Cambridge South new station construction progress.

[whittlesfordok]

Look like it on as top story in Cambridge News today all private money as well.
I can't post link to story.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Looks like this is the link.

A new railway station in the south of the city could be built without any public money as an investment company looks to develop the site.

A meeting was held on Monday to explore the possibility of private funding for a new station near Addenbrooke’s. Investment company, John Laing Infrastructure is looking at the viability of developing the site themselves. It is hoped private funding would accelerate the development of the station.

Reading the article, I wouldn't say the station is definitely on, but the news of private interest in building it is certainly an interesting and potentially hopeful development.

 

[bspahh]

There has been some discussion in this thread http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=97188&page=9

Pages 19-21 of this document http://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/d...-Jan-2017 19.00 South Area Committee.pdf?T=10 have more detail.

 

[Bald Rick]

A nice shiny new station ... With no trains stopping!

 

[Class 170101]

A nice shiny new station ... With no trains stopping!

Well it did happen at Southend Airport station for a while.

 

[dk1]

No other station in the Anglia region has in my opinion cried out for a station more. Superb for commuters on both routes to London, a link to Stansted Airport & a direct connection to one of the most important hospitals in the country. It simply cannot fail from day one. Being thinking this for 20 odd years.

 

[dk1]

Well it did happen at Southend Airport station for a while.

Exactly. These things happen but it's gone from strength to strength.

 

[TheDavibob]

No other station in the Anglia region has in my opinion cried out for a station more. Superb for commuters on both routes to London, a link to Stansted Airport & a direct connection to one of the most important hospitals in the country. It simply cannot fail from day one. Being thinking this for 20 odd years.

Can't see it being too brilliant for commuters to London, given the limited plans for parking places (which I generally agree with) meaning it'll only really serve Trumpington and bits of South Cambridge which are reasonably well-served by the central station. Brilliant for anyone going the other way, though, given the hospital and the Biomedical Campus both attracting commuters (and patients/visitors etc on the hospital's part).

I only think it will really work if every train stops there, though, which essentially requires full four tracking from Shepreth Branch junction. A station with a mediocre service as a stepping stone to this would be a good thing alone, though.

 

[dk1]

Can't see it being too brilliant for commuters to London, given the limited plans for parking places (which I generally agree with) meaning it'll only really serve Trumpington and bits of South Cambridge which are reasonably well-served by the central station. Brilliant for anyone going the other way, though, given the hospital and the Biomedical Campus both attracting commuters (and patients/visitors etc on the hospital's part).

I only think it will really work if every train stops there, though, which essentially requires full four tracking from Shepreth Branch junction. A station with a mediocre service as a stepping stone to this would be a good thing alone, though.

I'm sure the parking arrangements will change should enough money be thrown at the scheme/planners/developers. I'd love to see a 4 platform affair split GN/WA. Not sure why the money is being withheld or suppressed. It could be very succesful.

 

[jopsuk]

Parking would be a bad idea. The new Addenbrookes Road, built from the M11 to the hospital, already grinds to a half at peak times. The road capacity is all used up- adding parking would make that worse.

the bridges (for the busway and the road) and the Astra Zeneca developments have been built with spans and space safeguarded for a four track station. I think if you wanted that to go through to Cambridge station Long Road bridge would need rebuilt. There's already four tracks under Hills Road (one of which is currently a sand trap/buffers) and the formation is wide enough.

A station built as twin island, one for GN and one for WA, would be most likely. Far more expensive would be an arrangement to minimise crossing moves with an Up flyover, allowing the Cambridge Express and Cross Country airport services to skip it (but still have 4x Thameslink, 2-3x West Anglia, 1xGA Airport and even 1-2x East-West services calling there)

An expensive arrangement with an up island, down island, fast lines through the middle (with platform faces) and a flyover for Kings cross services:

 

[MikePJ]

Parking is indeed a major concern, and the last time I heard it discussed locally, the idea was to provide a station with little or no parking to discourage park-and-ride use. The Addenbrooke's area already struggles with parking for hospital staff and patients, and there's an ongoing argument about providing a residents' parking scheme to prevent hospital staff (who have to pay to park) from parking in nearby roads. The station will only get political support in Cambridge if it can be shown to *reduce* traffic and parking in the Addenbrooke's area, rather than increasing it.

 

[TheDavibob]

Completely agreed with parking concerns above. The council is vaguely looking at increasing the viability of Foxton (and the others) as a Park and Ride (with rail connection), which would be fatally undermined were Addenbrookes set up with parking facilities.


Edit: Also - re jopsuk's sketch -- would two-up two-down actually be of much use, considering the amount of trains that turn around at Cambridge? For example, having a pair of WA platforms would allow all WA trains to run into 7/8 at Cambridge and turn back without much movement required. The main benefit is the cross country service, admittedly, but I'm not sure if allowing it a clean run would make up for the local service potential snarl.

 

[philjo]

Not sure about the need for any additional parking - one of the main objectives is surely to provide access to the Hospital and surrounding biomedical campus without needing to use the roads from Cambridge station. also the adjacent AstraZenca HQ when open will have a lot of staff needing to commute to the site.

The (mis)guided bus from Trumpington also passes the site.

Staff and patients would be able to use the train e.g. from Royston and Audley End. I think Thetford, Bury St Edmunds and certainly Ely are in the catchment area for patients trevelling to the hospital so ideally the Norwich & Ipswich trains would extend to Cambridge South.

 

[dk1]

Staff and patients would be able to use the train e.g. from Royston and Audley End. I think Thetford, Bury St Edmunds and certainly Ely are in the catchment area for patients trevelling to the hospital so ideally the Norwich & Ipswich trains would extend to Cambridge South.

Norwich trains will be passing through anyway by 2020 en-route to Stansted. I doubt there will be any extension of the Ipswich trains due to tight turnarounds & the single line issues to Dullingham/Chippenham Jcn.

 

[glbotu]

Parking would be a bad idea. The new Addenbrookes Road, built from the M11 to the hospital, already grinds to a half at peak times. The road capacity is all used up- adding parking would make that worse.

the bridges (for the busway and the road) and the Astra Zeneca developments have been built with spans and space safeguarded for a four track station. I think if you wanted that to go through to Cambridge station Long Road bridge would need rebuilt. There's already four tracks under Hills Road (one of which is currently a sand trap/buffers) and the formation is wide enough.

A station built as twin island, one for GN and one for WA, would be most likely. Far more expensive would be an arrangement to minimise crossing moves with an Up flyover, allowing the Cambridge Express and Cross Country airport services to skip it (but still have 4x Thameslink, 2-3x West Anglia, 1xGA Airport and even 1-2x East-West services calling there)

An expensive arrangement with an up island, down island, fast lines through the middle (with platform faces) and a flyover for Kings cross services:

Yeah, I really don't think you need to go with paired by direction, just paired by "use". You might have to make a platform 9 or something to ensure enough trains could turn back, especially in the peak, but I think the space is there for it, given that the former sidings have yet to have anything permanent built on them.

 

[Taunton]

Morning peak (0700-0900) there are 8 or 9 trains per hour on this stretch. 4 to Kings Cross, 3 or 4 to Liverpool Street, and one to Stansted. Rest of the day, less services than this. If we can't stop 8 or 9 trains per hour at a straightforward intermediate station without conflicts that we aren't doing very well at controlling the railway.

One of the troubles with a number of recent schemes (the proposal at Brent Cross on the Midland is another, wanting platforms on the fast lines that will hardly ever be used but which double the cost of the scheme) is the over-gold plating that takes place once projects are announced.

 

[Bald Rick]

Morning peak (0700-0900) there are 8 or 9 trains per hour on this stretch. 4 to Kings Cross, 3 or 4 to Liverpool Street, and one to Stansted. Rest of the day, less services than this. If we can't stop 8 or 9 trains per hour at a straightforward intermediate station without conflicts that we aren't doing very well at controlling the railway.

One of the troubles with a number of recent schemes (the proposal at Brent Cross on the Midland is another, wanting platforms on the fast lines that will hardly ever be used but which double the cost of the scheme) is the over-gold plating that takes place once projects are announced.

It's not the stopping at Cambridge S that is the problem.

It is what it does at Cambridge and elsewhere that's the problem.

 

[jopsuk]

Edit: Also - re jopsuk's sketch -- would two-up two-down actually be of much use, considering the amount of trains that turn around at Cambridge? For example, having a pair of WA platforms would allow all WA trains to run into 7/8 at Cambridge and turn back without much movement required. The main benefit is the cross country service, admittedly, but I'm not sure if allowing it a clean run would make up for the local service potential snarl.

My proposal would have the Cambridge Express running non-stop through. Obviously the timetable is set to be fundamentally shaken up, but at the moment the xx14 express from Kings Cross almost catches the preceding ww52, and the Cross Country service from the airport between them. Hot on the tail of those three trains is an arrival from Liverpool Street.

The future off-peak is getting congested, let alone the peak, given the flat junction. As far as I can work out there should be:
1 x GN Express Kings Lynn - Kings Cross
1 x GN Express Ely - Kings Cross (Kings Lynn when the junction is sorted)
2 x TL Semi-fast to Brighton
2 x TL Slow to Maidstone East
2 x East West Rail to Oxford (very provisional)

2-3 x Cambridge (or Cambridge North) to Liverpool Street (currently 2)
1 x Norwich-Stansted
1 x Birmingham-Stansted

I'm not sure a two-platform station can cope with that if some stop and others don't, because the timings are tight. If it's a station paired by destination (Kings Cross/Thameslink or Liverpool Street/Stansted) then the services still need untangled- the 12 car terminating Thameslinks are likely to be using platforms 7/8 at Cambridge for example. 2-unit trains trains on the West Anglia will be unable to use platforms 2&3 but single units will still be OK there. Any changes to timetables need to take into account their interactions on a very wide part of the country.

 

[eastdyke]

Cambridge South, Cambridge, Cambridge North? Hows about 1 long platform? OK I'll get me coat.

More constructively, a station at Addenbrooke's would be just a destination. It is only around 2km south of Cambridge (original). A new station on the existing line would still be a bit of a walk to most of the Hospital. To get rail connected, what would be really useful is a shuttle (tram style) from Cambridge (original) actually INTO the site. A single shuttle could be run each way up to 4 times per hour. Not looked but would there be room for a single line parallel to the existing route on the east side which could then bend into the site?

Could be one heck of lot less expensive than a new station etc. and actually more benefit to users.

 

[bspahh]

A new station on the existing line would still be a bit of a walk to most of the Hospital. To get rail connected, what would be really useful is a shuttle (tram style) from Cambridge (original) actually INTO the site. A single shuttle could be run each way up to 4 times per hour. Not looked but would there be room for a single line parallel to the existing route on the east side which could then bend into the site?

Could be one heck of lot less expensive than a new station etc. and actually more benefit to users.

There is space next to the railway line for a dedicated shuttle service between the station and the hospital, which can run 4 times an hour.
http://www.thebusway.info/pdfs/tt/U.pdf

I don't think there is much chances of getting a light rail/tram instead of the guided buses for that route for a while yet.

Integrated ticketing between the trains and buses would be of more help. However, given that the busway companies have their own specific return tickets, that might just be a dream.

A lot of the AstraZeneca staff have moved South of Cambridge and for them, an Addenbrookes station would mean that they wouldn't have to go in and out of the centre.

 

[Ianno87]

There is space next to the railway line for a dedicated shuttle service between the station and the hospital, which can run 4 times an hour.
http://www.thebusway.info/pdfs/tt/U.pdf

I don't think there is much chances of getting a light rail/tram instead of the guided buses for that route for a while yet.

Integrated ticketing between the trains and buses would be of more help. However, given that the busway companies have their own specific return tickets, that might just be a dream.

A lot of the AstraZeneca staff have moved South of Cambridge and for them, an Addenbrookes station would mean that they wouldn't have to go in and out of the centre.

"Integrated ticketing" - alternatively known as PlusBus and available in Cambridge for many years - and the Busway has been going for at least 5 years now. You do see a lot of peak hour interchange of staff getting off the busway from Addenbrooke's and heading to catch trains, so it's not exactly unpopular.

Cambridge's (and Addenbrooke'ses) "problem" is that its employment catchment area is a number of widely dispersed towns and villiages, few of which can individually justify a regular fixed transport link as the all day demand isn't really there (e.g. for a bus route).

In the case of Addenbrooke's, this means people are inclined to drive all the way becauae the alternatives are:
-Park & Ride from Trumpington or Babraham Rd, but by the time you've got there you might as well drive the last mile as well! Other P&Rs are on the wrong side of town and will take up to an hour to get across town
-Drive to local station, train to Cambridge, then busway. Too convoluted and long winded with unreliable connections for many people.

 

[Taunton]

My experience of medical staff was that nurses did 12 hour shifts, shift changes at 7am and 7pm, three shifts a week. Therefore they tend to live much further away than working five days. In a hospital in London the staff seemed to come from places like, ironically, Cambridgeshire or Norfolk.

Doctors commonly visit multiple hospitals during a day as well as other offices in one day. Regular public transport is completely inappropriate.

 

[TheDavibob]

My experience of medical staff was that nurses did 12 hour shifts, shift changes at 7am and 7pm, three shifts a week. Therefore they tend to live much further away than working five days. In a hospital in London the staff seemed to come from places like, ironically, Cambridgeshire or Norfolk.

Doctors commonly visit multiple hospitals during a day as well as other offices in one day. Regular public transport is completely inappropriate.

It's not just the hospital, though, there's the shiny new Biomedical Campus too.

 

[bspahh]

"Integrated ticketing" - alternatively known as PlusBus and available in Cambridge for many years - and the Busway has been going for at least 5 years now. You do see a lot of peak hour interchange of staff getting off the busway from Addenbrooke's and heading to catch trains, so it's not exactly unpopular.

What I want from an integrated ticket is to be able to complete my door to door journey quickly and simply. You can't even buy a PlusBus ticket on a bus. It has to be from a station. PlusBus gives you unlimited travel on the buses, and its £3.40 in Cambridge. I hate buses, and I don't want all day travel everywhere on the horrible things. I want a cheap ticket that lets me get to where I want to go.

I would much prefer the German/Swiss model where you buy a single ticket that works in a zone, for an hour.

Competition for public transport should not be between different bus and train companies. It should be between using public transport, driving, cycling or not bothering to travel at all.

 

[HowardGWR]

My experience of medical staff was that nurses did 12 hour shifts, shift changes at 7am and 7pm, three shifts a week. Therefore they tend to live much further away than working five days. In a hospital in London the staff seemed to come from places like, ironically, Cambridgeshire or Norfolk.

Doctors commonly visit multiple hospitals during a day as well as other offices in one day. Regular public transport is completely inappropriate.

You are quite right about the nursing staff. They have this curious idea that awakening sick people (called patients) at 0530 - 0600 with crashing trolleys and washbasins, so that these chores are finished by the time the day staff appear, is somehow beneficial to their patients' health. When I was a patient, I used to find I was just nodding off at that moment, after the constant interruption of the night time issues of fellow patients. Literally, being on a ward is one long nightmare.

However the time of day is not out of this world to get to work, so one could expect services for them to be up and running by 0600, say.

The problem is the fact that so many of these hospital sites were takeovers of previous sanitary and mental institutions that were purposely built away from built up areas. I don't know the history of Addenbrooke's.

The point about remote village expansion is also well-made.

 

[Steve Harris]

You are quite right about the nursing staff. They have this curious idea that awaking sick people (called patients) at 0530 - 0600 with crashing trolleys and washbasins, so that these chores are finished by the time the day staff appear, is somehow beneficial to their patients' health. When I was a patient, I used to find I was just nodding off at that moment, after the constant interruption of the night time issues of fellow patients. Literally, being on a ward is one long nightmare.

However the time of day is not out of this world to get to work, so one could expect services for them to be up and running by 0600, say.

The problem is the fact that so many of these hospital sites were takeovers of previous sanitary and mental institutions that were purposely built away from built up areas. I don't know the history of Addenbrooke's.

The point about remote village expansion is also well-made.

Addenbrooke's hospital was a new hospital built in the 70's on land which I previously believe was used for farming. The original Addenbrooke's being in Trumpington Street in Cambridge (that building now having a different use) and I have had the displeasure of visiting both!

As for shuttle's etc, all I can say is Cambridge authorities hate the car but love the bus and bicycle! No idea if they now love the train but I know the university stopped the railway being built closer to the town centre (as it was then) because trains were dirty!

 

[D365]

No idea if they now love the train but I know the university stopped the railway being built closer to the town centre (as it was then) because trains were dirty!

It's always interesting to hear about how the stigmas of the past have effectively constrained us to this day.

 

[dk1]

It's always interesting to hear about how the stigmas of the past have effectively constrained us to this day.

Wasn't this also down to their opinions of ladies of the night being attracted to men at stations? Nobody cares now :roll:

 

[philjo]

I thought the University opposed the original plans in 1850s to build the station near the city centre as it would be a distraction to the students - also the University owned most of the land in the city centre (still does own a lot of it).

 

[Steve Harris]

I thought the University opposed the original plans in 1850s to build the station near the city centre as it would be a distraction to the students.

I have no idea on that. But being a Cambridge boy and being taught by a train enthusiast teacher in primary school who told the class 1 day (when on a visit to Cambridge South box), what I posted above (ie didn't want dirty steam trains in "their" town!

I can well believe the thing about 'ladies of the night', however I'm guessing the teacher left that bit out as the class was 9 year olds!

As an aside, there is a saying that you can walk from Cambridge to Oxford without leaving University land! Yep, they really do own that much! I believe Felixstowe freightliner terminal is owned by Trinity College.