Ely Upgrade under threat

[MikeWM]

That would be the same southern bypass that took considerably longer and cost much more than originally planned. Due to the builders discovering the soggy ground needed better foundations. How was that a surprise?

Why a £13m overspend in Ely matters

The Ely Southern Bypass is £21m over its original budget. The Combined Authority and Greater Cambridge Partnership have many more large infrastructure projects in the pipeline. We should be extremely wary of funding these from council borrowing not covered by new income streams.

www.smartertransport.uk

I think the general suspicion as to what happened there is what is fairly directly suggested in that article

Bizarrely, the senior project officer claimed that councillors should be happy that the true cost was not established sooner, because the Department for Transport might have considered the project too poor value, and not contributed £22m towards it. It seems that deceiving DfT is fair game.

An aside, but I note that the authors of that website have similar views on the Greater Cambridge Partnership as I do - ie. that they've spend a vast amount of money on consultants and delivered next to nothing. At least they're not (directly) involved in the Ely plans, or we'd have no chance of anything ever happening.

 

[Taunton]

Prickwillow is population 440. To spend half a billion pounds on a new access for them is ludicrous. That's a million pounds for each person, likely two or three million for each property. Far better to buy them out, especially as once done the houses can be sold again and you would get most of the money back. Ideally the council or railway should be buying them up over the years as they come on the market, rent them out short term in the interim, then when the project starts you only have a residual number to deal with. This is what is done with major road schemes.

 

[Sonik]

Prickwillow is population 440. To spend half a billion pounds on a new access for them is ludicrous. That's a million pounds for each person, likely two or three million for each property. Far better to buy them out, especially as once done the houses can be sold again and you would get most of the money back. Ideally the council or railway should be buying them up over the years as they come on the market, rent them out short term in the interim, then when the project starts you only have a residual number to deal with. This is what is done with major road schemes.

This project does look like the classic combination of scope creep and sunk cost fallacy, with ridiculously poor output for the cost.

I'm sure if the designers had started out with a £500m budget they would have proposed something radically different, (e.g. moving rail lines and/or houses) most likely with much better outputs.

I don't really understand why nobody stopped to question the feasibility of this way before the costs got so high. No leadership or strategic thinking here at all, just lots of carrying on regardless, to the point of absurdity.

 

[Bald Rick]

Apart from alternating in the argument between fine arable land (expensive) but also apparently marsh (poor ground conditions), it's just as well that those countries who readily build roads and railways through swamps, eg in south-east USA, never heard of this, either in the past or nowadays. Brightline is currently building through this swamp-laden Florida territory between Palm Beach and Orlando for USD 1.75bn, about GBP 1.5 billion, that's 3-4 times the Ely cost. For 150 miles distance. At US labour rates.

Plus Cambridgeshire does not have poisonous snakes in profusion, or alligators, for the construction crews!

on a point of order, Brightline is not 150 miles of new railway. It is about 40 miles of new railway, almost all of which is right alongside the Martin Andersen Beachline Expressway, which was itself presumably built on half decent ground. Certainly the ground looked pretty good last time I was there, and certainly much better than the ground conditions around Ely. The rest is upgraded existing railway.

This project does look like the classic combination of scope creep and sunk cost fallacy, with ridiculously poor output for the cost.

I'm sure if the designers had started out with a £500m budget they would have proposed something radically different, (e.g. moving rail lines and/or houses) most likely with much better outputs.

I don't really understand why nobody stopped to question the feasibility of this way before the costs got so high. No leadership or strategic thinking here at all, just lots of carrying on regardless, to the point of absurdity.

I don’t really understand why some people think that the leaders / strategic planners involved in this project *wouldn‘t* challenge and question the development of the project at every stage. (Spolier: they did).

 

[ac6000cw]

Prickwillow is population 440. To spend half a billion pounds on a new access for them is ludicrous. That's a million pounds for each person, likely two or three million for each property. Far better to buy them out, especially as once done the houses can be sold again and you would get most of the money back. Ideally the council or railway should be buying them up over the years as they come on the market, rent them out short term in the interim, then when the project starts you only have a residual number to deal with. This is what is done with major road schemes.

The up to £500 million projected cost is (as far as I understand it) for the whole project, which includes:

Q: How big is the scope of the programme?

The programme is looking at all the railway systems between Cambridge and Ely, Ely and Peterborough and Ely and King’s Lynn. This includes:
• 127 level crossings,
• The Ely North junction track modifications
• Bridge structures (Stuntley road bridge, Cutters river bridge and Common Muckhill river bridge)
• Ely station and track modifications
• Soham branch track modification
• Signalling systems
• Ely station changes

(quote from https://phase2b.elyareacapacity.com...10/Ely-Stakeholder-Information-Pack-FINAL.pdf )

Note this includes replacing two river bridges in Ely and changes to the rail-over-road bridge at the north end of Ely station.

 

[Sonik]

I don’t really understand why some people think that the leaders / strategic planners involved in this project *wouldn‘t* challenge and question the development of the project at every stage. (Spolier: they did).

I remain to be convinced, half a billion is an awful lot of money.

But I guess in fairness it's easy to move the goalposts after the event.

 

[Bald Rick]

I remain to be convinced, half a billion is an awful lot of money.

half a billion was buying an awful lot of stuff, not least resignalling and a load of LX works. I also happen to know the people who developed the programme, very well, and know the level of scrutiny and challenge they had.

 

[Magdalen Road]

Prickwillow is population 440. To spend half a billion pounds on a new access for them is ludicrous. That's a million pounds for each person, likely two or three million for each property. Far better to buy them out, especially as once done the houses can be sold again and you would get most of the money back. Ideally the council or railway should be buying them up over the years as they come on the market, rent them out short term in the interim, then when the project starts you only have a residual number to deal with. This is what is done with major road schemes.

That was one example - there are many more who travel through there, with the expansion of Ely it will increase. The traffic through Queen Adelaide including cyclists for who the alternative of using the A142 is too dangerous.
Buying up Prickwillow to resell in future when it's been cut off from the west - not very attractive proposition to buy a house there.
I understand why the upgrades have been proposed but the impact of "simply" closing the crossings, relocating a community and removing a valuable alternative route in / out of Ely would be significant on the city.

 

[Sonik]

That was one example - there are many more who travel through there, with the expansion of Ely it will increase. The traffic through Queen Adelaide including cyclists for who the alternative of using the A142 is too dangerous.
Buying up Prickwillow to resell in future when it's been cut off from the west - not very attractive proposition to buy a house there.
I understand why the upgrades have been proposed but the impact of "simply" closing the crossings, relocating a community and removing a valuable alternative route in / out of Ely would be significant on the city.

Without wishing to delve too far into speculation, I thought that a 'northern rail bypass' to connect the east-west routes with a new grade separated junction to the north, would make more sense, with a single bridge in Queen Adelaide for the main line. The house immediately next to the main line in QA looks like it already belongs to the railway (it's unoccupied in any case) so a bridge here would only affect one or two residents. This would remove many of the crossings completely, most of the works would be away from residents and businesses that might raise objections, and east-west freight could be routed around the city entirely. Land through the city relaesed from the existing routes could be sold off.

But of course such lateral thinking is impossible when you are constrained by the existing project scope, which aims as much as possible to stay within the existing boundary of the railway. The outcome of that, unsurprisingly, is that most of the budget ends up directed towards moving roads and improving crossings, which has minimal benefit for the railway.

half a billion was buying an awful lot of stuff, not least resignalling and a load of LX works. I also happen to know the people who developed the programme, very well, and know the level of scrutiny and challenge they had.

Surely it's the output that matters (i.e. additional capacity) not how much 'stuff' you are buying? But as above I don't really blame the designers, they are constrained by their remit.

 

[ac6000cw]

The outcome of that, unsurprisingly, is that most of the budget ends up directed towards moving roads and improving crossings, which has minimal benefit for the railway.

Not true - Network Rail contributed to the cost of the recent Ely Southern Bypass road because it benefitted the railway, by allowing the level crossing at the north end of Ely station to be closed, and considerably reducing the likelihood of 'bridge bashing' on the low-height road underpass alongside it (which was one of the most frequently bashed bridges in the country). That was a 'win-win' for both road and rail traffic in the area.

 

[MarkyT]

Surely it's the output that matters (i.e. additional capacity) not how much 'stuff' you are buying? But as above I don't really blame the designers, they are constrained by their remit.

Much of that 'stuff' probably needs to be renewed in the near future anyway under renewals as assets don't last for ever. It often makes sense to consolidate renewals and any desired enhancements in an area into a bigger project as that can minimise rework and reduce disruption. Some of the LX works would probably also save ongoing operational expenditure if signaller or crossing attendant roles are abolished, and there would be safety benefits from AHBCs on busy roads being converted to full barrier types with OD.

 

[Bald Rick]

Surely it's the output that matters (i.e. additional capacity) not how much 'stuff' you are buying? But as above I don't really blame the designers, they are constrained by their remit.

correct. And to get the required output, means buying a lot of “stuff”. Not least lots of LX upgrades all the way to Peterborough.

the early Stages of development no doubt had lots of options for new lines etc. At the end of the day it comes down to affordability and acceptability by stakeholders.

Without wishing to delve too far into speculation, I thought that a 'northern rail bypass' to connect the east-west routes with a new grade separated junction to the north, would make more sense, with a single bridge in Queen Adelaide for the main line.

If you mean from Norwich to Peterborough and vice versa, that wouldn’t solve any LX issues.

 

[Alfie1014]

Was only discussing this with ChiefPlanner whilst crying into our pints yesterday!

 

[CdBrux]

The 2.5 extra passenger paths per hour: was there a proposal of what they would be used for - I suppose pre-pandemic? Presumably there must be some idea in order to calculate a business case. Could any needed uplift in capacity be reasonably delivered with longer trains vs more frequent?

 

[HSTEd]

Spend huge amounts of money on developing a scheme, then axe it at the last moment so that in a couple years you can spend more money on it again to do the same work again.

Typical British government procurement.

 

[CdBrux]

correct. And to get the required output, means buying a lot of “stuff”. Not least lots of LX upgrades all the way to Peterborough.

the early Stages of development no doubt had lots of options for new lines etc. At the end of the day it comes down to affordability and acceptability by stakeholders.

Who are the stakeholders that set the required output and how do they get to the required output? Is it a bunch of politicians that want 'everything' (cynical, I know...) or is there some sort of moderation involved or is the moderation only starting now once they've seen the bill for their aspirations?

 

[MikeWM]

The 2.5 extra passenger paths per hour: was there a proposal of what they would be used for - I suppose pre-pandemic? Presumably there must be some idea in order to calculate a business case. Could any needed uplift in capacity be reasonably delivered with longer trains vs more frequent?

You can see the 'plan' here

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...lway-in-anglia/ely-area-capacity-enhancement/

Basically make Kings Lynn services twice an hour all day (rather unnecessary in my opinion outside peak time), the Peterborough-Ipswich hourly instead of two-hourly, and one more service TBA (presumably either the extension of the Birmingham-Leicester to Cambridge to make that twice an hour, or a second hourly service Cambridge/Stansted to Norwich, both long-standing ambitions).

 

[Magdalia]

one more service TBA (presumably either the extension of the Birmingham-Leicester to Cambridge to make that twice an hour, or a second hourly service Cambridge/Stansted to Norwich, both long-standing ambitions).

Other ambitions are Wisbech-Cambridge and Oxford-Norwich via East West Rail.

 

[stuu]

correct. And to get the required output, means buying a lot of “stuff”. Not least lots of LX upgrades all the way to Peterborough.

the early Stages of development no doubt had lots of options for new lines etc. At the end of the day it comes down to affordability and acceptability by stakeholders.



If you mean from Norwich to Peterborough and vice versa, that wouldn’t solve any LX issues.

Looking at a map (yes I know!), it would appear that moving the rail junctions north of the road would be possible, using the Kings Lynn line. Then a much shorter road bridge could be built which would need a couple of properties bought if done on the south side. Norwich to Peterborough would be via the loop.

There's no mention in the consultation that moving the railways was considered, but presumably it must have been and then discounted as too expensive

 

[MikeWM]

Other ambitions are Wisbech-Cambridge and Oxford-Norwich via East West Rail.

Ah, yes, forgot about Wisbech. I assumed Oxford-Norwich would just be an extension of the second Cambridge-Norwich, if that happened (and then east-west rail actually got as far as Cambridge at some point in my lifetime).

Hmm. So actually the proposed upgrade already seems rather underpowered, as quite possibly within the next 10-15 years we'd want an extra 4.5 paths, not the 2.5 spec'ed. Back to the drawing board

 

[Magdalia]

Looking at a map (yes I know!), it would appear that moving the rail junctions north of the road would be possible, using the Kings Lynn line. Then a much shorter road bridge could be built which would need a couple of properties bought if done on the south side. Norwich to Peterborough would be via the loop.

There's no mention in the consultation that moving the railways was considered, but presumably it must have been and then discounted as too expensive

I think this probably counts as speculation. There's a separate discussion for that here.

I've started a thread in the speculative discussion segment for what could be done as alternative/cheaper proposals, if the government is unwilling to meet the costs of the result of the existing ideas after the consultation exercises last year.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/alternative-plans-for-ely-upgrade-work.233873/
'Alternative plans for Ely upgrade work'

So that's where I have responded.

 

[ac6000cw]

Other ambitions are Wisbech-Cambridge and Oxford-Norwich via East West Rail.

As Clarence Yard suggested in post #16, I suspect re-opening to Wisbech is dead in the water anyway, certainly without any central government money to fund it.

 

[Bald Rick]

Who are the stakeholders that set the required output and how do they get to the required output? Is it a bunch of politicians that want 'everything' (cynical, I know...) or is there some sort of moderation involved or is the moderation only starting now once they've seen the bill for their aspirations?

ultimatley the DfT, based on advice received from NR and responses from operators and local authorities.

 

[Sonik]

There's no mention in the consultation that moving the railways was considered, but presumably it must have been and then discounted as too expensive

Which was exactly my point - if it had been known at the beginning how large the cost for multiple LX 'tweaks' would run to, it would likely have been obvious that 'expensive' moving of railways (to bypass the crossings completely) made more sense.

But now much money has been spent on developing the existing proposal, it's a sunk cost fallacy; because doing a more radical redesign now would require acknowledgement that all the previous development work was a waste of time and money.

But easy to say these things in hindsight.

.If you mean from Norwich to Peterborough and vice versa, that wouldn’t solve any LX issues.

My suggestion is to bypass the difficult LX completely, by moving the junctions to the north.

But unlikely anything like that will happen.

 

[furnessvale]

Not true - Network Rail contributed to the cost of the recent Ely Southern Bypass road because it benefitted the railway, by allowing the level crossing at the north end of Ely station to be closed, and considerably reducing the likelihood of 'bridge bashing' on the low-height road underpass alongside it (which was one of the most frequently bashed bridges in the country). That was a 'win-win' for both road and rail traffic in the area.

Sad that Network Rail are forced to spend railway money to stop road interests breaking the law rather than being in a position to DEMAND that the road budget pays for it.

A simple strong physical barrier at the bridge would have been much cheaper.

 

[Magdalia]

Which was exactly my point - if it had been known at the beginning how large the cost for multiple LX 'tweaks' would run to, it would likely have been obvious that 'expensive' moving of railways (to bypass the crossings completely) made more sense.

But now much money has been spent on developing the existing proposal, it's a sunk cost fallacy; because doing a more radical redesign now would require acknowledgement that all the previous development work was a waste of time and money.

But easy to say these things in hindsight.


My suggestion is to bypass the difficult LX completely, by moving the junctions to the north.

But unlikely anything like that will happen.

Moving the junction for the Norwich line is difficult because of the need to cross the River Ouse and the local road network. But moving the junction of the Peterborough and Kings Lynn lines, including grade separation, is very feasible. My proposal is at #18 here in speculative discussion:

Alternative plans for Ely upgrade work

As detailed in this thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-upgrade-under-threat.233815/ it seems the long-awaited Ely North upgrade, and related capacity work, is in doubt because the price is too high. What alternatives could there be to deliver the upgrade with a smaller price...

www.railforums.co.uk

I'm confident that, compared with the current proposals, this would deliver more benefit at lower cost. Perhaps those on the inside can say whether anything like this has been considered.

Sorry I don't seem to be able to insert a quote from a different discussion.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm confident that, compared with the current proposals, this would deliver more benefit at lower cost. Perhaps those on the inside can say whether anything like this has been considered.

to be fair your proposal doesn‘t explain how you build a road bridge only for the Peterborough Line LX, nor does it deal with Kiln lane, so to say you are confident it delivers more benefit at lower cost is perhaps a little optimistic.

 

[Magdalia]

to be fair your proposal doesn‘t explain how you build a road bridge only for the Peterborough Line LX, nor does it deal with Kiln lane, so to say you are confident it delivers more benefit at lower cost is perhaps a little optimistic.

Maybe it is optimistic, but optimism can be a good thing!

I'm not a bridge engineer, but closure of the Kings Lynn level xing removes a constraint on the eastern approach to a road bridge over the Peterborough line. It opens up the possibility of starting the eastern ramp of the bridge at the west bank of the river: there isn't room for that if the Kings Lynn line is not moved.

That's why I'd like to know if it was ever considered.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's why I'd like to know if it was ever considered.

pretty much everything was considered, as it always is in early stages of projects.

 

[Magdalia]

pretty much everything was considered, as it always is in early stages of projects.

That's not a yes or no, that's an "I don't know" or an "I don't want to say"!

I've worked on projects where, as they develop, costs escalate, or time runs out, it is necessary reduce scope and/or to go back and revisit options earlier rejected. Has that happened? Is it happening now?