Ely North Junction upgrade proposals

[CockneySparrow]

A good start on relieving congestion on the Felixstowe branch would be the banning of light engine movements.

Any light engine to or from the docks should be attached, top or tail, to a revenue freight.

It's not the final solution but it could buy a bit of time.

When I last looked at real time trains about 18 months ago there was a light engine run up to Trimley around 3pm run through the disused platform then go back past the open platform towards Felixstowe where the passenger train goes, think there is another curve into the docks down there as well
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

CockneySparrow, the line from Soham to Ely Dock Jn was always single with a passing loop for freight at Barway. The LNER had a scheme to double it before WWII but the money got diverted elsewhere due to the war.

The double line that run through Soham station was that the Barway loop, it is single through there now
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

But does what you say depend upon whether (or not) the north junction re-modelling includes continued inclusion of access to the west curve?

And a projection of future services?

Increase Norwich - Cambridge to 2 tph (one to Stansted).
Most EMT via west curve missing Ely with a stop at March.
All sand trains without a reverse at Ely.
Much improved service resilience.
And some?

EMT will never divert through the curve, it will make the Ely to Nottingham route unattractive for customers besides I believe that EMT are the fare setter for Ely to Thetford and Norwich so if the train does not stop at Ely it might cause them an issue for them to continue to be the fare setter

 

[chubs]

Plus Ely has lots of connections all over the country, whilst March isn't particularly useful.

 

[a good off]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The double line that run through Soham station was that the Barway loop, it is single through there now
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The line through Soham station was indeed double until around the early 1980s but then they moved the junction to virtually outside Soham box. The line was always single between the Ely side of Soham station and Barway Loop with a parallel dead end siding running alongside the single line making it look like double track.

 

[LAX54]

When I last looked at real time trains about 18 months ago there was a light engine run up to Trimley around 3pm run through the disused platform then go back past the open platform towards Felixstowe where the passenger train goes, think there is another curve into the docks down there as well
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The double line that run through Soham station was that the Barway loop, it is single through there now
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


EMT will never divert through the curve, it will make the Ely to Nottingham route unattractive for customers besides I believe that EMT are the fare setter for Ely to Thetford and Norwich so if the train does not stop at Ely it might cause them an issue for them to continue to be the fare setter

It is far easier to run a LE than a freight down the branch, a Loco will clear points in seconds rather than minutes, and acceleration is somewhat quicker too! The loco move seen at Trimley was one of many South to North or Vice Versa, as long as it follows the passenger from the Town, then there is stacks of time for the move.
Tagging a loco on another freight move is not as easy as it sounds, and could end up causing more delay that saving it ! In times of disruption, we will suggest a loco is put on the front of a Freightliner to save a path, but it is rare that two moves are waiting to run !

Of course topping a FL with a DBS or GB loco, will never happen ! (or any combo), well unless there is a failure, and even then they like it to be the right colour
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
s for doubling part of the Felixstowe Line?..... example....4M45 28L from the Port, that stopped 4M21 departing to time, and thus had a 30L start, this then impacted on 4L23 which was held at Derby Rd, 4L60 that waited behind 4L23 at Derby Road, 4L28 at Westerfield, and 4Z35 waited on the BFC for 4L28 to clear Westerfield, 4M07 sat at Trimley (from the South) waiting for 4L28 to clear into the North. all this at 0400 in the morning One late service impacted into 5 other services, during the day this has a far more reaching effect, 4M45 running from 28L picked up some time and was 15L by Colchester, this then delayed 2F01 by 7 Mins, although this should be regained by Chelmsford, there is still a delay to be attributed. All the above stemmed from 1 late service 4L86 30L ex Ipswich towards Felixstowe some 4 hours earlier. so in the early hours, 1 train late, and at the last check 9 further trains affected for 260 mins.

 

[muddythefish]

As for doubling part of the Felixstowe Line?..... example....4M45 28L from the Port, that stopped 4M21 departing to time, and thus had a 30L start, this then impacted on 4L23 which was held at Derby Rd, 4L60 that waited behind 4L23 at Derby Road, 4L28 at Westerfield, and 4Z35 waited on the BFC for 4L28 to clear Westerfield, 4M07 sat at Trimley (from the South) waiting for 4L28 to clear into the North. all this at 0400 in the morning One late service impacted into 5 other services, during the day this has a far more reaching effect, 4M45 running from 28L picked up some time and was 15L by Colchester, this then delayed 2F01 by 7 Mins, although this should be regained by Chelmsford, there is still a delay to be attributed. All the above stemmed from 1 late service 4L86 30L ex Ipswich towards Felixstowe some 4 hours earlier. so in the early hours, 1 train late, and at the last check 9 further trains affected for 260 mins.

It's a ridiculous situation - the line should have been doubled years ago and yet there's still no prospect of it happening.

Combined with the "pause" to the Soham and Ely schemes, the fact that the govt today announced £2bn road schemes for the East of England alone shows where its priorities lie.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/details-of-2-billion-roads-plan-for-the-east-of-england

 

[jopsuk]

It's a ridiculous situation - the line should have been doubled years ago and yet there's still no prospect of it happening.

Combined with the "pause" to the Soham and Ely schemes, the fact that the govt today announced £2bn road schemes for the East of England alone shows where its priorities lie.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/details-of-2-billion-roads-plan-for-the-east-of-england

of which about £1.5billion is the A14 project that has been announced about thirty times... Not sure any of those are new projects?

 

[GB]

It is far easier to run a LE than a freight down the branch, a Loco will clear points in seconds rather than minutes, and acceleration is somewhat quicker too! The loco move seen at Trimley was one of many South to North or Vice Versa, as long as it follows the passenger from the Town, then there is stacks of time for the move.
Tagging a loco on another freight move is not as easy as it sounds, and could end up causing more delay that saving it ! In times of disruption, we will suggest a loco is put on the front of a Freightliner to save a path, but it is rare that two moves are waiting to run !

Of course topping a FL with a DBS or GB loco, will never happen ! (or any combo), well unless there is a failure, and even then they like it to be the right colour
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
s for doubling part of the Felixstowe Line?..... example....4M45 28L from the Port, that stopped 4M21 departing to time, and thus had a 30L start, this then impacted on 4L23 which was held at Derby Rd, 4L60 that waited behind 4L23 at Derby Road, 4L28 at Westerfield, and 4Z35 waited on the BFC for 4L28 to clear Westerfield, 4M07 sat at Trimley (from the South) waiting for 4L28 to clear into the North. all this at 0400 in the morning One late service impacted into 5 other services, during the day this has a far more reaching effect, 4M45 running from 28L picked up some time and was 15L by Colchester, this then delayed 2F01 by 7 Mins, although this should be regained by Chelmsford, there is still a delay to be attributed. All the above stemmed from 1 late service 4L86 30L ex Ipswich towards Felixstowe some 4 hours earlier. so in the early hours, 1 train late, and at the last check 9 further trains affected for 260 mins.

..ah, but 4L28 seems to have found a time vortex. Perhaps NR should invest in more of those rather than doubling the line (passed Trimley 21 late at 0450 and arrived 8 early at 0430)

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/train/H25195/2015/09/29/advanced

 

[snowball]

the fact that the govt today announced £2bn road schemes for the East of England alone shows where its priorities lie.

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/details-of-2-billion-roads-plan-for-the-east-of-england

Re-announced.

 

[scott118]

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/upda...to-west-norfolk-rail-line-delayed-until-2019/

Commuters in West Norfolk may have to wait another 10 years for twice-hourly trains between London and King's Lynn, after it was announced major improvements to the junction at Ely North will be delayed.

Network Rail say the £35 million upgrade, which was set to start in 2016 and is key to the introduction of the new service, has been put back to at least 2019, when the next funding period starts.

It follows a review carried out by the company's chairman.

 

[snowball]

http://www.itv.com/news/anglia/upda...to-west-norfolk-rail-line-delayed-until-2019/

Commuters in West Norfolk may have to wait another 10 years for twice-hourly trains between London and King's Lynn, after it was announced major improvements to the junction at Ely North will be delayed.

Network Rail say the £35 million upgrade, which was set to start in 2016 and is key to the introduction of the new service, has been put back to at least 2019, when the next funding period starts.

It follows a review carried out by the company's chairman.

Indeed, the Hendy report (see its thread) has both the Ely North Junction Capacity Improvement and the Ely-Soham doubling in the category "Projects to be developed and delivered in CP6". That perhaps suggests that construction will be in the later part of CP6.

 

[Tio Terry]

The line through Soham station was indeed double until around the early 1980s but then they moved the junction to virtually outside Soham box. The line was always single between the Ely side of Soham station and Barway Loop with a parallel dead end siding running alongside the single line making it look like double track.

Soham was the trial site for the first 125mph turnout. Intended for use on the ECML Soham was chosen as the trial site rather than a mainline site because the impact on services would be less whilst it was being developed and trialled. That's why it appears to be outside the box, it's VERY long, when it moves over it's like a snake with loads of back drives which eventually get themselves lined up to present a smooth turn-out.

Soham is also famous for a WW2 exploit when Benjamin Gimbert and James Nightall both won the George Cross medals for their gallantry.

 

[MikePJ]

Moderator note: This, and several following posts, were moved from discussion regarding a road by-pass scheme

The issue is with Ely North Junction, which is where the line to March and the line to Norwich diverge from the line to King's Lynn. I believe the issue is that the two track line to King's Lynn and the two track line to Norwich all go down to a single line through the junction, which seriously restricts capacity. Remodelling the junction will allow 2tph to King's Lynn, which is why it's attracting a lot of political attention locally.

 

[snowball]

I see the direction from Ely North Junction to Ely West Junction is somewhat to the east of north - so both junctions are inaccurately named!

 

[TheBigD]

To add to what's others have already posted...

"Bald Rick" has posted in the 3tph North Downs line thread about the issues with level crossings and the increased risk associated with an increase in rail services...

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2852660&postcount=18

There are currently 3 level crossings at Queen Adelaide, along with one at Kiln Lane and Ely station...

The 2 trains per hour on the Lynn line is only planned to operate when the sand trains to/from Middleton Towers doesn't so it won't be an all day 30 min service...

The proposed doubling of the Soham line, and the proposed freight loops at Ely are all postponed to the next control period (2019-2024) but whether they get the go ahead remains to be seen given that Network Rail are skint...

Ely North Junction is a single lead Junction and everything from Peterborough, and everything to and from Lynn and Norwich pass through the single set of points... It's already at full capacity in the peaks...

The doubling of the Ipswich-Peterborough service planned for December 2019 along with more Felixstowe freightliners that currently run via London... Personally I can't see it happening but I'm happy to be proved wrong...

This is Ely North before the 1990's rationalisation...

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=e...iw=1280&bih=800&dpr=1.5#imgrc=Qrz72n_D4MInZM:

 

[ac6000cw]

Ely North Junction is a single lead Junction and everything from Peterborough, and everything to and from Lynn and Norwich pass through the single set of points...

The Ely-Peterborough route through the junction is double-track throughout, it's only the Lynn and Norwich lines that become a single lead in the vicinity of it.

At the last re-signalling, BR redesigned the junction to make the Ely-Peterborough route the 'mainline' through it as that was the most heavily trafficked route - before that the Norwich route was the 'mainline' route (for historical reasons).

 

[ac6000cw]

Getting rid of the silly double blocking would unlock some extra capacity at ENJ at a stroke. No need for it with all trains TPWS fitted.

Agreed - it was only the fallout from a spate of single lead junction accidents (before TPWS had been thought of) that resulted in the current restrictions, instead of using the as-designed signalling arrangement.

 

[TheBigD]

The Ely-Peterborough route through the junction is double-track throughout, it's only the Lynn and Norwich lines that become a single lead in the vicinity of it.

Hence why I said from Peterborough and to and from Lynn/Norwich... Trains to Peterbrough don't pass through that single set of points... The signallers do have the option of running up trains from Peterborough via the down line from Ely West Junction though in practice this is impractical and rarely done... Incidentally it's only in the last couple of years that Ely West Curve has been bidirectional... It was West bound only for the best part of the last 20odd years...

This gives people an idea of the conflicting moves at Ely North Junction...

http://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/search/advanced/XYE/2017/01/30/0800-0900?stp=WVS&show=all&order=wtt

 

[TheBigD]

Agreed - it was only the fallout from a spate of single lead junction accidents (before TPWS had been thought of) that resulted in the current restrictions, instead of using the as-designed signalling arrangement.

Was it the Newton accident in Scotland that lead to the double blocking and West Curve restrictions or was it another crash???

 

[ac6000cw]

Was it the Newton accident in Scotland that lead to the double blocking and West Curve restrictions or was it another crash???

There was a series in 1989-1991: Bellgrove, Reading, Hyde North, Newton.

They all contributed to a major re-assessment of the operational dangers of single-lead junctions without any SPAD protection.

 

[Class 170101]

There's bound to be one hell of a row increasing the traffic over Queen Adelaide crossing.

Is the Down Peterborough between Ely West Jn and Ely North Jn bi-directional now? The track is there but was that route re-instated when Ely West Curve was made bi-directional again.

 

[TheBigD]

Is the Down Peterborough between Ely West Jn and Ely North Jn bi-directional now? The track is there but was that route re-instated when Ely West Curve was made bi-directional again.

Yes, you are correct... I think the alterations were made in 2014 but not 100% sure on the exact date.. It's not a manoeuvre that's used very much though...

 

[dk1]

Yes, you are correct... I think the alterations were made in 2014 but not 100% sure on the exact date.. It's not a maneuver that's used very much though...

Used last week. Frightened the hell out of me with an early UP Norwich.

 

[bspahh]

Page 70 of the March 15-28th issue of Rail magazine has an article
"NR's Anglian Ambitions" with an interview with Richard Schofield
(Anglia Route Managing Director for Network Rail).

Ely North Junction
A regular topic of conversation for Network Rail and ministers alike is Ely North Junction.
Situated where the lines from March, Kings Lynn and Norwich meet, it is a pinchpoint for the region. Freight and passenger trains fight for space, and with ambitions for more traffic, the junction needs improving.
NR Anglia Route Managing Director Richard Schofield says that along with the doubling of the line through Soham, Ely North Junction is "top of the list for Control Period 6. It is so intrinsic not only for freight capacity, but also Govia Thameslink Railway, East Midlands Trains, CrossCountry and Anglia."
He adds, however: "Whatever we put in CP6 where does the capacity go?"
NR Chief Executive Mark Carne has previously raised the issue of third-party funding, and Schofield is keen, certainly as a solution for Ely.
"Third party funding? Absolutely. There is no funding in the current Control Period for Ely. MPs are so helpful to keep the pressure for it going. We are working on funding for CP6 - there is a desire for it."

I can read Rail for free through the Cambridgeshire libraries at
http://library.pressdisplay.com/pressdisplay/viewer.aspx
I need to type in my library card number.

 

[TheDavibob]

Don't know if there's a better source, but

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/faster-rail-links-east-cambridgeshire-12789230

Railways in East Cambridgeshire are set to benefit from an £8.8 million cash injection - improving services through Ely.

The project, the first of its kind in the UK, will see both the Greater Cambridge Greater Peterborough Local Enterprise Partnership (LEP) and New Anglia LEP fund new rail studies into the region, including Ely North Junction.

Network Rail will carry out the work to outline plans for increasing rail capacity and improvements for freight and passenger services from King’s Cross to King’s Lynn, Ipswich to Peterborough and Felixstowe to Nuneaton.

Lucy Frazer, MP for South East Cambridgeshire and a member of the Ely Area Taskforce, said: “I am delighted that the LEPs have come together to support funding to help progress the development of Ely junction to increase the train capacity for both passengers and freight.

"There has been significant joint working on this project at every level including the LEPs, the councils, MPs and others. I am very pleased that we can now progress the work and prepare for the next phase.”

The new investment partnership hopes to unlock a significant barrier to economic growth in the East following a decision to defer work on increasing capacity through Ely in 2015.

Not sure how much it will get done, but a good product for Network Rail. Also good to see businesss getting involved in improving infrastructure.

 

[eastdyke]

Don't know if there's a better source, but

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/local-news/faster-rail-links-east-cambridgeshire-12789230



Not sure how much it will get done, but a good product for Network Rail. Also good to see businesss getting involved in improving infrastructure.

The 'funding partners' best prepare themselves for some big numbers coming out of the study. The first line of the press article is just a little mis-leading.

 

[bspahh]

The 'funding partners' best prepare themselves for some big numbers coming out of the study. The first line of the press article is just a little mis-leading.

There is a report from Cambridge County Council https://*******.com/ybnr4rrx with a survey on road traffic through Queen Adelaide. There is a summary from pages 29-37 of the PDF file. The full report is from pages 39-132.

The report suggests one of three options. The cheapest is where they fit ANPR cameras to restrict the level crossings to local traffic. This would reduce the length of the queues, but still leave the local traffic to wait for a while. For £40m, there would be a bridge over the Peterborough line. For ~£100m there would be a bypass around the North of Ely and Queen Adelaide.

 

[eastdyke]

Had forgotten about this thread, have just posted on another which I will now delete and post here!

Cambridgeshire County Council is set to discuss Queen Adelaide (aka Ely North) on 8th February according to a news item published today (31st Jan) on their website.
https://www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk/news/queen-adelaide-traffic-study-proposals-set-to-be-discussed/

I have highlighted a couple of sentences which would spend taxpayers money, a lot of taxpayers money.

Councillors are set to discuss the results of the Queen Adelaide level crossing traffic study next week (8 February) at the Economy and Environment Committee.

The proposals include agreeing not to support any measures which restrict traffic flow over the crossings following local feedback, exploring opportunities with the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority to fund the options development for a road solution and ensure that local people are not inconvenienced by the proposed rail improvements that are for wider regional and national rail benefits.

There is a wider aspiration to see an increase in train services to improve connectivity and in order to do this Network Rail and Cambridgeshire County Council needed to look at the impact more trains would have on the level crossings and the traffic flows.

A traffic study was commissioned using traffic surveys and transport modelling to look at the current and future situation and investigate the possibility of reducing traffic and road infrastructure solutions including potential changes to the level crossings.

The study also included a public engagement event, held last year, and involved an initial conversation with local residents and businesses, in advance of any proposals, to understand more about the way they use the roads and three level crossings.

The report, set to be discussed at committee, recommends that more work is done on developing options which include a bridge over the Peterborough line and constructing a bypass north of Queen Adelaide.

Cambridgeshire County Council’s Chair of the Economy and Environment Committee, Councillor Ian Bates said: “We welcome the work of the Combined Authority to develop some of the proposals in more detail. These sorts of decisions are never taken lightly and we wanted to conclude the traffic study and speak to the people and businesses in Queen Adelaide, Prickwillow and Ely before considering anything.

“We realise many people have concerns around the potential changes to the level crossings, but I hope it is clear as a result of the study further work will now be done to develop options for a road bridge solution.”

Funding for rail or road infrastructure works have not been confirmed and before any works were carried out in the area a much wider statutory consultation would take place.

 

[eastdyke]

There is a report from Cambridge County Council https://*******.com/ybnr4rrx with a survey on road traffic through Queen Adelaide. There is a summary from pages 29-37 of the PDF file. The full report is from pages 39-132.

The report suggests one of three options. The cheapest is where they fit ANPR cameras to restrict the level crossings to local traffic. This would reduce the length of the queues, but still leave the local traffic to wait for a while. For £40m, there would be a bridge over the Peterborough line. For ~£100m there would be a bypass around the North of Ely and Queen Adelaide.

I've 'skimmed' some of the report, its heavy on traffic counts but light on option detail!

The Peterborough line only bridge is quoted at £40m in one place and then a little later at £20m+.

The full by-pass at £100m seems even more 'eye watering' than I thought, but there seems to be no consideration of how people living 'between the crossings' would access their homes and other local properties.
If I lived one side of the Ely line and my elderly mother lived across the tracks and I had no car you would be hearing from me about any plan to fully close the crossing!

When I looked I couldn't see any way other than a by-pass (north or south) with road connections to the isolated bits and foot/cycleway underpasses to replace the crossings for local people.
I think without all of that local opposition will be very substantial.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The full by-pass at £100m seems even more 'eye watering' than I thought, but there seems to be no consideration of how people living 'between the crossings' would access their homes and other local properties.
If I lived one side of the Ely line and my elderly mother lived across the tracks and I had no car you would be hearing from me about any plan to fully close the crossing!

I don't know the area, but had a quick look at Google maps (which of course makes me a fully qualified local expert ). It looks like a by-pass north of Queen Adelaide would need at least 3 bridges to cross railway lines (maybe 4 depending where it was built), as well as a bridge to cross the Ouse. That probably accounts for the eye-watering cost.

It did cross my mind, that maybe if the by-pass was built with a road connection to Branch Bank, that would allow many journeys into/out of Queen Adelaide to avoid at least some of the level crossings, which could perhaps balance out the effects of having more trains.

A station in Queen Adelaide as part of the package might also go some way to offset political concerns about level crossings, although the population served would probably be too small in normal circumstances to justify the expense of one.

 

[bspahh]

I don't know the area, but had a quick look at Google maps (which of course makes me a fully qualified local expert ). It looks like a by-pass north of Queen Adelaide would need at least 3 bridges to cross railway lines (maybe 4 depending where it was built), as well as a bridge to cross the Ouse. That probably accounts for the eye-watering cost.

One problem is that the aim is not just to have a bypass around the village, but also to let people get from the bypass to the bits of the village between the railway lines, so that the level crossings could be closed. This would end up with a bypass with a load of junctions. I think this is why the report talks about a Northern bypass, rather one big flyover around the South of the village. The tracks are closer together to the South, but there wouldn't be space to have the junctions as well.

I think a single bridge over the Peterborough line is the most likely option.

A station in Queen Adelaide as part of the package might also go some way to offset political concerns about level crossings, although the population served would probably be too small in normal circumstances to justify the expense of one.

There was a report from National Rail in 2014, which talked about creating a new station North of Ely. However, the main aim for this was to improve the connections for people travelling from further away. There is a copy of the report here:

http://www.flua.org.uk/documents/Improving Connectivity December 2014.pdf

I don't think anything like that will happen any time soon.