Ely North Junction upgrade proposals

[Richard Ingram]

Ely North Junction is 50mph for most routes except Down Peterborough which is 60mph, and to/from West Curve which is 25mph.

If you reduce the speeds through the junction any gains made from doubling the junction and/or closing the level crossings will be more than cancelled out by the longer times for trains, particularly the long liners, to pass over the junction.

I suspect there will have to be some compromise on the junction, they can't close the crossings completely, it would be particularly unfair to the locals, but we drivers are going to have to put up with some inconvenience. Out of interest, I had another look, and perhaps this would be better. What sort of speeds would these routes allow? This is possibly an improvement, since the busiest line is not changed, and it closes the middle crossing, rather than the end one, so the two remaining crossings are as far from each other as possible. Maybe the Norwich line would not require any mitigation at all. I think the only regular freight on the King's Lynn line is the sand train, which goes through the West Curve anyway, so is always slow.

View media item 3397

 

[edwin_m]

I suspect there will have to be some compromise on the junction, they can't close the crossings completely, it would be particularly unfair to the locals, but we drivers are going to have to put up with some inconvenience. Out of interest, I had another look, and perhaps this would be better. What sort of speeds would these routes allow? This is possibly an improvement, since the busiest line is not changed, and it closes the middle crossing, rather than the end one, so the two remaining crossings are as far from each other as possible. Maybe the Norwich line would not require any mitigation at all. I think the only regular freight on the King's Lynn line is the sand train, which goes through the West Curve anyway, so is always slow.

View media item 3397

I don't think that works. You've put in two connections to the Kings Lynn line and none to the Norwich (which would need a tight curve and a new river bridge).

 

[Richard Ingram]

I don't think that works. You've put in two connections to the Kings Lynn line and none to the Norwich (which would need a tight curve and a new river bridge).

Sorry, I should have been clearer, the two lines were meant to be two options, with different costs and possible speeds. The Norwich line would stay where it is, although it might have the junction itself upgraded.

 

[MarkyT]

Sorry, I should have been clearer, the two lines were meant to be two options, with different costs and possible speeds. The Norwich line would stay where it is, although it might have the junction itself upgraded.

Here's my tweak on your latest idea. You'd need a bit of straight between the curves for a smooth transition, and I'm suggesting a third track over the west crossing, connecting to existing junctions. The single to double connection on the Kings Lynn line would be moved north to allow the new alignment across the fields to be a single line. In total it's just over two km of new track. The tight curve near the junction is around 450m radius.

Here's a close-up of the west crossing showing space available for the third track. Assume conversion to MCB-OD type.

 

[Bald Rick]

The issue with all these options is that they don’t close the level crossings on the Peterborough bound route, whether it be on the existing alignment or a different one. Closing one or two of the others isn’t good enough, and combining the route such that the Peterborough and Lynn lines still have a level crossing makes the situation even worse.

The problem that needs solving is the risk at the existing AHB level crossings is such that any increase in rail traffic will trigger their upgrade to some form of MCB crossing. Even at existing levels of rail traffic, this would pose significant issues for the local road network due to barrier down times being extended by around 3-5 times compared to today’s. With the extra traffic (particularly long freight trains), it is quite feasible that the road would effectively become impassable for large parts of the day.

Shifting two lines worth of rail traffic onto one crossing does not solve this problem. The crossing on the line that will take Peterborough traffic has to go, and if you are building a bridge, it makes sense to get shot of the other two at the same time.

 

[MarkyT]

The issue with all these options is that they don’t close the level crossings on the Peterborough bound route, whether it be on the existing alignment or a different one. Closing one or two of the others isn’t good enough, and combining the route such that the Peterborough and Lynn lines still have a level crossing makes the situation even worse.

The problem that needs solving is the risk at the existing AHB level crossings is such that any increase in rail traffic will trigger their upgrade to some form of MCB crossing. Even at existing levels of rail traffic, this would pose significant issues for the local road network due to barrier down times being extended by around 3-5 times compared to today’s. With the extra traffic (particularly long freight trains), it is quite feasible that the road would effectively become impassable for large parts of the day.

Shifting two lines worth of rail traffic onto one crossing does not solve this problem. The crossing on the line that will take Peterborough traffic has to go, and if you are building a bridge, it makes sense to get shot of the other two at the same time.

I agree with that, and if you can avoid creating any new rail alignments or significantly rearranging junctions, there would be a fair pot of money saved for road and bridge construction in any option comparison, as well as the long term costs of maintaining and renewing the crossings. The shortest bridge location would be at the rail junction and through the Potter Group complex as I sketched previously, although the access road from the west side could have different approach options if the former rail alignment wasn't available, perhaps using the cul-de-sac alongside the D.S. Smith plant. Both D.S Smith and Potter Group might be persuaded to support such a reroute as it would give better and alternative access routes for heavy vehicles to their respective facilities. Locating the new bridge and its ramps in an industrial area away from housing on the existing road should help to reduce opposition to its visual obtrusiveness.

 

[Richard Ingram]

The issue with all these options is that they don’t close the level crossings on the Peterborough bound route, whether it be on the existing alignment or a different one. Closing one or two of the others isn’t good enough, and combining the route such that the Peterborough and Lynn lines still have a level crossing makes the situation even worse.

The problem that needs solving is the risk at the existing AHB level crossings is such that any increase in rail traffic will trigger their upgrade to some form of MCB crossing. Even at existing levels of rail traffic, this would pose significant issues for the local road network due to barrier down times being extended by around 3-5 times compared to today’s. With the extra traffic (particularly long freight trains), it is quite feasible that the road would effectively become impassable for large parts of the day.

Shifting two lines worth of rail traffic onto one crossing does not solve this problem. The crossing on the line that will take Peterborough traffic has to go, and if you are building a bridge, it makes sense to get shot of the other two at the same time.

I do understand, but the costs are absolutely massive. The county council report suggests £40 million to bridge the Peterborough line alone, and £100 million to bypass the whole area. Even if the estimates are right, that's more than the Ely Southern Bypass, which was meant to cost £22 million and ended up costing £36 million. This is for a B road that has aprox 2500 vehicles a day travelling all three crossings. I don't think there is any question that all the crossings will eventually end up MCB. The main problem is not leaving the road free for through traffic, as anyone coming from further afield than Prickwillow has alternatives that are not too onerous, but coming up with a solution that does not leave some residents and businesses trapped between two crossings that are constantly closed. I think they might accept having one crossing that is closed for long periods, perhaps with a footbridge, and one crossing removes the interaction problems.

I don't know what the cost of laying a mile or so of double track would be, maybe any of these ideas is out of the window on that basis alone, but there are no good solutions.

 

[bspahh]

I do understand, but the costs are absolutely massive. The county council report suggests £40 million to bridge the Peterborough line alone, and £100 million to bypass the whole area. Even if the estimates are right, that's more than the Ely Southern Bypass, which was meant to cost £22 million and ended up costing £36 million. This is for a B road that has aprox 2500 vehicles a day travelling all three crossings. I don't think there is any question that all the crossings will eventually end up MCB. The main problem is not leaving the road free for through traffic, as anyone coming from further afield than Prickwillow has alternatives that are not too onerous, but coming up with a solution that does not leave some residents and businesses trapped between two crossings that are constantly closed. I think they might accept having one crossing that is closed for long periods, perhaps with a footbridge, and one crossing removes the interaction problems.

The Ely Southern bypass was budgetted at £36m but cost £49m https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Ely-Southern-Bypass-costs-rise-by-13m/14967

The £40m and £100m numbers are on pages 48 and 49 of this report https://bit.ly/2J8FAUJ

 

[Richard Ingram]

The Ely Southern bypass was budgetted at £36m but cost £49m https://www.transport-network.co.uk/Ely-Southern-Bypass-costs-rise-by-13m/14967

The £40m and £100m numbers are on pages 48 and 49 of this report https://*******.com/QueenAdelaide

Sorry misread the Cams CC website, and thought the £22 million grant was the initial cost.
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/r...rking/transport-projects/ely-southern-bypass/

 

[bspahh]

Sorry misread the Cams CC website, and thought the £22 million grant was the initial cost.
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/r...rking/transport-projects/ely-southern-bypass/

No problem.

I'm not sure why the tiny url URL to the report was blocked but the bit.ly one worked

 

[Class 170101]

The problem that needs solving is the risk at the existing AHB level crossings is such that any increase in rail traffic will trigger their upgrade to some form of MCB crossing. Even at existing levels of rail traffic, this would pose significant issues for the local road network due to barrier down times being extended by around 3-5 times compared to today’s. With the extra traffic (particularly long freight trains), it is quite feasible that the road would effectively become impassable for large parts of the day.

Does changing the crossings from AHB to MCB type actually increase the risk in this case due to the chnace of longer tailbacks caused by longer down times for the crossing?

In any event I was surprised to discover that they were AHB and not full barrier level crossings already.

 

[Bald Rick]

Does changing the crossings from AHB to MCB type actually increase the risk in this case due to the chnace of longer tailbacks caused by longer down times for the crossing?

In any event I was surprised to discover that they were AHB and not full barrier level crossings already.

No it doesn’t increase the risk, at least not in normal circumstances.

 

[edwin_m]

The risk with AHBs is that drivers will get impatient and zigzag round the half barriers. That isn't possible with MCB-OD (or other MCB and CCTV crossings) because they always have barriers across the full width of the road, with skirts to prevent people ducking under.

 

[dk1]

The risk with AHBs is that drivers will get impatient and zigzag round the half barriers. That isn't possible with MCB-OD (or other MCB and CCTV crossings) because they always have barriers across the full width of the road, with skirts to prevent people ducking under.

AHBs are only down a very short period of time under normal circumstances though with trains passing with 11-15 seconds of barriers lowering. The ones around Ely North also have highly visible CCTV cameras on motorists. Whether they work or not is another story.

 

[Richard Ingram]

AHBs are only down a very short period of time under normal circumstances though with trains passing with 11-15 seconds of barriers lowering. The ones around Ely North also have highly visible CCTV cameras on motorists. Whether they work or not is another story.

Not sure about the effect they have, but they are more than CCTV, they are traffic enforcement cameras, if you go through when lights are flashing they will send you a ticket. I was held at one for 5 min by workmen with the lights flashing but the barriers up (some sort of test), and they said we can't go as we would be ticketed automatically.

I hasten to add I had no problem with this, I just wondered what was happening, and if there was a problem and it would be worth taking the 15 min diversion.

 

[edwin_m]

AHBs are only down a very short period of time under normal circumstances though with trains passing with 11-15 seconds of barriers lowering. The ones around Ely North also have highly visible CCTV cameras on motorists. Whether they work or not is another story.

It's a bit more complicated if there is a signal within the strike-in, as there must be here. A train can come to a stand at the signal at danger while the crossing is still open, but when the route is set the crossing has to go through its sequence before the signal can clear and the train then has to accelerate from a stand. So the presence of the AHBs actually has some impact on rail junction capacity too.

 

[dk1]

It's a bit more complicated if there is a signal within the strike-in, as there must be here. A train can come to a stand at the signal at danger while the crossing is still open, but when the route is set the crossing has to go through its sequence before the signal can clear and the train then has to accelerate from a stand. So the presence of the AHBs actually has some impact on rail junction capacity too.

Oh yes. I watch it go through its procedure then curse the length of time it takes before CA802 for example takes to clear. Stadlers should get take off a little faster. Not that holding up road traffic bothers me but it will wait a lot longer with CCTV or MCBODs.

 

[Big Chris]

If the balloon loop was redoubled, and an extension was put across the empty land as show in the picture, all Peterborough traffic could be rerouted closing one level crossing. If the King Lynn line was then spurred off the Peterborough line north of the balloon loop exit that would shut two of the crossings. the Norwich line crossing would remain but with the height of the line there adding a little more line height and dropping the road would give potential for a bridge to replace the level crossing there too.
So get rid of orange lines, add in pink lines. It would look something like my badly drawn images below but put all traffic to Peterborough and Kings Lynn under the bridge. Removing two level crossings and enabling higher frequencies. On the map below, remove the red, add the blue and keep the yellow, redoubling the white loop line

 

[Steve Harris]

If the balloon loop was redoubled, and an extension was put across the empty land as show in the picture, all Peterborough traffic could be rerouted closing one level crossing. If the King Lynn line was then spurred off the Peterborough line north of the balloon loop exit that would shut two of the crossings. the Norwich line crossing would remain but with the height of the line there adding a little more line height and dropping the road would give potential for a bridge to replace the level crossing there too.
So get rid of orange lines, add in pink lines. It would look something like my badly drawn images below but put all traffic to Peterborough and Kings Lynn under the bridge. Removing two level crossings and enabling higher frequencies.View attachment 65488 On the map below, remove the red, add the blue and keep the yellow, redoubling the white loop lineView attachment 65489
View attachment 65487

And how much is that idea going to cost ??

 

[Big Chris]

And how much is that idea going to cost ??

Less than HS2 but more than a packet of crisps. I am not a quantity surveyor so honestly couldn't tell you.
I would guess it wouldn't be a significant difference to some of the bigger ideas thrown around on this thread.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If the balloon loop was redoubled, and an extension was put across the empty land as show in the picture, all Peterborough traffic could be rerouted closing one level crossing. If the King Lynn line was then spurred off the Peterborough line north of the balloon loop exit that would shut two of the crossings. the Norwich line crossing would remain but with the height of the line there adding a little more line height and dropping the road would give potential for a bridge to replace the level crossing there too.

It's an imaginative idea, and does have the advantage of routing most of the traffic under an existing bridge, so you (hopefully) don't have to make any changes to the road layout. I'm not sure whether you could double-track under the bridge without rebuilding the bridge though? (Looking at Google maps suggests the bridge might have been built for double track, but it's hard to be sure from those photos). The obvious big expense is that you're building a new chord over a lake. I imagine that would be a huge problem with the cost, although I don't know how that compares with the cost of any alternatives that require building a new road to avoid the level crossings. Likely to raise environmental objections too. I also imagine that having those extra curves is bound to slow down the Kings Lynn services a little bit.

Why have you included a chord to let trains go from Kings Lynn to Peterborough? Is there any traffic that would use such a chord?

 

[Big Chris]

It's an imaginative idea, and does have the advantage of routing most of the traffic under an existing bridge, so you (hopefully) don't have to make any changes to the road layout. I'm not sure whether you could double-track under the bridge without rebuilding the bridge though? (Looking at Google maps suggests the bridge might have been built for double track, but it's hard to be sure from those photos). The obvious big expense is that you're building a new chord over a lake. I imagine that would be a huge problem with the cost, although I don't know how that compares with the cost of any alternatives that require building a new road to avoid the level crossings. Likely to raise environmental objections too. I also imagine that having those extra curves is bound to slow down the Kings Lynn services a little bit.

Why have you included a chord to let trains go from Kings Lynn to Peterborough? Is there any traffic that would use such a chord?

I believe the sand trains use the loop line at the moment, it also future proofs the design. It would only need to be single track and unelectrified. The lake may be possible to bridge with just a couple of pillars, I believe it is an artificial lake so environmental concerns should be minimised. The curve would obviously need to be electrified which may add complexity. The bridge is definitely wide enough to take two tracks as it was built when the loop was double track before rationalisation.

 

[Ianno87]

And how much is that idea going to cost ??

And how slow is a freight from Peterborough-Ely going to be via that route? Will blow up headways by quite some margin from the current 50mph through North Jn.

 

[jopsuk]

Fine then, I have crayons too


So, yes, new track does have to cross the lake (an old chalk pit I think). All traffic is to go this way and chances are the bridge will need rebuilt (to accommodate double track electrification).
The line then splits for Peterborough and for Kings Lynn/Ispwich. There's the chord to replace the loop, and north of this, the split for Norwich. The layout is indicative, careful work would minimise snaking. The Norwich line would pass over the river and Branch Bank road on a new bridge, rejoing the existing line east of Low Road.

Would need some farm underpasses along the way- no accommodation level crossings to be built nor retained.

Might be deliverable for, ooh, £100million?

 

[MarkyT]

And how slow is a freight from Peterborough-Ely going to be via that route? Will blow up headways by quite some margin from the current 50mph through North Jn.

Yes it is rather slow. I'd take out the loop and speed it up like this (curves no tighter than 600m radius) :

 

[MarkyT]

Fine then, I have crayons too

Very innovative, but I'd not bother rerouting the Norwich line or providing a new direct March - Norwich connection. The one freight train that currently uses it could go to Ely station to run round instead.

 

[Big Chris]

Yes it is rather slow. I'd take out the loop and speed it up like this (curves no tighter than 600m radius) :
View attachment 65499

That is a simplified yet more affordable option for certain and still maintains the use of the existing bridge removing two level crossings. I may also be possible to leave the loop in place for Norwich to Peterborough or Kings Lynn with this layout. However based on regularity of use I can see a reversal being easier and more affordable. I would think this option wouldn't cost significantly more than the East Coast Mainline flyover for the Cambridge line did, looking at distance of new track installed and requirement for bridge over the lake, & electrification requirements.

 

[Bald Rick]

And how slow is a freight from Peterborough-Ely going to be via that route? Will blow up headways by quite some margin from the current 50mph through North Jn.

10mph I reckon. Or put another way, about 8 minutes junction clearance for a full length Freightliner going Peterborough to Soham, during which time nothing could run from Ely to Lynn or Norwich. Hardly a capacity improvement.

 

[Big Chris]

10mph I reckon. Or put another way, about 8 minutes junction clearance for a full length Freightliner going Peterborough to Soham, during which time nothing could run from Ely to Lynn or Norwich. Hardly a capacity improvement.

MarkyT has a much simpler layout without the speed restrictions from my initial offering.

 

[dk1]

Very innovative, but I'd not bother rerouting the Norwich line or providing a new direct March - Norwich connection. The one freight train that currently uses it could go to Ely station to run round instead.

Often three daily returns. One each way to Norwich Yard, Trowse & Brandon.