Progress of New Depot at Brantham, Suffolk

[jswagger]

Hi,

Does anyone have any idea of the progress of the new Greater Anglia depot at Brantham, Suffolk?

I was up at Brantham recently and there doesn't appear to be much going on apart from site clearance.

 

[GB]

Last I heard (which was a while ago) was that the new depot is on the ropes. The holes they dig keep filling with water.

Have also heard potentially Parkeston yard being taken over as a substitute....not sure how that would sit with the freight sector though and not sure how accurate those rumors are.

 

[twpsaesneg]

https://www.railmagazine.com/news/network/greater-anglia-depot-build-plan-put-on-hold

Construction of a brand new Greater Anglia train maintenance depot at Brantham, Essex, planned to open later this year, may not go ahead.

GA managing director Jamie Burles says the Abellio franchise is reviewing the situation due to “a number of issues” and is looking at other options. A final decision will be made within the next couple of months.

In a GA stakeholder newsletter published on March 9, Burles writes that one of the key obstacles to the scheme announced in December 2017 is not being able to agree terms with the landowner.

In addition, he states: “Safety issues relating to the impact of the likely volume of extra train movements over Manningtree level crossing and a number of additional challenges linked to the preparation of the site and the construction process, mean we are reviewing the scheme and looking at alternative options.

“We expect to make a decision on our approach going forward....

On hold, possibly cancelled.

Edit - Cancelled at Brantham anyway!

 

[306024]

Large open air swimming pool at the moment. Or a wetlands bird sanctuary. Not looking much like a railway depot, and at the moment unlikely to do so.

 

[dk1]

The rumoured figure that's been lost so far on this doomed project is £16m & counting. Oh well, onwards & upwards.

 

[jswagger]

Thanks for the replies.

Despite living 20 mins away, I hadn't realised that the depot wasn't a done deal.

 

[LAX54]

We had heard yesterday, mind you that's via social media (!), that is is now confirmed as cancelled, now looking for alternates, know that they have been eyeing up the Harwich area, in the meatime storage at Yarmouth and Vic sdgs

 

[jswagger]

Won't a depot on the Harwich branch still have to go over A137 Manningtree level crossing?

 

[pdeaves]

As I understand things, much of the issue centres around Manningtree level crossing and how often it closes with extra moves on and off the depot compared to today.

 

[LAX54]

As I understand things, much of the issue centres around Manningtree level crossing and how often it closes with extra moves on and off the depot compared to today.

Think that is a bit of a red herring, never has been an issue with the xing.

 

[rs101]

There's a separate issue with the crossing - it simply can't cope with the volume of road traffic using it (20 minute + queues at peak times) . With about 1,500 more homes being buiilt in the surrounding area, that's only going to get a lot worse.

There have been ongoing discussions about replacing it, but they all hit the same stumbling block - lack of finance.

 

[snowball]

There's a separate issue with the crossing - it simply can't cope with the volume of road traffic using it (20 minute + queues at peak times) . With about 1,500 more homes being buiilt in the surrounding area, that's only going to get a lot worse.

There have been ongoing discussions about replacing it, but they all hit the same stumbling block - lack of finance.

Looking on streetview, it might be difficult to get the height (in the distance between the roundabout and the railway) to go over the railway, yet going under the railway (deeper than the existing 9'6" headroom bridge) would probably create drainage/flooding problems.

 

[rs101]

Yep, flooding is part of the problem.
Even temporary solutions, like traffic lights to ensure even flow of traffic, have been promised for a couple of years, but are still on hold, awaiting approval from Network Rail.

Part of the problem is the large volume of traffic from the Suffolk side, heading for the station. There are quite a few regular commuters who drive from Felixstowe to Manningtree (20 miles each way) because the rail service is considerably more frequent here.

It's been suggested that a second car park be built, on the Suffolk side, along with access to the station, as that would greatly reduce traffic using the bridge. Unfortunately, that's apparently not possible, even though there was a temporary car park that side a few years ago when the main car park was rebuilt.

 

[306024]

We went round this block somewhere in another thread. Going over the railway is a non-starter, too much height required compared to the surrounding land. Drainage / flooding problems are not an issue for the Dutch (ironically) - been building such structures under their railways for years.

The crossing is indeed a problem in its own right at times, but at the times the additional movements would be made it is indeed a bit of a red herring. Harwich isn’t the simple solution it appears either, so still lots to resolve.

During the Ipswich tunnel closure back in 2004 many Felixstowe commuters did find it easier to drive over the Orwell Bridge to Manningtree and that idea has stuck to a degree. A temporary bus interchange was built on the down side of the station but the planning permission required it to be returned to farmland afterwards as it is in the Dedham Vale conservation area.

 

[CHAPS2034]

Another article here

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...rch 2018 Week 3&dm_i=IJS,5IWJ3,JKUTCF,LFKOJ,1

 

[LAX54]

There's a separate issue with the crossing - it simply can't cope with the volume of road traffic using it (20 minute + queues at peak times) . With about 1,500 more homes being buiilt in the surrounding area, that's only going to get a lot worse.

There have been ongoing discussions about replacing it, but they all hit the same stumbling block - lack of finance.

Apart from stock that was starting at Manningtree or Colchester, all other moves towards the country do not need to go over the crossing, plans were to turn on the North Curve, or if a double unit, Mistley, however I think the process that might be needed to get out of the depot up road, would mean the crossing closed for some time, and up and down main blocked too.

 

[eastdyke]

@Wivenswold started a thread for this back in 2017 (now locked).
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/new-depot-at-brantham-suffolk.142141/
Water should not have been a big surprise! The original Chemical Factory with associated offices, laboratories and stores occupied the site for over 100 years. The site was built up over time with ad-hoc additions to surface water drainage and did not flood.
At a stroke the demolition and clearance works would have destroyed the surface water drainage!
Interesting to see what had happened by the time Google recently updated their satellite view. It shows part of the site clearance work and a large clutch of orange clad people on the GE mainline at the point where the rail connection to the depot was to be made.
Explains some of the eye-watering figure quoted upthread by @dk1. The original project was estimated at just £70 million to complete.
Google satellite:
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/place...0x278f387ec8cf271f!8m2!3d51.968701!4d1.068646

 

[rs101]

I have several friends who worked at the factory for many decades. Without exception, they say drainage is a problem, but isn't the biggest one though.
They all say that's the amount of unknown waste chemicals buried around the site.

Apart from stock that was starting at Manningtree or Colchester, all other moves towards the country do not need to go over the crossing, plans were to turn on the North Curve, or if a double unit, Mistley, however I think the process that might be needed to get out of the depot up road, would mean the crossing closed for some time, and up and down main blocked too.

Not sure what relevance your statement has to my post about road traffic through the bridge?

 

[LAX54]

I have several friends who worked at the factory for many decades. Without exception, they say drainage is a problem, but isn't the biggest one though.
They all say that's the amount of unknown waste chemicals buried around the site.



Not sure what relevance your statement has to my post about road traffic through the bridge?

They, well someone was saying, that there would be too many trains going over the level crossing, but this is not exactly true, and giving the wrong impression to the public

 

[eastdyke]

I have several friends who worked at the factory for many decades. Without exception, they say drainage is a problem, but isn't the biggest one though.
They all say that's the amount of unknown waste chemicals buried around the site.

I didn't say that drainage was not a problem, just that the site did not flood (I worked there too). The historical surface water drainage networks would be destroyed by demolition and clearance. I have seen that on other brownfield sites.
As far as your last sentence goes, indeed!!

 

[eastdyke]

They, well someone was saying, that there would be too many trains going over the level crossing, but this is not exactly true, and giving the wrong impression to the public

First I heard the crossing 'blamed' was from East Anglian Daily Times, 23rd Jan:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/manningtree-level-crossing-could-stop-brantham-depot-1-5366441
Includes the quote:

A Greater Anglia spokeswoman said: “In addition to other issues affecting the development of Brantham depot, a potential further complication relates to the impact of additional train movements on the level crossing at Manningtree.
“We are working with Network Rail to assess the implications and the options for addressing them.”

The 'other issues' had been reported by the same paper a week earlier:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/brantham-rail-depot-project-doubts-from-greater-anglia-1-5356667

Greater Anglia announced the proposal to build the new depot in February last year, but it has now told employees in a staff newsletter that the project is under review.
A spokeswoman for the company said that technical issues and negotiations with the landowner had held up completing a deal – and a decision would be made on the future of the project by the spring.
She said: “There remain a number of issues to be resolved to ensure delivery of our new depot at Brantham.
These include the preparation of the site, the link line to access the site and the fact that we have yet to agree commercial terms with the landowner involved.
“We are therefore looking at alternative options for the maintenance and cleaning that is due to be undertaken at Brantham, in case we need to alter our plans.
“We expect to be able to confirm the next steps, either with Brantham or, if necessary, a new plan within the next three months.”

So 'they' and 'the someone appear' to be GA in the press and from those comments the public, local authorities and politicians clearly are under the impression that the main reason for issues with the site are those associated with the level crossing.
I can quite understand why that might not be true but someone in the industry needs to fess up rather soon if that is the case.

 

[LAX54]

Apart from the stock going to Colchester, the 'plan' was to run from Brantham to the North Curve, (or Mistley if needed) change ends, and go down to Ipswich (and beyond), maybe what they did not look at was, what was needed for the units to climb the incline up to the Main Line, and the time involved. they could not do an exit country end, due to the close proximity of the UK Power Lines.

 

[Bald Rick]

First I heard the crossing 'blamed' was from East Anglian Daily Times, 23rd Jan:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/manningtree-level-crossing-could-stop-brantham-depot-1-5366441
Includes the quote:

The 'other issues' had been reported by the same paper a week earlier:
http://www.eadt.co.uk/news/brantham-rail-depot-project-doubts-from-greater-anglia-1-5356667

So 'they' and 'the someone appear' to be GA in the press and from those comments the public, local authorities and politicians clearly are under the impression that the main reason for issues with the site are those associated with the level crossing.
I can quite understand why that might not be true but someone in the industry needs to fess up rather soon if that is the case.

It is of course convenient for GA to blame the LX. However they would surely have checked that with NR in the franchise bid?

 

[eastdyke]

It is of course convenient for GA to blame the LX. However they would surely have checked that with NR in the franchise bid?

Well either GA or perhaps the DfT?
I have a deep fear that we will hear rather more about LX 'assumptions' with respect to this franchise

 

[LAX54]

Well either GA or perhaps the DfT?
I have a deep fear that we will hear rather more about LX 'assumptions' with respect to this franchise

Best we shut Chitts Hill, that has far more rail traffic than Manningtree ! lol

 

[eastdyke]

Best we shut Chitts Hill, that has far more rail traffic than Manningtree ! lol

I am sure NR would be delighted (to be able to close Chitts Hill) is GA offering to pay?
(Off topic so sorry!) I think that Ely Station LX have more rail movement numbers but of course closure will happen there when Ely S By-Pass is completed.
Helpston and other crossings must be close to the rail numbers at Chitts Hill, more (long) freights and 125mph line speeds there. Closure proposals, subject to all the usual difficulties (money, options for alternatives, locals, other authorities, TWAO Public Inquiries etc), have been discussed.

 

[grumblingalong]

The level crossing is a convenient get out clause imho....all the issues are ones that would have been identified if they'd asked local people and staff first. Everyone local knows that it's massively open to flooding, the ground in places is rather toxic from industrial waste and that you'd need at least access to both up and down mains to make it a viable project. Why they even started with it I don't know. What I also don't know is why they announced it as the site for the new depot before agreeing a price with the land owner who is now supposedly being "difficult" over the pricing, surprise.

As for the Harwich Parkstone option I think that's dead in the water due to opposition from the FOCs and the port. I think the preferred option at the minute is the old sidings next to Harwich Town, Norwich Victoria sidings and Yarmouth for storage with Crown Point/Ilford/Clacton doing the maintenance as now.

With the first of the new fleet arriving later this year, things are really looking a bit tight.

 

[LAX54]

Possibly the Landowner, thought he would have the Railway over a barrell, let them start work, then hike the cost ? Victoria is only short term currently 2 years or so, but of course once re-opened could just carry on using it, also seems expensive to go through making it usable again and OHL it, just for a few months, Yarmouth which is also being cleared, can take quite a bit, not much good for maintainence, but could be cleaned and fueled maybe, I heard someone say that when they were digging trial holes, they could not stop them filling up with water, true or not, I do not know.

 

[eastdyke]

Possibly the Landowner, thought he would have the Railway over a barrell, let them start work, then hike the cost ? Victoria is only short term currently 2 years or so, but of course once re-opened could just carry on using it, also seems expensive to go through making it usable again and OHL it, just for a few months, Yarmouth which is also being cleared, can take quite a bit, not much good for maintainence, but could be cleaned and fueled maybe, I heard someone say that when they were digging trial holes, they could not stop them filling up with water, true or not, I do not know.

Why would they be surprised?
Gt. Yarmouth CS are very few feet above sea level (as for that matter is the Brantham Depot 'Site').
But there is a difference even though both are in Environmental Agency 'Flood Zone 3'. The Brantham site has flood defences (effective over the site with exception of the lower level around the tunnel under the GEML). Yarmouth CS (and for that matter also the station!) does not have flood defence in place. Harwich Town is in a similar Flood Zone situation to the Brantham site.
Flood risk maps can be viewed here:
https://flood-map-for-planning.service.gov.uk/
The postcode entry for Brantham is CO11 1NH, for Gt. Yarmouth station is NR30 1SD, for Harwich Town CO12 3NA.

 

[LAX54]

If some of those areas at Manningtree floods on the map. we are in deep trouble..the water will be 20 feet deep ! lol