on route to Wisbech leaves at 17.09pm. The other (46) service arrives earlier to the town square at 7.13am that only leaves 19 minutes to walk 3/4 mile to the station to catch the 7.32am to Cambridge and only 3 minutes to catch the 5.35pm back to Wisbich if arriving on the 5.32pm from Cambridge. People need to be able to travel to get to Jobs and where are most of the well paid jobs in Cambridgeshire? Cambridge of course,

It takes longer to travel on the bus between Wisbech and March than the train takesto travel to Cambridge from March. Footfall at March is expected to seceded 400,000 this year. Helped with the fact March now has two train a hour each way. Since the East Midlands Service now stops two hourly.

Going via Peterborough or Kings Lynn more than doubles the cost and travel time. Poor travel links forms a barrier to employment.

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[70014IronDuke]

Fenland has lower than average car ownership, and the bus is slow and often late in peak hours, many of the local services start to late and finish to early. The nearest station to Wisbech is March. ... People need to be able to travel to get to Jobs and where are most of the well paid jobs in Cambridgeshire? Cambridge of course,

... Poor travel links forms a barrier to employment.

As others have noted, just running a shuttle Wisbech-March is unlikely to solve Wisbech's connectivity problems. (although a shuttle in combination with through trains might work).

However, I have just found this link holding up the Falmouth branch renaissance
www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=18431.0

(and I started another thread on this topic), so maybe a regular shuttle, say every 30 mins, might work for Wisbech?

 

[ChiefPlanner]

It was Pet Food IIRC. No chance of that coming back.

Pet food south , and a large amount of Fenland produce in tins etc. north ,+ products like fruit juice and imported "Dutch" coffee.

(I did look after this flow in the late 1980's)

 

[CockneySparrow]

once again - mothballed ( depending on vegetation & asset condition) after such a length of time = potential rebuild. ( lets be honest bout the cost of that) We also have the level crossing problem to consider, especially the A47 one.

I hope the passenger usage can be accommodated without impacting on operations at Whitemoor yard!

The A47 crossing is only a problem because they are making it one, that crossing shares many similarities to that on the A10 bypass at Littleport and that's a 60mph speed limit, if they are that scared of reopening the crossing at 60mph why not put a 40mph limit either side

 

[ac6000cw]

As others have noted, just running a shuttle Wisbech-March is unlikely to solve Wisbech's connectivity problems. (although a shuttle in combination with through trains might work).

However, I have just found this link holding up the Falmouth branch renaissance
www.firstgreatwestern.info/coffeeshop/index.php?topic=18431.0

(and I started another thread on this topic), so maybe a regular shuttle, say every 30 mins, might work for Wisbech?

One of the problems with the Peterborough - Ely route currently is that although (off-peak) there are 2 tph at least passing through March in each direction, they are long-distance services, different TOCs and not always evenly spaced. If linespeed March-Wisbech was high enough you might just manage (with a following wind) to do a 30 min shuttle with one unit, it would mean the connections in one direction or another might be poor (and the station at March is poorly sited for the town centre, so it's not going to be very attractive for purely Wisbech-March journeys).

Since I think the connectivity Wisbech really wants is towards Cambridge, I can't see anything concrete happening on re-opening until the Ely bottleneck is sorted out (North Junction and Ely-Soham doubling) - that will unlock several other improvement schemes as well like increases in Kings Lynn frequency, doubling the Ipswich - Peterborough to 1 tph, and a new station at Soham.

I quite like the idea of a Wisbech - March - Ely - Soham - Newmarket - Cambridge service (via a restored north to west curve east of Newmarket), but even after you've paid for the basic infrastructure work to make it possible, unless you spend a small fortune on grade-separated junctions it will have to weave through six flat junctions along the way (including the very slow Coldhams Lane Junction at Cambridge). This sounds like a recipe for poor performance and/or a heavily padded schedule.

 

[eastdyke]

The A47 crossing is only a problem because they are making it one, that crossing shares many similarities to that on the A10 bypass at Littleport and that's a 60mph speed limit, if they are that scared of reopening the crossing at 60mph why not put a 40mph limit either side

From a rail point of view you may regard them as similar. Unfortunately from a road point of view the similarities end with letter A and 2 digits.

The A47 is a Primary Route managed by Highways England. The route between Gt Yarmouth and the A1 west of Peterborough is subject to a £300m improvement programme due to begin 2019/20.

http://roads.highways.gov.uk/projects/a47-corridor-improvement-programme/

Why we need this scheme
The A47 has a number of congestion hotspots around Norwich, Peterborough and Great Yarmouth. There is also significant growth predicted in the area which our proposed improvements will help to support.

The scheme has recently completed public consultation and a preferred route announcement is due soon.

If the railway to Wisbech had never been closed perhaps a bridge would be part of any ongoing road improvement proposals! (thereby saving any road scheme the cost of a bridge ?£15m).

Sadly, for road reasons as well as level crossing safety, I see no chance of the rail route being reinstated as a level crossing across the A47 at Wisbech.

 

[mr_jrt]

...on a related note, safe to assume this never went anywhere?

http://stevebarclay.net/could-wisbech-station-open-up-a-direct-kings-lynn-to-peterborough-rail-link/

Specifically, http://stevebarclay.net/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/LynnK-Line.pdf

 

[moggie]

I don't doubt a reinstated link would have value as an important transport link to major towns / cities in the area but until such time as the rail development work and any associated civils work has passed the GRIP4 level which identifies a clear scope including all legal and engineering issues around the change in use of level crossings along the reopened section of the route and results of ground surveys including existing railway asset condition, only then will there be a reliable estimate of costs be known. Anything else is merely to see if interest can be maintained sufficient to keep moving the project forward.

I note Hendy has stated NR's costs will be in the region of £150M (Feb 2017) before they've done GRIP 3. The range of BCR derived at the GRIP2 study which was between 2.3 to 3.0 is already reducing in NR's recent assessment to around of 1.4 (weak).

The simple truth is the trend is not the projects friend when it comes to detailed appraisal of these sort of investments IF a realistic view of the likely costs is not taken at the outset (call it pessimistic bias). I think it's clear that the whole route back to the mainline junction and quite possible the junction itself will need wholesale renewal. Mothballing is one thing, but the line will not be used in future for the same type of traffic before it was closed. Today's requirements will entail a full assessment of the new safety risks and requirements. I'd be amazed if the A47 crossing wasn't specified as a new road overbridge for example as the road is straight as a die at the crossing point. Other road crossings will undoubtedly be upgraded to a full barrier style and various other crossings either closed, replaced by bridge or modernised. If NR think £150M now, call it circa £200M once they know what the true scope of the works necessary to achieve full reinstatement will be (may not all be in NR's scope of course).

Maybe the Wisbech 2020 development group will be able to persuade the minister of the merits assuming the BCR is not blown.

 

[muddythefish]

Pet food south , and a large amount of Fenland produce in tins etc. north ,+ products like fruit juice and imported "Dutch" coffee.

(I did look after this flow in the late 1980's)

Why did it finish ?

 

[CockneySparrow]

If the truth is known NR don't want the line open again, they have many reasons one is to do with train paths, the Felixstowe containers are a higher priority than a two car diesel unit travelling back and forth to the back drop of Cambridgeshire

NR have bigger fish to fry with their signal box and level crossing closure scheme

That's just two reasons to name a few hence the high £150m and growing price tag, might just scare people off

 

[yorksrob]

If the truth is known NR don't want the line open again, they have many reasons one is to do with train paths, the Felixstowe containers are a higher priority than a two car diesel unit travelling back and forth to the back drop of Cambridgeshire

NR have bigger fish to fry with their signal box and level crossing closure scheme

That's just two reasons to name a few hence the high £150m and growing price tag, might just scare people off

If that's true, NR have the wrong priorities. Closing a few level crossings should not trump the development of the network for the social/national good. Political pressure needs to be brought to bear.

 

[Bald Rick]

The minutes of the meeting approving the cash to investigate the development and expansion of Wisbech as a town dropped some strong hints that NR will not be doing the reopening study. If so, then it is a welcome development as

a) A.N. other organisation can have a go,
b) comparisons can be made with NR studies, and,
c) it can stand or fall independently of what NR think about the branch.

Of course the consultant engaged will no doubt have to demonstrate how to deliver a train service south of March, if that is indeed the plan.

 

[Bald Rick]

If that's true, NR have the wrong priorities. Closing a few level crossings should not trump the development of the network for the social/national good.

In your opinion. Many would argue that closing level crossings is very much in the social / national good, and there is a great deal of political pressure to do just that.

Nevertheless, it is unlikely to be relevant in this case, as my previous post suggests.

 

[mr_jrt]

IIRC, avoiding the level crossing by diverting the line alongside the A47 was one of the proposals set out in that item I linked to previously. Whether a station so far outside the town would actually be attractive enough to draw sufficient traffic remains to be seen though.

 

[Joseph_Locke]

If that's true, NR have the wrong priorities. Closing a few level crossings should not trump the development of the network for the social/national good. Political pressure needs to be brought to bear.

Well, if the general public would

a) stop misusing level crossings; and
b) stop kicking off when some moronic misuser is mashed "when a train hit them" (no: they failed to be alert and stood in front of a moving train - often whilst listening to their iPiddle and/or texting)

then our elected representatives will stop pressuring the industry into closing level crossings so we can spend the money on more tangible improvements.

 

[yorksrob]

In your opinion. Many would argue that closing level crossings is very much in the social / national good, and there is a great deal of political pressure to do just that.

Nevertheless, it is unlikely to be relevant in this case, as my previous post suggests.

I agree entirely that it is a good thing that the study is being done independently.

In terms of level crossings, it is a source of anger for me that funding which should be going towards the improvement of the railway for it's users, has to be diverted towards a problem that in the vast majority of cases is caused by bad driving. It is about time that level crossing replacement was paid for out of the road budget.

 

[ac6000cw]

It is about time that level crossing replacement was paid for out of the road budget.

If that happened the railway would probably just lose the money from its budget (as it's no longer its responsibility) - that's how government budgeting generally works...and the railway would still have the safety problem without the funding to do anything about it.

The road budget does sometimes help with level crossings - the new Ely A142 Southern Bypass (under construction at the moment) will benefit the railway considerably since it will allow the level crossing at the north end of Ely station to be closed, and should dramatically reduce the bridge-bashing problem of the low-clearance underpass at the same location (which closes the railway every time it happens). The bypass is costing 28 million, of which NR is contributing 5 million. The problems the level-crossing/underpass create are the main reason it's being built.