You'd also need to go to all of the costs of turnouts, signalling and land. And an Order under the Transport & Works Act. Very expensive.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Ely North Junction upgrade alternatives
- Thread starter MikeWM
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
But at a level crossing with full barriers and space for traffic to queue.
The existing proposal includes railway costs for turnouts and signalling, also land and planning costs for the roads and bridges. No proposal that upgrades Ely North Junction can escape any of these.
I personally would keep the King's Lynn line and realign the Peterborough line to join in (because the Lynn line is electrified, so you avoid messing about with the OLE/LX interface too much), while building a bridge between Low Road and Prickwillow road further along. More expensive, yes, but spaces out the Ely North jns to allow double-leads, and leaves only 1 level crossing so the concerns about cars being trapped by simultaneous activation is eliminated. Obviously it leaves the remaining level crossing quite busy, so it'd need to go to MCB-OD and that has it's costs but overall it's probably the nearest you can get without demolition.
David Goddard
Established Member
This actually sounds quite logical. If any one of the crossings was closed then Lynn gates is probably the most appropriate, as the quietest, although this would make the busiest crossing (Peterborough gates) busier, but careful diagramming could enable more trains to pass there, so reducing closure times.
Further to this, if the new junction was north of Ely West Junction then that also opens the West Curve up to enabling Lynn <> Norwich movements (granted probably only for freight or infrastructure), although that would need a sharper curve at the southern end of the new link. Yes grade separation possible but hard to justify for the two tph towards Lynn that would use it.
FWIW, thumbnail of my proposal attached. Black is existing retained, Red new link to KL line, Green existing Peterborough line abandoned. Cyan dotted box approx location of bridge and Dark Blue dotted lines potential future alignments for abandoning the West Curve should it be economically worthwhile. The road bridge would need widening of Low Road and then some land take on either side for an S-shaped crossing on the skew.
The only other reasonable alternative would be to bypass the whole village to the North and reduce the road traffic over the LXs.
The frequency of such moves makes running round at Ely or March/Whitemoor by far the preferable option.
Attachments
David Goddard
Established Member
Indeed. But removing the Kings Lynn branch completely and then building a new connection further away would be a much bigger change and would trigger wider costs. It would also consumer much more land and generate more local demands for compensation or complete opposition.
ABB125
Established Member
Alternatively, something like the below could work, making use of what appears to be a farm track (obviously upgraded) to get rid of the Norwich line crossing. The main disadvantage is that it introduces two right angle bends on what is currently a straight road (and there may well be flooding issues?). (I'm sure this has probably been considered already and discounted for whatever reason.)
The (terribly drawn!) red line would be the "new" through route, making use of the bridge under the Norwich line next to the river.
The (terribly drawn!) red line would be the "new" through route, making use of the bridge under the Norwich line next to the river.
The biggest problem I can see is you'd need to keep the Level crossing for high or wide vehicles, and the natural insisting will be for cars to keep using the level crossing unless its actually closing when the driver approaches. You'd need to do some rather serious road alignment work to actually persuade traffic to divert, and then you have the issue of it being a private farm track currently and the need to compensate the farmer, etc.
ac6000cw
Established Member
As a lot of this stuff has been discussed before, this 'Stakeholder Briefing' document (that a bit of Googling found) contains at least some of the NR proposed solutions to the Queen Adelaide problem - https://democracy.cambridge.gov.uk/...il EACE North Area Committee presentation.pdf
It doesn't mention any of the proposed Kiln Lane crossing replacements, but those are around earlier in this thread e.g. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-north-junction-upgrade-proposals.68376/post-5152171
It doesn't mention any of the proposed Kiln Lane crossing replacements, but those are around earlier in this thread e.g. https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-north-junction-upgrade-proposals.68376/post-5152171
Adrian1980uk
Member
- Joined
- 24 May 2016
- Messages
- 535
Everything being talked about to reduce costs to get it done, fact remains it needs doing, if not imminently it will have to happen at some point as it is a bottleneck for all manor of rail journeys. The question is when will the solution be found and funded, better to live with it for 10 more years to get the best solution rather than a cheaper one and then back again in 20 years to re-do it
The problem with that is you don't know what extra health and safety gold-plating may arrive in the intervening 10 years, making the project even more expensive.
I suppose alternatively we may start to see a bit more sense on matters such as these and the costs may go down, but it is hardly the current direction of travel.
Thanks for the maps which show what I had in mind.
This is an interesting option too, especially if grade separation is not required. It needs less new railway.
My idea for diverting the Kings Lynn line via an additional single track across the March line crossing. It would tie into the existing turnout at Ely North Junction. The new single to double turnout would be sited slightly further to the north than the existing one, on the new alignment. The March line level crossing would be reconfigured as a MCB full barrier installation with OD, and the old Kings Lynn alignment and crossing would be abandoned. Would best be combined with the Norwich line bridge as suggested by @zwk500. There's a single track road stretching for nearly a mile eastward along the north side of the Norwich line that could be widened to lead to a new skewed bridge site, or using the same road, the Norwich line crossing might plausibly be relocated further east to reduce interplay with the other remaining crossing on the March line.
Steve Harris
Member
Yes.
The case was in the national press years ago.
In fact it's very much like the case which happened with DB(?) at Tyne Yard.
That looks very tight to get 3 tracks through, and I thought we wanted to move away from Single Leads? The current setup at Ely North is awkward for space but if you're moving one of the junctions north then you can take the opportunity to have 2x Double lead junctions with ladders, as now much preferred.
Moving the Peterborough/King's Lynn line junction away may also allow a single ladder onto the West Curve, increasing operational flexibility slightly (if desired).
Tight I agree, but probably not impossible with a minimum track interval just over the crossing and no impact on through speeds for trains on the March axis:
If one single lead was retained I suggest the Kings Lynn line would be the one to keep due to its sparser and simpler train service pattern compared to the others
Here's my idea for doubling the Norwich line junction - would require moving the aggregates unloader clearly and rearranging the siding access:
The Peterborough line LX is the problem, it has a risk an order of magnitude higher than the other two as it sees many more trains. This is the one that needs to close. With the traffic increases planned, and full barriers, this would be down more than it is up.
In terms of costs, a new mile of road vs a new mile of railway will be roughly the same. But, regardless of the need for building demolition, the new railway would still need a Transport & Works Act Order, and the process would be much the same as was originally the plan.
I do have a great deal of sympathy for this option.
In terms of costs, a new mile of road vs a new mile of railway will be roughly the same. But, regardless of the need for building demolition, the new railway would still need a Transport & Works Act Order, and the process would be much the same as was originally the plan.
I do have a great deal of sympathy for this option.
Here's another one avoiding the third track with a new single lead branching from the March line to Kings Lynn just north of the level crossing. Existing pointwork in Ely North used to connect to appropriate directional tracks south thereof:
As above, it doesn’t solve the problem.
Is the risk problem solveable by building a northern bypass road, and therefore only exclusively local traffic would remain on the actual Level Crossing?
EDIT: Something like the thumbnail, perhaps?
Attachments
Last edited:
That’s essentially the principle (and one of the tactical solutions) proposed in the consultation.
Last edited:
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Slide 2 shows what the future train service might be but as the world has moved on we can be pretty sure there will be no extra passenger services from today for the foreseeable future. Felixstowe as been ceding traffic to London Gateway for last few years so unless govt push for more freight to move by rail is there any demand for more paths and can they be accommodated further North anyhow. So where is the case now? Surely better off getting rid of single line section upto Soham and improving the headway across to Bury.
If.you go back through the thread and find the presentation, you'll see that's exactly what is proposed by NR. Although not getting Highways to fund it, because this is a rail scheme even if its building a road.
Also, see the speculative thread.
The local authority wouldn't have the funds. There is no trunk road in the area to get central government funds. The A10 is two miles away and stopped being a trunk road 20 years ago.
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
But if there was a proposal that involved removing some of the level crossings and therefore speeding up car journeys, that arguably ought to be part paid for from the roads budget, not by Network Rail, no?
(EDIT: Oh I see others have made similar points)
Would you even need to demolish them? Just offer to buy them, so anyone who prefers to move rather than put up with longer level crossing closures can do so. Then resell the houses making it clear that vehicle access will be very limited and any buyer should understand that. You could also put footbridges up so you have pedestrian access when the crossings are closed: I would guess doing that ought to be cheaper than just demolishing and therefore writing off the purchase price of all the houses, and there are likely to be people who will happily put up with the restricted access in exchange for a (cheap-ish?) house in the country.
Last edited:
In principle this is possible but it still means there'd be traffic over the crossing. The proposal in the presentation is for a road bypass and to close the Peterborough line level crossing entirely, such that the only remaining traffic over the King's Lynn crossing is for the properties directly. There were 3 options for the bypass - the southern one looks most likely AFAICT but we'll see what the decision is.
The suggestion to demolish Queen Adelaide was only half-joking. Those civils here who have worked on major road projects will be only too familiar with acquisition of lines of houses as part of a road improvement scheme. My own experience was the North Circular Road in London. It can work out cheaper than solutions avoiding them.
The way you do it, long term, is you start off buying the houses as and when they come onto the market, by contact with the local estate agents, at proper market value. It helps if you have a plan for the works filed in such a way that solicitors searches find details of the proposals - this certainly was done for road projects. You then rent the various houses to the local authority, to put 'short term' tenants in, properties which the LA is always looking for, giving a bit of revenue to offset the purchase, having made the LA responsible for any running repairs. When quite some years later it becomes time to start the project, you negotiate with the remaining residual owners (compulsory purchase is a last resort, negotiation gives a better result all round), ask the LA to move the tenants on, and demolish and start the project.
My sympathy with the option was entirely serious!
I know what that strategy is, and the railway has done (and still does) it. Railtrack / Network Rail was for many years the proud owner of several homes near Welwyn viaduct, for example.
There’s a ‘but’. Well, three of them.
But 1: It requires a sufficiently long term view to be taken, with a design that is unlikely to change, and a funder willing to commit potentially large sums a long way in advance.
But 2: In the railway’s case, some form of primary consent (Act of Parliament, DCO or TWAO) is required to build and operate a railway in a place where there wasn’t a railway before, even if the railway undertaking has possession of all the necessary land. (A mistake Luton Airport made with their people mover).
But 3: There is always the risk of an owner unwilling to sell in any circumstances, and or a ransom. This risk has increased in recent years with increased ‘Nimby’ activism. The only way to counter this is to progress a primary consent with CPO powers - often that is enough to persuade them to sell by negotiation, but not always.
Given that a primary consent is required for the railway, it is a simple risk mitigation to add powers of CPO to that consent, even if they are withdrawn before being made.
- Status