jfowkes
Member
- Joined
- 20 Jul 2017
- Messages
- 895
For those interested, pages 14-22 of this document, outlines the intended/expected/possible (delete as applicable) route for a cycle path under Mill Road on Network Rail land.
As the mill road bridge has been shut to cars it is the best time to rebuild mill road bridge so more lines to go under. But this will not happen at the moment. Wish would happen but the locals will have a nightmare if the reaction to the wash plant is anything to go by.
Any news on the washer going through planning?As the mill road bridge has been shut to cars it is the best time to rebuild mill road bridge so more lines to go under. But this will not happen at the moment. Wish would happen but the locals will have a nightmare if the reaction to the wash plant is anything to go by.
Any news on the washer going through planning?
Replacing the wash plant that had to be moved for the 12car lengthening.What's the logic of wanting to put a wash plant in such a residential city centre location? You think it would be better off in an industrial area
That seems a very strange choice of design - why go for an island and two side platforms when you could build two islands? Means another set of lifts and steps too.
Given the intention for both eastern and western access, the double island would actually require a fourth set (assuming both entrances at ground level or near enough).As far as I can tell, both arrangements require three sets, unless people are expected to cross the track from the station entrance on the flat?
Ha yes, of course. Mea culpa. Point stands that that side platforms means minimal cross-platform interchange and you won't know which platform the next train north or south will serve so it'll be up and over the footbridges more than necessary.As far as I can tell, both arrangements require three sets, unless people are expected to cross the track from the station entrance on the flat?
Ha yes, of course. Mea culpa. Point stands that that side platforms means minimal cross-platform interchange and you won't know which platform the next train north or south will serve so it'll be up and over the footbridges more than necessary.
If it was me, and I had sufficient budget, I'd be looking to have:
Twin island, paired by direction
A dive under or flyover of some sort at the junction
More services through to Cambridge North & Ely to minimise services crossing at Cambridge and to help with trans-Cambridge commuting (ie villages to the south on both lines to the Science Park/Business Park at Cambridge North, Ely & Waterbeach to the Hospitals and biomedical campus. This would make Platform 1 & 4 almost entirely northbound with 7&8 southbound (this is already happening to some extent)
I'd put the main station building on a deck above the tracks, with a rebuilt busway bridge providing ramped pedestrian & cycle access, with bus stops on the bridge
The inclusion of those two is interesting.Stakeholder consulation document provides more details: https://cambridgesouthconsultation....s/2020/10/Stakeholder_information-pack-v4.pdf
Including:
-Shepreth Branch Jn upgraded from 30mph to 50mph
-Extra crossover at south end of Cambridge by extending the current shunt neck (looks like it provides a Platform 7/8 parallel move that does not exist today)
That is already the case today. The project to build the new station doesn't need to solve that unless it makes the existing timetable unworkable.As I understand the layout Down trains from Liverpool Street to Cambridge Platforms 7/8 and Up Trains from Cambridge Platforms 2/3 to Kings Cross will potentially need to cross twice. Once at Shepreth Jn and again at Cambridge itself.
That is already the case today. The project to build the new station doesn't need to solve that unless it makes the existing timetable unworkable.
As I understand the layout Down trains from Liverpool Street to Cambridge Platforms 7/8 and Up Trains from Cambridge Platforms 2/3 to Kings Cross will potentially need to cross twice. Once at Shepreth Jn and again at Cambridge itself. Not sure there is enough information there.
The speed improvement to Shepreth Branch Jn will help by allowing diverging trains to get across it more quickly and the extra crossover in the station helps with capacity by allowing parallel moves to be timetabled. But I agree it's not a major improvement - that would need four-tracking though I'm still unconvinced grade separation would offer any extra benefit beyond given the layout at Cambridge (central) and future service pattern. I hope they don't spend a lot of money remodeling the junction, only for EWR to come along a few years later and have to pay for changing it again.That is already the case today. The project to build the new station doesn't need to solve that unless it makes the existing timetable unworkable.
True but this seems an ideal opportunity to perhaps unlock it.
The inclusion of those two is interesting.
By itself I'd have guessed that a 7/8 parallel move adds 2tph capacity from the south, but it's inclusion here must be to mitigate some capacity that's being lost by the existence of the new station?
The speed improvement to Shepreth Branch Jn will help by allowing diverging trains to get across it more quickly and the extra crossover in the station helps with capacity by allowing parallel moves to be timetabled. But I agree it's not a major improvement - that would need four-tracking though I'm still unconvinced grade separation would offer any extra benefit beyond given the layout at Cambridge (central) and future service pattern. I hope they don't spend a lot of money remodeling the junction, only for EWR to come along a few years later and have to pay for changing it again.
Has it been confirmed which trains will call at the new station?
I was assuming it would be all TL and GA, but not the GN Fasts (I still call them Cruisers!) or XC trains.
I think I alluded to my views previously, without seeing a track diagram I would have gone for four tracks (if possible) Cambridge Central to Shepreth Branch Jn in a Up, Down, Up, Down configuration. GN on the Down side pair to Platforms 1 to 4 at Cambridge with GA & XC on the Upside pair to 7/8 at Cambridge. The only trains running beyond Platforms 1 to 4 off peak being the Kings Lynn / Ely services, however I reckon EWR would change things and Platforms 1 and 4 would insufficient to head north.
Without seeing the track layout from Cambridge to Shepreth Branch Jn potentially I could envisage crowding at the top of the stairs at Cambridge South as people wait for their train to 'decide' which platform it will use - the Up side platform or the centre island for London or the Down side platform or the centre island for Cambridge (Central) and stations north thereof. That seems risky to me and I am surprised they didn't go for a station layout like Stevenage with Up trains either side of one island platform and Down trains on the other island platform which then would need a flyover at Shepreth Branch Jn, but all people would have to do is swap from one side of the platform to the other in a Stevenage style station.
.
As for the GN fasts only one calls at Cambridge North I think, so perhaps the other should call at Cambridge South.
With the proposed layout, adapting the current timetable ought to be straightforward - keep timings at Shepreth Branch Jn, add stops at Cambridge South, fiddle everything at Cambridge and north thereof.
A Stevenage style layout almost certainly requires the 4 tracks to spread more - effectively you need two wideways to be created rather than one (Cambridge South's platforms will almost certainly be at modern standards and wider than Stevenage's). This means:
-The Easternmost and Westernmost tracks would need to spread more at the station which means...
-They have to start spreading further south and come together further north....
-Which might not be possible with the bridges at either end and other constraints like the cycle path, country park, etc.
Perhaps the station could be timetabled with the outer platforms as the "preferred" platforms to minimise movements on the bridge.
Both GN fasts call at Cambridge North.
Both call at Cambridge North. One comes from King's Lynn, calling at all stations to Cambridge. The other comes from Ely, skipping Waterbeach but calling at Cambridge North. I would have assumed that the one from King's Lynn will call at Cambridge South, so that you have as many direct journey opportunities as possible from the Fen Line stations through to Cambridge South without having to change at Cambridge (the main purpose of the station is to provide convenient non-road commuter access to all the jobs at the new Biomedical Campus, right?).As for the GN fasts only one calls at Cambridge North I think, so perhaps the other should call at Cambridge South.
Except id you aren't careful it doesn't then work at Ely North Jn for Kings Lynn / Norwich clashing with Up services from Peterborough or on the single line sections to Kings Lynn or the single Jns to Norwich (Ely North Jn and Trowse Jn).
I don't think thats possible otherwise in timetable it would have been built as a convential two platform station like Waterbeach (or many other stations) I would have thought. I would be interested though what the balance would be in going for the layout chosen over the two islands I suggested and the risks you and I have each highlighted.
Do both call at Cambridge North now, thats a recent change then.
But by that logic you'd also have the GN (Thameslink?) stopper from the villages south of Cambridge running through to Cambridge North, which it did originally, but stopped doing so sometime last year, so who knows...
Given that the Great Eastern main line has a four track approach to Liverpool Street delivering at least fifteen trains an hour in each direction to about ten platforms with many crossovers and potential conflicts I think that four tracks South of Cambridge can do the same with ten trains an hour into to six platforms.