Ely North Junction upgrade proposals

[Ianno87]

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.

Which means either:
-The ambulance (or whatever) still having to wait for an extended period for at least the approachign trains to pass, or
-Network Rail stomaching the delay minutes (and associated £££ in TOC compensation) by raising the barriers at the first possible opportunity whilst trains wait; which could probably form the business case to justifying a bridge replacement as best value to taxpayers.

 

[ac6000cw]

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

View attachment 97000


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.

I agree - it doesn't need to be anything fancy, the navigation height in the area is already quite low due to the existing nearly bridges (none of which are things of beauty).

I walk the paths in that area often, and a 300m long, 10m high (max), viaduct across the Meadow & SSI substantial enough to take HGVs just feels ridiculous, and I hope would stand no chance of getting planning permission.

I suppose the only other possible route might be via the Potter's site, but that might still need a bridge, unless the access road went alongside the railway (if there is room).

TBH, I think the best option would be to move the occupiers of the site somewhere else if at all possible.

 

[eastdyke]

I agree - it doesn't need to be anything fancy, the navigation height in the area is already quite low due to the existing nearly bridges (none of which are things of beauty).

I walk the paths in that area often, and a 300m long, 10m high (max), viaduct across the Meadow & SSI substantial enough to take HGVs just feels ridiculous, and I hope would stand no chance of getting planning permission.

I suppose the only other possible route might be via the Potter's site, but that might still need a bridge, unless the access road went alongside the railway (if there is room).

TBH, I think the best option would be to move the occupiers of the site somewhere else if at all possible.

Any consideration of routing via Potters or even Queen Adelaide Way will have an interaction with possible solutions for the Ely North/Queen Adelaide LCs issues. NR seem to want to keep the consultations apart.

A bridge over the Ouse from Queen Adelaide Way would very likely be met by objections from the rowers if it incorporated a central pier.

I don't think that a no vehicular access solution is a goer.
Even if the current occupiers of the site are moved elsewhere it would still leave the need for occasional vehicular access to the land between the railway and the river. In years gone by that would be by way of an (accommodation) level crossing .......

We know that a bridge/viaduct should come in at less than £50m (Ely Southern Bypass) and that the Kimmeridge clay is, for the most part at least, nearer to the surface in this case .......

 

[snowball]

Any consideration of routing via Potters or even Queen Adelaide Way will have an interaction with possible solutions for the Ely North/Queen Adelaide LCs issues. NR seem to want to keep the consultations apart.

And to leave the most difficult one till last?

 

[ac6000cw]

Even if the current occupiers of the site are moved elsewhere it would still leave the need for occasional vehicular access to the land between the railway and the river.

Could you accommodate (occasional) small/light vehicles and cattle by making the (essential) footbridge a little wider and stronger e.g. to take 3-ton vehicles maybe?

I think that might also deal with the 'ambulance access' problem as well.

I'd be interested to know how much HGV traffic actually uses Kiln Lane at present.

 

[eastdyke]

Could you accommodate (occasional) small/light vehicles and cattle by making the (essential) footbridge a little wider and stronger e.g. to take 3-ton vehicles maybe?

I think that might also deal with the 'ambulance access' problem as well.

I'd be interested to know much HGV traffic actually uses Kiln Lane at present.

Raises serious design and operational control issues that are well outside accepted safe standards. Even if it were possible a more formal access would still be required to the land.

I can think of a 'light' bridge, built in the 1950's?, over the Norwich-Sheringham/Yarmouth/Lowestoft at Cremorne Lane which gave light vehicular access to the former Gas Works site (I worked there for a time). No formal pedestrian use and no public access either. There was always the adjacent private level crossing for heavy access.
Anyone got an example of a more recent 'light' vehicle/pedestrian shared bridge over rail? And how is that use controlled?

If any examples come up a new thread might be appropriate.

 

[Class 170101]

Have I read it correctly, that at the moment, they only propose to double the Ely to Soham section of single line by around 400m at the Ely end?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Have I read it correctly, that at the moment, they only propose to double the Ely to Soham section of single line by around 400m at the Ely end?

My reading of the doc was that you're basically correct, but over that small section it's not a so much a doubling, as adding a bi-directional passing loop. I would assume that's more flexible than simple doubling, because it would allow a train to overtake another train travelling in the same direction, which simple doubling would not normally permit. But maybe I've read too much into it?

 

[a good off]

Pretty much what they used to have (without the bi-di) before the 1992 resignalling.

 

[Trainer2]

Have I read it correctly, that at the moment, they only propose to double the Ely to Soham section of single line by around 400m at the Ely end?

Correct!
They reckon it makes it more flexible and is cost effective rather than a bigger scheme.

I personally think they are putting a plaster over a wound

 

[Class 170101]

The Ely to Soham section needs re-doubling throughout. Its a major constraint, though not the only one for diverting Freight away from London.

 

[Tio Terry]

The Ely to Soham section needs re-doubling throughout. Its a major constraint, though not the only one for diverting Freight away from London.

I don't believe it was ever double track over its entire length?

 

[edwin_m]

I don't believe it was ever double track over its entire length?

It wasn't. The accident report into the WW2 explosion makes this clear. I believe the bridge over the river just east of Ely was widened in the 1930s but the track was never doubled over it.

 

[Class 170101]

It wasn't. The accident report into the WW2 explosion makes this clear. I believe the bridge over the river just east of Ely was widened in the 1930s but the track was never doubled over it.

I thought the bridge widening you refer to was more recent than that (2008?)

 

[Ianno87]

It wasn't. The accident report into the WW2 explosion makes this clear. I believe the bridge over the river just east of Ely was widened in the 1930s but the track was never doubled over it.

I thought the bridge widening you refer to was more recent than that (2008?)

Yes, widened in 2008 after the previous one was damaged beyond repair by the freight train derailment there.

The Soham single itself has never been double track, and I believe it certainly isn't a cheap exercise due to the ground conditions.

 

[edwin_m]

Yes, widened in 2008 after the previous one was damaged beyond repair by the freight train derailment there.

The previous one was also built for double track: RAIB_Ely2007.pdf (railwaysarchive.co.uk)

The main span across the river consisted of a pair of wrought iron truss main girders supporting steel cross girders of double track width.

It's also evident in the cover picture of this document.

 

[Ianno87]

The previous one was also built for double track: RAIB_Ely2007.pdf (railwaysarchive.co.uk)

It's also evident in the cover picture of this document.

Perhaps it wasn't to modern double track standards.

 

[Tobbes]

I have obviously misunderstood - I thought that doubling throughout from Ely-Soham-Dullingham was already comitted to?

 

[David Goddard]

The line is only single from Ely Dock Junction to the site of Soham station, a distance of just over 4.5 miles.
From there it is double track to Chippenham Junction and all of the way to Haughley Junction.
Re Dullingham, there have been suggestions in many places about reopening the Warren Hill curve but nothing formal has been proposed.

 

[Tobbes]

The line is only single from Ely Dock Junction to the site of Soham station, a distance of just over 4.5 miles.
From there it is double track to Chippenham Junction and all of the way to Haughley Junction.
Re Dullingham, there have been suggestions in many places about reopening the Warren Hill curve but nothing formal has been proposed.

Thanks @David Goddard - very helpful. So is there a formal commitment to doubling that 4.5 miles that never seems to have been done (IIRC there were LNER powers to do so in the 1930s but it never happened?)

 

[David Goddard]

Thanks @David Goddard - very helpful. So is there a formal commitment to doubling that 4.5 miles that never seems to have been done (IIRC there were LNER powers to do so in the 1930s but it never happened?)

Cant find anything formal about this.
There was a consultation in 2015 but this concluded as "sidelined" and there doesnt seem to have been anything else since.
The upcoming (well next five years) work at Ely should see a long loop at the head of the line but have not seen anything about doubling the single track section.

 

[a good off]

I don't believe it was ever double track over its entire length?

The LNER had a scheme to double throughout but the war kicked off and they apparently ran out of money.

 

[edwin_m]

The LNER had a scheme to double throughout but the war kicked off and they apparently ran out of money.

Rather surprising they didn't push ahead with it, given the number of bomber bases in the area that needed supplying with munitions from factories further north and west.

Perhaps it wasn't to modern double track standards.

Perhaps not, but it could probably have been made to work had the doubling gone ahead before it was destroyed. I believe it was widened as part of the LNER proposal.

 

[MikeWM]

Only just got around to reading the consultation as I was on holiday last week.

As discussed above, it all seems fairly reasonable apart from the proposals about Kiln Lane, which create a whole series of complex issues (involving a large amount of time and money) that could be entirely avoided by just keeping the level crossing.

I understand why they are keen to get rid of level crossings, but it seems to me that in this case it would be preferable to just leave it as it is.

 

[quantinghome]

Only just got around to reading the consultation as I was on holiday last week.

As discussed above, it all seems fairly reasonable apart from the proposals about Kiln Lane, which create a whole series of complex issues (involving a large amount of time and money) that could be entirely avoided by just keeping the level crossing.

I understand why they are keen to get rid of level crossings, but it seems to me that in this case it would be preferable to just leave it as it is.

I guess the problem is that the amount of rail traffic would render the crossing unusable by road traffic for most of the time.

 

[Bald Rick]

.

I understand why they are keen to get rid of level crossings, but it seems to me that in this case it would be preferable to just leave it as it is.

The issue is that it is unlikely to be possible to leave it as it is.

 

[MikeWM]

I guess the problem is that the amount of rail traffic would render the crossing unusable by road traffic for most of the time.

Yes, but how much road traffic is there on this road to nowhere (bar some environment agency stuff)? On my various walks over that crossing over the past year it doesn't exactly seem well-used. If we're only talking about a handful of vehicle movements a day then it doesn't seem a huge problem if they are delayed a bit more than now waiting for the barriers to rise.

The issue is that it is unlikely to be possible to leave it as it is.

I don't think they've adequately explained why, though - this isn't exactly a 'busy' location like the A505 crossing at Foxton or the High Street crossing in Lincoln...

Do we know how many vehicles actually cross here on an average day or week? I can't imagine it is many.

 

[quantinghome]

Yes, but how much road traffic is there on this road to nowhere (bar some environment agency stuff)? On my various walks over that crossing over the past year it doesn't exactly seem well-used. If we're only talking about a handful of vehicle movements a day then it doesn't seem a huge problem if they are delayed a bit more than now waiting for the barriers to rise.

Fine if the wait increases from 2 to 5 minutes. But with the amount of traffic it could be 20, 30 minutes to wait for the barriers to come up.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

How long are the barriers down for before/after a train has gone past? Is it possible to make the crossing usable for the small amount of road traffic by reducing that time?

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think they've adequately explained why, though - this isn't exactly a 'busy' location like the A505 crossing at Foxton or the High Street crossing in Lincoln...

Do we know how many vehicles actually cross here on an average day or week? I can't imagine it is many.

It’s not about the quantity of road traffic, but how long the barriers are down for. Currently it is an auto half barrier, which will be down for around a minute per train (longer for freight trains). At a guess, around 15-20 minutes an hour. Because of the extra railtraffic it would have to be full barriers, which means being down 3-4 minutes for each train. With more trains, you’re looking at them being down 50 minutes an hour (again, at a guess). That’s just not tenable.