Recent content by Maltazer

Fair enough. Judging by how long and how many times this "essential" upgrade has been put off, I predict it won't get funded at all.

At this point I'd say go back and read the first page of this thread, because otherwise we'll be just going round in circles regarding the crossings...

I don't know if you were replying to me there, but I just want to clarify that the suggestion to run in a triangle was to provide both Ely-Ipswich and Cambridge-Ipswich direct services, not Ely-Ipswich via Cambridge. The reason is to avoid the long layovers a simple Ely-Ipswich shuttle would...

I haven't tried to work out timings but have wondered if Ely-Ipswich could be hourly by running trains around a triangle Ipswich-Cambridge-Ely-Ipswich and in the opposite direction too. It would provide more capacity on the busy Cambridge-Ely route too.

It only covers things they need permission for. So there's definitely an aim to increase linespeed through Shepreth branch junction because there is a map showing a realignment of the curve and associated land take, but there's no map showing the cross-over and whether that is being replaced...

Could it be though? Does the wire height need to descend from the level required for level crossing clearance? Just wondering if there was a technical reason why not...

Don't forget that's traffic in both directions, so half that each way. Most of the traffic will be in the rush hours too. Here's a link to the survey https://*******.com/2s3e4nkr And another to the risk assessment from 2015 for the Kings Lynn line crossing - it quotes traffic surveys from...

It's not a quiet country lane though. A traffic study was performed over a 3 day period in November 2016 and found the average number of vehicles using the Peterborough and Kings Lynn crossings to be around 4400 per day (3700 for the Norwich crossing) - that's a lot of people to inconvenience.

You can't mitigate by putting in full barriers with obstacle detection, because that leads to the crossing beings closed to traffic for an unacceptable amount of time. The only way to avoid expensive interventions is to increase the number of trains and just leave the crossings as half barriers...

That is in the plan, but those types of crossing have to close earlier and so are down for longer. Some estimates predict up to 50 minutes of closure per hour at the busiest times. With three crossings so close together there will be greater risk of the queue of vehicles backing up over the...

And herein lies the problem, and the reason for all the suggested re-routing of rail lines, bypasses etc. You can't build a bridge there because it's surrounded by houses.

With the Peterborough traffic going under the bridge I think the problem goes away and you wouldn't need any intervention on the other crossings. My line does come a little close to the new housing developments, although it would be in a cutting at the closest point so that might help.

Crayon time! I know we've been here before, but here's a route using the same curves as the existing one through Queen Adelaide, just shifted to start just after Kiln Lane crossing. We'd lose the west curve, but the new route crosses Queen Adelaide at roughly the same point as the west curve...

Most of the costs seem to be related to dealing with the consequences of increased capacity rather than creating the new capacity itself. But if HS2 can destroy ancient woodland and still be allowed to go ahead, should the loss of a footpath across the tracks, for example, be so unthinkable...

Most of the proposals in the consultation for Kiln lane seem rather extravagant - maybe deliberately to force the choice onto the one, cheaper, option. That option is a simple bridge from Queen Adelaide Way (see the access bridge to Potters a little downstream), allowing 24/7 access for...