Ely North Junction upgrade proposals

[59CosG95]

Regarding the 126 Level Crossings in the scope, I've totalled 92 so far:

• 17 from Cambridge to Ely North Jn (Anglia SA Module EA1161);
• 23 from Ely North Jn to King's Lynn (Anglia SA Module EA1162);
• 2 on Ely West Curve (Anglia SA Module EA1550);
• 43 from Ely North Jn to Peterborough (Anglia SA Module EA1560) - including Kings Dyke MCB which is due to be closed - see here. Cambs CC gave the scheme the go-ahead in July, and the A605 should be diverted by December 2022;
• 7 from March to Wisbech (Anglia SA Module EA1570).

I'm not sure how far down the Breckland Line (EA1580) and the line via Soham (EA1540) the scope of works goes.

 

[Bald Rick]

Regarding the 126 Level Crossings in the scope, I've totalled 92 so far:

• 17 from Cambridge to Ely North Jn (Anglia SA Module EA1161);
• 23 from Ely North Jn to King's Lynn (Anglia SA Module EA1162);
• 2 on Ely West Curve (Anglia SA Module EA1550);
• 43 from Ely North Jn to Peterborough (Anglia SA Module EA1560) - including Kings Dyke MCB which is due to be closed - see here. Cambs CC gave the scheme the go-ahead in July, and the A605 should be diverted by December 2022;
• 7 from March to Wisbech (Anglia SA Module EA1570).

I'm not sure how far down the Breckland Line (EA1580) and the line via Soham (EA1540) the scope of works goes.

The sectional appendix doesn’t show all crossings.

20 Cambridge to Ely
38 Ely to KL
2 on the West Curve
43 Ely N Jn to Peterborough (excl Kings Dyke)
24 Ely Dock Jn to Chippenham Jn
1 Queen Adelaide on the Thetford line.

That’s 128, and I suspect those on the West curve will be excluded.

 

[59CosG95]

The section appendix doesn’t show all crossings.

20 Cambridge to Ely
38 Ely to KL
2 on the West Curve
43 Ely N Jn to Peterborough (excl Kings Dyke)
24 Ely Dock Jn to Chippenham Jn
1 Queen Adelaide on the Thetford line.

That’s 128, and I suspect those on the West curve will be excluded.

Thanks Rick. I wonder if the inclusion of the Ely Dock Jn - Chippenham Jn crossings mean that the potential redoubling of Ely - Soham's been added into the EACE scope?

 

[Bald Rick]

Thanks Rick. I wonder if the inclusion of the Ely Dock Jn - Chippenham Jn crossings mean that the potential redoubling of Ely - Soham's been added into the EACE scope?

The output change is more trains, which will be from Felixstowe / Ipswich to Peterborough (and beyond), plus Cambridge to Kings Lynn. So this is where the LXs will be affected, at least that’s my guess. Whether the doubling is back on the agenda I don’t know.

Incidentally, the best place to find info on Level Crossings is not the Sectional Appendix, but the level crossing pages of the Network Rail website https://www.networkrail.co.uk/communities/safety-in-the-community/level-crossing-safety/

Good news that Kings Dyke is happening. £32m - that’s about right, and worth remembering when people say railways cost a lot - so do roads!

Finally, the Wisbech line has nothing to do with this project. The Wisbech line level crossings are from a risk perspective inactive and therefore not in Network Rail’s “count” of level crossings anywhere.

 

[arb]

The output change is more trains, which will be from Felixstowe / Ipswich to Peterborough (and beyond), plus Cambridge to Kings Lynn. So this is where the LXs will be affected, at least that’s my guess.

If that were the case, then the number of trains between Cambridge and Ely won't be changing (assuming that the existing King's Cross to Ely will be extended to King's Lynn, rather than a whole new service being added). Wouldn't that mean that in your list:

20 Cambridge to Ely
38 Ely to KL
2 on the West Curve
43 Ely N Jn to Peterborough (excl Kings Dyke)
24 Ely Dock Jn to Chippenham Jn
1 Queen Adelaide on the Thetford line.

That’s 128, and I suspect those on the West curve will be excluded.

...the first 20 crossings aren't relevant?

 

[59CosG95]

If that were the case, then the number of trains between Cambridge and Ely won't be changing (assuming that the existing King's Cross to Ely will be extended to King's Lynn, rather than a whole new service being added). Wouldn't that mean that in your list:

...the first 20 crossings aren't relevant?

I, and the NR website on the project, beg to differ.

 

[edwin_m]

I, and the NR website on the project, beg to differ.
View attachment 85216

The scope of the project is the area to be considered when deciding what work is needed. That doesn't mean all tasks will be necessary in the whole area, for example there's probably no need to electrify to Bury or renew the track to Cambridge to achieve the project objectives. In a scenario where trains on a particular section are no more frequent and no faster the level crossing risk on that section is probably unchanged (although all sorts of stuff goes into level crossing risk).

 

[Mollman]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publi...ssing-reduction-transport-and-works-act-order

Seems some crossing closures / changes are vetoed by SoS but most are approved.

 

[bspahh]

Nope. That study neatly avoided saying that 90% of the benefits of a Wisbech - Cambridge service apply between March and Cambridge. Ie you could get 90% of the benefits of the Wisbech reopening without spending a penny on building a line to Wisbech.

This is the Agenda document pack for Cambridgeshire County Council Highways & Transport Committee Nov10th 2020 Page 49 says effectively "we want paths for Wisbech to Cambridge because we paid a few million". I wonder what the £25m "original capital cost" covered.

Capacity provided by EACE It is vital however that the additional capacity proposed through the EACE scheme is enough to cater for future demand. It is not clear from the current consultation material how many train paths are currently available through the Ely area and what the proposals are for the future. It is vital that a large range of stakeholders including but not limited to the County Council and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority are involved in these discussion. It appears that there has been no work carried out to investigate what future train paths may be required. This piece of work is required urgently. Moreover it is important to note that the County Council is strongly supportive of the CPCA led project of Wisbech Rail reconnection and it is vital that train paths through Ely are provided for this service. From the material in this consultation it is not clear how future aspirations for passenger rail services are going to be catered for by the EACE scheme. From the material presented it appears that only current outstanding franchise commitments will be delivered. Given the significant funding that local funders have provided to this project, £9.3m funding from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority, New Anglia Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and the Strategic Freight Network. Network Rail has secured £13.1m funding from the Department for Transport. This total level of funding £22.4m is close to the original total capital cost for the scheme 1. It is vitally important that EACE caters for the full future demand of rail capacity in the Ely area and not just the existing outstanding franchise commitments. Given the likely disruption and the ‘once in a lifetime’ nature of EACE it really does need to capture for the long term needs of rail capacity through the Ely area. 1. https://www.newcivilengineer.com/la...al-proposal-network-rail-confirms-22-09-2020/

 

[Bald Rick]

This is the Agenda document pack for Cambridgeshire County Council Highways & Transport Committee Nov10th 2020 Page 49 says effectively "we want paths for Wisbech to Cambridge because we paid a few million". I wonder what the £25m "original capital cost" covered.

That £25m might be the original ‘back of an envelope’ capital cost from about 12 years ago for a project that redoubled the junction to Kings Lynn and Norwich, but did nothing else, eg no level crossing works. I know it was the back of an envelope, because I saw the envelope.

Of course the £22.4m secured so far is only for the design development of a very different project.

 

[RT4038]

Thanks Rick. I wonder if the inclusion of the Ely Dock Jn - Chippenham Jn crossings mean that the potential redoubling of Ely - Soham's been added into the EACE scope?

Ely - Soham was never double track, so can't be redoubled.

 

[Class 170101]

That £25m might be the original ‘back of an envelope’ capital cost from about 12 years ago for a project that redoubled the junction to Kings Lynn and Norwich, but did nothing else, eg no level crossing works. I know it was the back of an envelope, because I saw the envelope.

Has that £25m actually been spent yet or could Cambridge County Council withdraw it if they don't get their way and thus leaving the project with a hole to fill and thus no improvements at all?

 

[bspahh]

There is a second public consultation on the Ely Area Capacity Enhancement from 24 May to 4 July 2021.

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/Ely says

Owing to the ongoing Coronavirus situation, we will host the second round of public consultation via this project webpage with a link to the consultation hub which will go live on 24 May 2021.

The consultation documents will be hosted and available for download from the consultation hub together with the online survey form to formally submit your comments to the consultation.

There will also be an opportunity for the public to put their questions to our project team via a live webchat facility or by our consultation hotline

https://twitter.com/NetworkRailAng/status/1391721174200094727 says:

There will be two consultation rounds in 2021 for Stage 2 focusing on the various options to upgrade the railway and seeking feedback on those options. This May, we will focus on Ely South. Later this year we will focus on Ely North junction and the wider level crossings.

 

[mwmbwls]

Increasing rail capacity through Ely - public consultation dates announced (networkrailmediacentre.co.uk)

Network Rail have announced public consultations for six weeks from the 24th April covering Ely and Soham. It is also possible to ask for a hard copy of the Consultation by contacting [email protected]

 

[bspahh]

The consultation is now live at

Ely area capacity enhancement - Network Rail

The Ely area capacity enhancement (EACE) programme is a proposal to upgrade the railway to allow more trains to run through Ely.

www.networkrail.co.uk

Public Consultation Round 2 – 24 May to 4 July 2021​

Following a successful public consultation round in late 2020 which saw 89% support for the principle of increasing rail capacity through Ely, we are inviting the public to comment on the proposals and options under consideration in the Ely South area. This encompasses part of the Soham branch line and Ely Dock junction, Ely station Stuntney Road bridge, Cutter bridge, Common Muckhill bridge and Kiln Lane level crossing.

There are two ideas for vehicle access that would allow the level crossing at Kiln Lane, to be closed.

Page 26 of the stakeholder pack https://phase2.elyareacapacity.com/...r-Information-Pack-Round-2-May-2021-FINAL.pdf says

Option 1 includes a 300-metre-long viaduct constructed across part of the Ely Pits and Meadows site of special scientific interest and agricultural grazing land. The viaduct would be approximately 10 metres at its highest point. The route of the viaduct crosses the floodplain and therefore an earth embankment is not considered to be appropriate.

Option 2 would include the construction of a 60-metre vehicle bridge across the River Great Ouse with a new road access from Queen Adelaide Way. A public right of way along the bank of the river may need to be diverted. The site is in the floodplain and poor ground conditions mean that deep piling would be required to support the bridge.

I can see opposition for both of those. I wonder if the factory, Environment Agency depot and rowing club could be moved instead.

 

[CdBrux]

I can see opposition for both of those. I wonder if the factory, Environment Agency depot and rowing club could be moved instead.

Interesting thought, for less money you might also be able to offer all 3 improved facilities so benefitting them as well as reducing project costs

 

[Maltazer]

Interesting thought, for less money you might also be able to offer all 3 improved facilities so benefitting them as well as reducing project costs

Unless the environment agency also has some kind of river-related installation there that can't be moved (meaning access for maintenance), and not just a depot (I've no idea what's actually there).

The whole consultation seems very light on detail. Maybe they don't need to consult on track layouts etc and I shouldn't be so nosey, but it would be nice to know what they're thinking for Dock junction - are the through siding and goods loop becoming separate up/down routes through the station or are they just sticking a separate 400m loop on the branch? Will there be access to platform 3 from the Soham branch without conflict with the up main?

Changing the north end of the station seems a big expensive job for what on the face of it looks like very little gain. All passenger trains stop anyway, so straightening platform 3 seems a bit pointless.

 

[dk1]

Changing the north end of the station seems a big expensive job for what on the face of it looks like very little gain. All passenger trains stop anyway, so straightening platform 3 seems a bit pointless.

Crawling at 15mph is always a pain in platform 3.

 

[Bald Rick]

Changing the north end of the station seems a big expensive job for what on the face of it looks like very little gain. All passenger trains stop anyway, so straightening platform 3 seems a bit pointless.

It’s to get freight through at 50mph rather than 15mph. For a 750m container train that’s worth 3 minutes. Whilst the journey time is less important for freight, it is also, effectively, 3 minutes off the Junction margin. At Ely that is massive.

 

[bspahh]

Unless the environment agency also has some kind of river-related installation there that can't be moved (meaning access for maintenance), and not just a depot (I've no idea what's actually there).

This document is from 2009 and has some background information. https://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/agendas/cp270409ag.pdf Page 38 says:

The majority of Kiln Lane is owned by the Environment Agency. The depot at the end of the lane is strategically important working site and it is important that vehicular access is maintained at all times. Access for large vehicles is required to service the Environment Agency’s depot and for access to the other sites within the same industrial complex.

There is a yard, and a landing stage, for vessels to manage the river.

The Environment Agency depot is next to Hydro International, which is a factory, which could perhaps move somewhere else, like the Lancaster Way industrial estate near Witchford. Similarly, the rowing club could be moved to near the Cambridge University rowing club building on the other side of the river. Neither of these moves would be cheap, but I'm think it would be less contentious and cheaper than a 300m viaduct across a flood meadow in a Site of Special Scientific Interest, or a new bridge for lorries across the river.

One solution might be to leave the Environment Agency depot in place, with full barriers at the level crossing, and accept that they will be shut for long periods when the track is busy, and keep them shut unless an Environment Agency vehicle really needs to get across.

 

[mwmbwls]

This document is from 2009 and has some background information. https://www.eastcambs.gov.uk/sites/default/files/agendas/cp270409ag.pdf Page 38 says:

There is a yard, and a landing stage, for vessels to manage the river.

The Environment Agency depot is next to Hydro International, which is a factory, which could perhaps move somewhere else, like the Lancaster Way industrial estate near Witchford. Similarly, the rowing club could be moved to near the Cambridge University rowing club building on the other side of the river. Neither of these moves would be cheap, but I'm think it would be less contentious and cheaper than a 300m viaduct across a flood meadow in a Site of Special Scientific Interest, or a new bridge for lorries across the river.

One solution might be to leave the Environment Agency depot in place, with full barriers at the level crossing, and accept that they will be shut for long periods when the track is busy, and keep them shut unless an Environment Agency vehicle really needs to get across.

That's an interesting idea. Are there precedents for this elsewhere?

 

[Maltazer]

It’s to get freight through at 50mph rather than 15mph. For a 750m container train that’s worth 3 minutes. Whilst the journey time is less important for freight, it is also, effectively, 3 minutes off the Junction margin. At Ely that is massive.

I never really think of platform 3 as a freight route. Seems to be blocked by a GN terminator most of the time. But yes, if it's going to be used that way it would make a difference.

 

[Ianno87]

That's an interesting idea. Are there precedents for this elsewhere?

There are examples of "Normally closed" level crossings: One at Appleford (between Oxford and Didcot, and also Trees (south of Audley End)

 

[ABB125]

One solution might be to leave the Environment Agency depot in place, with full barriers at the level crossing, and accept that they will be shut for long periods when the track is busy, and keep them shut unless an Environment Agency vehicle really needs to get across.

That seems like a decent cost-saving idea, but may not be possible after risk-assessment. Perhaps someone familiar with the process could advise?

 

[Bald Rick]

That seems like a decent cost-saving idea, but may not be possible after risk-assessment. Perhaps someone familiar with the process could advise?

It might pass the risk assessment (or might not), but that doesn’t solve the barrier down time issue. With reduced headways and more trains (most of which would potentially be very long), those barriers wouldn’t be raised very often.

 

[edwin_m]

It might pass the risk assessment (or might not), but that doesn’t solve the barrier down time issue. With reduced headways and more trains (most of which would potentially be very long), those barriers wouldn’t be raised very often.

I don't think that's an issue if it only serves the Environment Agency depot and is raised "on demand" when a vehicle needs to pass over. Unless of course the depot has some emergency function when they need to get in or out in a hurry.

 

[eastdyke]

I don't think that's an issue if it only serves the Environment Agency depot and is raised "on demand" when a vehicle needs to pass over. Unless of course the depot has some emergency function when they need to get in or out in a hurry.

Kiln Lane, although a private road, is also part of a public footpath network serving Ely Country Park. A piece of 'brutalist engineering' aka PRM compliant footbridge will not go down well with picture postcard vistas of Ely Cathedral

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think that's an issue if it only serves the Environment Agency depot and is raised "on demand" when a vehicle needs to pass over.

It will be if they have to wait for half an hour or more, which is not beyond the realms of possibility.

 

[bspahh]

Kiln Lane, although a private road, is also part of a public footpath network serving Ely Country Park. A piece of 'brutalist engineering' aka PRM compliant footbridge will not go down well with picture postcard vistas of Ely Cathedral

As PRM-compliant footbridges across an electrified railway go, I think the Serpentine design is quite sensitive, certainly compared to Option 1


The 300m road viaduct is brutal

It will be if they have to wait for half an hour or more, which is not beyond the realms of possibility.

Some of the delays like that will be in the timetable, and for routine access, they can plan around it. If the Environment Agency or an ambulance needs rapid access in an emergency, they could phone the signallers and ask for the crossing to be opened.

 

[Maltazer]

For road access, Option 2 via a short bridge from Queen Adelaide Way is the only sensible solution.




Queen Adelaide Way isn't the greatest of roads, and it's not even suited to the existing traffic, but it arguably better than the roads that lead to Kiln Lane.

The bridge doesn't need to be anything fancy - there are other utilitarian bridges on that stretch already.