Ely North Junction upgrade proposals

[eastdyke]

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.

One thing that is certain is that an increasing element of Planning Blight will beset Queen Adelaide for some years to come, ie. until a solution is adopted. The County Council is really only kicking the can down the road by calling upon the LEP (Local Enterprise Partnership) to spend money on working up the options. Meanwhile the public, politicians and rail operators may become increasingly impatient.
NR themselves have homework to do to consider their options, one of which is a freight avoiding line as a solution to the ultimate bottleneck that arises at Ely when a certain level of Felixstowe freight is reached along with some/all of the aspirational passenger growth.
Just imagine that Queen Adelaide has £20-40-100+ million spent and then NR comes to the table with an avoider project just a few short years later?
For Felixstowe traffic generally, the Orwell Road Bridge (Ipswich) is already at capacity. Just how we integrate and manage the freight flow in toto for years to come will be a huge challenge. Lots of little (many no so 'little') piecemeal schemes, both road and rail to buy another year or two?

How about some private money (pension funds, China, anybody?) with several billion (5?) to invest in HF1, a dedicated new route from the port to north of Peterborough, 4 ways on from there.

As to the single bridge over the Peterborough line, the approach ramps for that would dominate the settlement. The eastern side ramp would need to start quite close to King's Lynn line crossing. It will be interesting to see the views of the locals when that becomes apparent.

 

[bspahh]

As to the single bridge over the Peterborough line, the approach ramps for that would dominate the settlement. The eastern side ramp would need to start quite close to King's Lynn line crossing. It will be interesting to see the views of the locals when that becomes apparent.

I wonder if there could be a new road around the North. You would turn off the current road opposite DS Smith, climb up and cross the Peterborough line in the fields and then drop back down to rejoin the road near the farm

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I would have thought that even if (hypothetically) an avoiding line is built for freight is built that takes freight trains off those level crossings, you're still going to see huge pressure for a significant increase in train movements over the next 10-20 years that will more than cancel out any reductions from losing the freight. The rapid growth in Cambridge is going to cause a lot more demand from all destinations around Norfolk to Cambridge, potentially leading to increased frequencies on all three routes leading to Ely from the North. You have aspirations for more frequent Kings Lynn-London services, new Norwich-Stansted services and services to Wisbech. Eventually East-West rail will come to Cambridge, leading to new Norwich-Cambridge-Oxford/etc. services too.

Maybe not all of those things will happen, but I'd be surprised if most of them haven't happened by about 2040. And that means that, avoiding line or no avoiding line, something will have to be done in Queen Adelaide.

 

[eastdyke]

I wonder if there could be a new road around the North. You would turn off the current road opposite DS Smith, climb up and cross the Peterborough line in the fields and then drop back down to rejoin the road near the farm

Turning off opp. DS Smith would seem possible, you then build a chunk of effectively a northern by-pass. Getting back to the B1382 near to the King's Lynn line would need a sharp turn rather close to the crossing. Could be option 7A for further study if the LEP are persuaded to spend the money.

Have had a look at more of the 'Traffic Study' etc.
The writers of the Traffic Study seem to think:
that removing level crossings or replacing with full barrier types allows 'Network Rail' to increase capacity by 100% (table 23 on page 49 of the Traffic Study).
that providing alternative crossings for pedestrians and cyclists does not cost a lot of money (or that the existing crossings can be so modified as to pose no risks for not a lot of money). This view is derived from what is written (and not written) in looking at 'Potential Options for Consideration', the 8 option alternatives on pages 40-49 of the Traffic Study.

The Council thinks:
that CP6 starts in 2020 and that NR will have a rail scheme (for 'Ely North') developed by 2019 (Background 1.10 page 4 of the report prepared by the Council for the Economy and Environment
Committee 8th Feb.)
that option 2 (which the Traffic Study report is recommending for further study) should be dismissed as it is 'considered to be impractical to implement for a number of reasons' which it then goes on to elaborate in section 2.12 page 7 of the report prepared by the Council for the Economy and Environment Committee 8th Feb.

 

[eastdyke]

@DynamicSpirit I am trying to say that what is happening here is part of a series of piecemeal projects which will only work when all the bits come together. Building one effectively commits to the next and the scope for a radical option is further reduced.
For the Felixstowe-Peterborough section the Bacon Factory Curve at Ipswich was completed in 2014 at a cost of £59m for 1.2km of double track inc. 2 double junctions, 2 river bridges and 2 road bridges (an access bridge & a road bridge). The next significant project is due to be at Trimley (subject to the successful outcome of a TWAO appeal) consisting of about 1.4km of single track to be doubled, plus extensive S&C and local level crossing works. An estimated cost of around £60m for this.
The there are various other bits to do including in the longer term, Soham doubling, Ely Dock junction (& loops), Werrington junction grade separation, Haughley four tracking and/or junction grade separation, an Ely avoider, almost all for freight traffic growth and still leaving the system close to the limit capacity wise.
Freight is the most significant individual part of the potential traffic growth through the Ely area and if that was to be 'taken out', along with the existing intermodal paths, released network capacity (and critically crossing downtime on the Peterborough line) might be possible to manage with full barrier crossings.

 

[Taunton]

It continues to be bizarre that there is so much pussyfooting around reinstating proper, normal, straightforward double junctions between the three routes, which were all in place until 1980. How difficult can that be. It's four points, two diamond crossings, and the associated signalling. I won't say the old ganger at Taunton (with assistance) once put that lot in the junctions at Norton Fitzwarren in a weekend. But I could. Because he did.

There also appears straightforward scope for a proper bypass road for the B1382 road that misses the three crossings. It would need to cross the river as well, and the west loop, but is wholly through open country to the north. Whether it goes back into the roundabout at the west end of the village, or all the way to the main A10 road and forms a doubtless valuable north/east bypass of Ely, is a separate decision.

The residential property access would continue to be over the crossings, even with train service increases by definition with three separate routes feeding into one, you are not going to get constant successions of trains on any one of the crossings. And the road through the village would be a lot quieter. It's not like this is one of the inner London level crossings with continuous trains and housing built on all four corners right up to the crossings.

 

[GB]

I don't think its the pway that is the problem. I think its more to do with the extra trains vs the level crossings near by.

 

[eastdyke]

@Taunton I am sure that @Bald Rick will be along sometime soon to repeat part of his response to you from last February

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not going to bother.

 

[a good off]

It continues to be bizarre that there is so much pussyfooting around reinstating proper, normal, straightforward double junctions between the three routes, which were all in place until 1980.

The double junctions were removed in April 1992 along with the singling of Ely West Curve at the same time.

 

[Tomnick]

"Normal, straightforward double junctions" would also remove some of the flexibility, and in turn capacity, present in the current layout.

 

[Bald Rick]

"Normal, straightforward double junctions" would also remove some of the flexibility, and in turn capacity, present in the current layout.

Not to mention linespeed. 20mph round the curve from Peterboro' with a half mile long container train anyone?

 

[Crun]

@DynamicSpirit I am trying to say that what is happening here is part of a series of piecemeal projects which will only work when all the bits come together. Building one effectively commits to the next and the scope for a radical option is further reduced.
For the Felixstowe-Peterborough section the Bacon Factory Curve at Ipswich was completed in 2014 at a cost of £59m for 1.2km of double track inc. 2 double junctions, 2 river bridges and 2 road bridges (an access bridge & a road bridge). The next significant project is due to be at Trimley (subject to the successful outcome of a TWAO appeal) consisting of about 1.4km of single track to be doubled, plus extensive S&C and local level crossing works. An estimated cost of around £60m for this.
The there are various other bits to do including in the longer term, Soham doubling, Ely Dock junction (& loops), Werrington junction grade separation, Haughley four tracking and/or junction grade separation, an Ely avoider, almost all for freight traffic growth and still leaving the system close to the limit capacity wise.
Freight is the most significant individual part of the potential traffic growth through the Ely area and if that was to be 'taken out', along with the existing intermodal paths, released network capacity (and critically crossing downtime on the Peterborough line) might be possible to manage with full barrier crossings.

Is there any news regarding the Werrington Junction grade separation? The Public Inquiry finished before Christmas I believe... I may be wrong.

 

[bspahh]

Is there any news regarding the Werrington Junction grade separation? The Public Enquiry finished before Christmas I believe... I may be wrong.

The Network Rail page on the project https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...ne-route-upgrade/werrington-grade-separation/ says

Next steps
The Inquiry Inspector will now write their report following the inquiry and make a recommendation on the proposals.

This will go forward to be considered by the Secretary of State who will have the final decision on whether to approve work for the Werrington Grade Separation.

There are no definitive timescales for a decision, but we are hopeful of a decision by summer 2018.

 

[Crun]

The Network Rail page on the project https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...ne-route-upgrade/werrington-grade-separation/ says

Thanks for the update. I should have written inquiry instead of enquiry.

 

[snowball]

Given that decisions are still awaited on Manchester Oxford Road and Piccadilly, and on improvements to the Hope Valley line, don't count on a decision in the next year or two.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The Werrington Jcn upgrade is all well and good - but one wonders how much it will all cost and how many miles of the <bringing this sub-thread slightly closer to the subject line, at least in geographical terms> March to Spalding line could be re-opened for the same cost? And given that March-Spalding would provide a shorter route for goods traffic heading north, how cost effective would this be?

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted

 

[eastdyke]

The Werrington Jcn upgrade is all well and good - but one wonders how much it will all cost and how many miles of the <bringing this sub-thread slightly closer to the subject line, at least in geographical terms> March to Spalding line could be re-opened for the same cost? And given that March-Spalding would provide a shorter route for goods traffic heading north, how cost effective would this be?

Werrington Grade Separation was estimated at around £96million (Dec 2016). This is the estimate proved for the TWAO Public Inquiry:
http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse docu...ocuments/nr01-07/nr05 - estimate of costs.pdf
March-Spading - how many miles? Not very many. As indicated by @TheBigD 're-opening' would not be feasible, a new line would be around 15 miles and across terrain that seems to give rise to a sharp intake of breath for some Rail Engineers.

 

[Ianno87]

The Werrington Jcn upgrade is all well and good - but one wonders how much it will all cost and how many miles of the <bringing this sub-thread slightly closer to the subject line, at least in geographical terms> March to Spalding line could be re-opened for the same cost? And given that March-Spalding would provide a shorter route for goods traffic heading north, how cost effective would this be?

Werrington Grade Separation was estimated at around £96million (Dec 2016). This is the estimate proved for the TWAO Public Inquiry:
http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse documents/improvements/werrington grade separation application documents/nr01-07/nr05 - estimate of costs.pdf
March-Spading - how many miles? Not very many. As indicated by @TheBigD 're-opening' would not be feasible, a new line would be around 15 miles and across terrain that seems to give rise to a sharp intake of breath for some Rail Engineers.

Borders Railway was £350m for about 30 miles for a highly crude comparison (wildly different engineering challenges of course)

And March-Spalding would be of no use to freight traffic on the ECML from London. And only a proportion of Felixstowe freight is bound for Yorkshire. So not as much would be able to take advantage of it as would for Werrington.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Werrington Grade Separation was estimated at around £96million (Dec 2016). This is the estimate proved for the TWAO Public Inquiry:
http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse documents/improvements/werrington grade separation application documents/nr01-07/nr05 - estimate of costs.pdf
March-Spading - how many miles? Not very many. As indicated by @TheBigD 're-opening' would not be feasible, a new line would be around 15 miles and across terrain that seems to give rise to a sharp intake of breath for some Rail Engineers.

Thanks to you and BigD for clarification - I had assumed that March-Spalding was the same route as March-Wisbech, which I was led to believe from this forum, remains largely intact. If the Spalding route is blocked by the prison, presumably these were two different routes. (I have been to March, but never on either of those routes, and the last time was probably 1966! 61572 was still stored on the shed, IIRC.)

 

[70014IronDuke]

Borders Railway was £350m for about 30 miles for a highly crude comparison (wildly different engineering challenges of course)

And March-Spalding would be of no use to freight traffic on the ECML from London. And only a proportion of Felixstowe freight is bound for Yorkshire. So not as much would be able to take advantage of it as would for Werrington.

If that is much of the reason for the Werrington project, then I agree, of course, it has a different objective. I admit to being surprised that Werrington was being drawn into this thread. I thought most of the Felixistowe freight went to Syston and/or Nuneaton bfore heading north.

 

[snowball]

Thanks to you and BigD for clarification - I had assumed that March-Spalding was the same route as March-Wisbech, which I was led to believe from this forum, remains largely intact. If the Spalding route is blocked by the prison, presumably these were two different routes. (I have been to March, but never on either of those routes, and the last time was probably 1966! 61572 was still stored on the shed, IIRC.)

There's a wonderful invention called a map. Lots of them can be seen free on the web.

 

[Ianno87]

If that is much of the reason for the Werrington project, then I agree, of course, it has a different objective. I admit to being surprised that Werrington was being drawn into this thread. I thought most of the Felixistowe freight went to Syston and/or Nuneaton bfore heading north.

Alot of the F2N freight is West Midlands bound, Trafford Park bound via WCML or Mossend via WCML. Don't think much heads north at Syston.

Werrington is to relieve freight off the Peterborough-Donny section of the ECML, which is a mix of Felixstowe and stuff from/via London.

 

[eastdyke]

If that is much of the reason for the Werrington project, then I agree, of course, it has a different objective. I admit to being surprised that Werrington was being drawn into this thread. I thought most of the Felixistowe freight went to Syston and/or Nuneaton bfore heading north.

There is not much freight movement up the ECML from London. Most of the flow is intermodal from Felixstowe, much then goes via Nuneaton but some does go north to Doncaster. Sand from Middleton Towers (King's Lynn) goes to Goole. There are other small flows.
My 'fault' in drawing Werrington into the thread, I did so to show that Ely North/Queen Adelaide is only a small part of the improvements needed to increase freight capacity from the port. And that each small part obviates the possibility of a much more radical solution which could help provide more passenger trains through the area.

 

[dk1]

Not to mention linespeed. 20mph round the curve from Peterboro' with a half mile long container train anyone?

Why would liners go round the West Curve?

 

[Ianno87]

Why would liners go round the West Curve?

Bald Rick is refererring to the 'curve' of the Main Line towards Peterborough at Ely North Jn (remembering that the historic "straight" route is towards Norwich.

That's how slow the old double junctions were.

 

[Crun]

Too much development to Reinstate the March-Spalding line... Lots of residential development around the Spalding end, new Cubit bypass severing the formation twice, Guyhirn viaduct missing, Rings End viaduct in such a poor condition that demolition has recently proposed, and Whitemoor prison to name a few of the obstacles...

*Cowbit pronounced cubbit...

 

[dk1]

Bald Rick is refererring to the 'curve' of the Main Line towards Peterborough at Ely North Jn (remembering that the historic "straight" route is towards Norwich.

That's how slow the old double junctions were.

Ahh, got ya!

 

[TheBigD]

Deleted