Felixstowe branch: a bit of double track at Trimley

[snowball]

This press release has appeared today on the NR website:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...ve-reliability-on-the-felixstowe-branch-line/

Green light for major upgrade to increase freight services and improve reliability on the Felixstowe branch line

A £60.4m scheme to increase freight services and create a more reliable railway for passengers travelling between Ipswich and Felixstowe has been given the green light by the Secretary of State for Transport and the Port of Felixstowe.

The project will see a second track installed between Trimley station and Grimston Lane foot crossing on the Felixstowe branch line. This will allow up to 47 freight trains to run per day, 14 more trains than can currently run on the single line. Each train can carry the equivalent of 60 lorry loads, meaning fewer lorries on busy roads such as the A14.

Network Rail is delivering the project which will enable more goods to be transported by rail, supporting the growth of the UK economy, as part of its Railway Upgrade Plan. In the coming months, engineers will start clearing vegetation in preparation for building the second track.

Meliha Duymaz, Network Rail’s route managing director for Anglia, said: “We’re improving the Felixstowe branch line to provide a step change for rail freight in Suffolk and beyond as part of our Railway Upgrade Plan. We’re supporting the growth of the UK economy by enabling more goods to be transported on the railway and reducing the number of lorries on the road. The work will also create a safer and more reliable railway for passengers travelling between Ipswich and Felixstowe.”

The project will bring about a step change for the railway in the east, paving the way for potential improvements to the cross country line, and is funded through the Strategic Freight Network, with a contribution from Hutchison Ports UK.

Network Rail also submitted a TWAO application earlier this year to close six level crossings as part of the project. A public inquiry will be held early next year. Four level crossings will also be upgraded.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

This press release has appeared today on the NR website:

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/feeds...ve-reliability-on-the-felixstowe-branch-line/

I guess this is good news - a bit at a time - all helps - of course if it were me I would electrify at the same time.

 

[eastdyke]

Two points from the quote:

A £60.4m scheme to increase freight services and create a more reliable railway for passengers travelling between Ipswich and Felixstowe.

Network Rail also submitted a TWAO application earlier this year to close six level crossings as part of the project. A public inquiry will be held early next year. Four level crossings will also be upgraded.

1. Less than 1 mile of track involved, plus level crossing and signalling works. I suspect that the new Stadler Flirts will bring about a much more noticeable improvement for passengers than this will ever do.

2. Almost got the green light then. The Public Inquiry was called because the Local Authority - Suffolk Coastal District Council -(and perhaps others) objected to the proposed bridleway bridge to enable crossings to be closed.

This Authority is supportive of the dualling works which will increase the rail capacity from 33 freight trains per day to 47 freight trains per day, but we OBJECT to the location of the bridleway bridge, its mass, form, scale and potential significant adverse impact on the landscape in the location proposed, in particular, its location is considered to have a significantly adverse impact on the Suffolk Coast and Heaths Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty and the rural farmland landscape.

PDF https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&r...?docid=22198&usg=AOvVaw2P_iWeyDY9evXntNzPaGAf

 

[eastdyke]

I guess this is good news - a bit at a time - all helps - of course if it were me I would electrify at the same time.

I am sure if you offered NR the money, lots of money and then perhaps some more money, they would be delighted to oblige.

 

[xc170]

£60m for a mile of track...

 

[jopsuk]

The bridge alone is (based on other non motorised user bridge projects I've been following) probably in the £7million region?

 

[yorksrob]

Well, this is certainly good news and an improvement on other 'suggestions' to severely curtail the passenger service.

 

[HowardGWR]

The bridge alone is (based on other non motorised user bridge projects I've been following) probably in the £7million region?

By the time one has paid all the lawyers for the Public Inquiry, it will be.

 

[Ships]

£60m for a mile of track...

Mile of plain line, S&C either end, alterations to the signalling, level crossing g upgrades, new bridges etc etc etc. When you look at it like that the costs looks less crazy....

 

[Ships]

The pway is probably only £4-6 million

 

[eastdyke]

By the time one has paid all the lawyers for the Public Inquiry, it will be.

Thanks , original corrected.

 

[eastdyke]

The bridge alone is (based on other non motorised user bridge projects I've been following) probably in the £7million region?

£7 milion for a bridleway bridge?

The District Council objections seem to be based upon the gross intrusion of the bridge into an AONB, whilst at the same time having the busiest container port in the country just down the road

The locals seem to be objecting on the grounds that the busiest foot crossing planned for closure will have the longest diversionay route at around a mile.

IMO the locals have the better point.

 

[Tobbes]

Does this work also include replacing the single-lead junction at Westerfield with a higher capacity junction? I'd heard this was happening, but I'd not seen anything about it.

 

[jopsuk]

£7 milion for a bridleway bridge?

The District Council objections seem to be based upon the gross intrusion of the bridge into an AONB, whilst at the same time having the busiest container port in the country just down the road

The locals seem to be objecting on the grounds that the busiest foot crossing planned for closure will have the longest diversionay route at around a mile.

IMO the locals have the better point.

on the A14 there's two bridleway bridges, with simple straight ramps, going in at ~£11million for two, of the same design. Call it £6 million for a unique bridge, with major engineering to provide the ramps.

 

[eastdyke]

on the A14 there's two bridleway bridges, with simple straight ramps, going in at ~£11million for two, of the same design. Call it £6 million for a unique bridge, with major engineering to provide the ramps.

The proposed bridge will be very similar to the bridleway bridge over the railway installed at Heath Road Thurston in 2014. The cost of that has been quoted at £1.5 million. Even at 2019 prices, £6 million seems too much. Either that or Network Rail is putting a substantial 'oversight' cost into every estimate now?

It is the bridge at Thurston, in particular the look of it, that has caused Suffolk Coastal District Council to object to the Trimley proposal.

 

[Tobbes]

The proposed bridge will be very similar to the bridleway bridge over the railway installed at Heath Road Thurston in 2014. The cost of that has been quoted at £1.5 million. Even at 2019 prices, £6 million seems too much. Either that or Network Rail is putting a substantial 'oversight' cost into every estimate now?

It is the bridge at Thurston, in particular the look of it, that has caused Suffolk Coastal District Council to object to the Trimley proposal.

The Thurston Bridge looks like a standard NR one (there are at least a couple on the GEML, one near Witham IIRC which is blue). I'm not quite sure how any design for a fully DDA accessible bridge high enough to allow for electrification clearances would look materially different? Sounds like typical South Suffolk NIMBYism (and I live here!)

 

[Bald Rick]

The proposed bridge will be very similar to the bridleway bridge over the railway installed at Heath Road Thurston in 2014. The cost of that has been quoted at £1.5 million. Even at 2019 prices, £6 million seems too much. Either that or Network Rail is putting a substantial 'oversight' cost into every estimate now?

I would be very surprised if that bridge at Thurston was less than £3m. The one at Witham was over £3m in 2014.

 

[306024]

I would be very surprised if that bridge at Thurston was less than £3m. The one at Witham was over £3m in 2014.

And I doubt a horse has been over the one at Witham yet.

 

[Bald Rick]

And I doubt a horse has been over the one at Witham yet.

Well quite. Nor the level crossing before it. But try telling that to the council.

 

[LAX54]

Compared to NYL it seems expensive ? NYL is 68.....or that could be too cheap

 

[jopsuk]

If a Right of Way is designated as a Bridleway, then even if no horses actually use it it must be maintained as accessible for equestrian traffic. I'm surprised they got away with a design that requires riders to dismount to be honest. The alternative would be essentially to go through the very complicated process of completely shutting the Right of Way.

 

[70014IronDuke]

The cost of rule of law and respect for traditional rights is high, isn't it?

On a more direct railway theme - how does this awfully expensive 1 mile of new track fit into the big scheme of things? That is to say, I assume NR sees this as the "most critical - and affordable - bit" in its efforts to increase capacity on the entire Felixstowe to Midlands/London/Everywhere freight route.

It will lift capacity of the branch from 33 to 47 freight trains per day - almost 50%. That is no mean improvement (relatively). But the next question(s) must be: where can these trains go? Can the North London line take any more? If not, I assume the increase must go via Bury St Edmunds and Ely? So in that case, where is the next pinch point restricting capacity? Soham to Ely, perhaps? Or the various Ely junctions? Or ....?

Also, in absolute terms, how important are these extra 14 trains? Or, put another way, what is the tonnage coming and going into Felixstowe carried by rail now and with this enhancement compared to the total port throughput?

 

[HowardGWR]

See the Netherlands tunnel example in the nearby thread. Why can't they do that for this project?

 

[eastdyke]

The cost of rule of law and respect for traditional rights is high, isn't it?

On a more direct railway theme - how does this awfully expensive 1 mile of new track fit into the big scheme of things? That is to say, I assume NR sees this as the "most critical - and affordable - bit" in its efforts to increase capacity on the entire Felixstowe to Midlands/London/Everywhere freight route.

It will lift capacity of the branch from 33 to 47 freight trains per day - almost 50%. That is no mean improvement (relatively). But the next question(s) must be: where can these trains go? Can the North London line take any more? If not, I assume the increase must go via Bury St Edmunds and Ely? So in that case, where is the next pinch point restricting capacity? Soham to Ely, perhaps? Or the various Ely junctions? Or ....?

Also, in absolute terms, how important are these extra 14 trains? Or, put another way, what is the tonnage coming and going into Felixstowe carried by rail now and with this enhancement compared to the total port throughput?

Hutchison Ports T/A Felixstowe Dock and Railway Co. obtained the TWAO for doubling of the Felixstowe Branch from the east side of Ipswich to Trimley, around 4.5 miles in total. It is part of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton (F2N) freight corridor, various elements of which are in Anglia. The TWAO has since been transferred to Network Rail.

The Anglia Route Study includes the section of the route to Peterborough, with the following:

By 2043 there is a shortfall in freight capacity and a gap in connectivity outputs that require addressing on this corridor. Significant infrastructure change would be required to fully accommodate the forecast growth and improved passenger service (primarily linked to Cross-boundary services and improved connectivity). Infrastructure changes would be required in the following locations:
• Haughley Junction
• Ely area
• Ely to Soham
• Trowse Junction (note for passenger services not freight)
• Felixstowe Branch

In line with the longer term strategy for this corridor to meet CP6 freight forecasts, choices for funders include:
• Doubling of sections of the Felixstowe Branch
• Improved signalling headways on the Bury St Edmunds line
• Ely area improvements including level crossings and headway reductions
• Ely to Soham – doubling or partial doubling of single line section

There may be an opportunity through the roll out of ETCS to achieve headway improvements on this corridor and this should be examined further through the Digital Railway Programme.

The current 1 mile section is totally attributable to freight to/from the Port.
When it comes to bits like 'Ely Area' - includes 'North Junction', attribution becomes much more difficult. How do you split between Freight and all the aspirational passenger service improvements (there are 5 or 6) all of which at least in part depend on those works?

The Port (on the figures for 2015) serviced around 27% of containers by rail. Growth in rail share has upside based on both economic growth and modal shift. Apparently the current proposal will allow 33tpd to be increased to 47tpd (in each direction) without any further works to the branch.

(Edited to add) The wider network however can cope with only 4tpd of the increase and therefore further works are required along the route to Nuneaton before the full benefits can be realised.

Felixstowe is of course in competition with the other container ports in the UK so the is some further possibility to transfer business by offering operators a more attractive package.

 

[eastdyke]

See the Netherlands tunnel example in the nearby thread. Why can't they do that for this project?

The Network Rail release does include talk of an underpass as a discounted option in a supporting document. It does not cost an underpass stating:
https://www.networkrail.co.uk/running-the-railway/our-routes/anglia/felixstowe-branch-line/

While cost estimates of a bridleway underpass have not been developed, it is a general rule that in terms of cost, subsurface construction of the type proposed in this report can typically be considered to be at least double that of an equivalent overbridge solution.

From costs quoted already in this thread that puts an underpass at somewhere between £3 and £14 million.
Going on the price suggested by @Bald Rick (he is normally 'on the money') it would therefore be at least £6 million.

I think that Network Rail may need to be more specific when presenting their case to the Public Inquiry!

 

[66701GBRF]

The POF need to significantly up their game with the trains they currently have let alone thinking about extra trains....though the extra infrastructure with help with right time arrivals and departures.

 

[eastdyke]

I have now found the estimated costs associated with The Proposed Network Rail (Felixstowe Branch Line Improvements - Level Crossings Closure) Order. Dated March 2017:
http://archive.nr.co.uk/browse docu...l crossings closure/nr07_estimate-of-cost.pdf
The total estimated cost is £4,702,640 of which £2,145,670 is for 'Tunnels and Bridges'.

 

[Bald Rick]

See the Netherlands tunnel example in the nearby thread. Why can't they do that for this project?

Money, and possibly ground conditions. An underpass was built at Ingatestone a couple of years ago; that was £4.5m, pedestrian only, and through an embankment so no need for big approach ramps. Bridleways need another 2m headroom for a tall bloke on a tall horse, and on the Felixstowe branch you would need big ramps down. You're looking at at least £6m+

 

[AndrewE]

And I doubt a horse has been over the one at Witham yet.

Well quite. Nor the level crossing before it. But try telling that to the council.

Don't forget that bridleways are legally useable by cyclists (and footpaths are not) so maintaining them as through routes can make all the difference to the practicability of cycle commuting.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Hutchison Ports T/A Felixstowe Dock and Railway Co. obtained the TWAO for doubling of the Felixstowe Branch from the east side of Ipswich to Trimley, around 4.5 miles in total. It is part of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton (F2N) freight corridor, various elements of which are in Anglia. The TWAO has since been transferred to Network Rail.

The Anglia Route Study includes the section of the route to Peterborough, with the following:


The current 1 mile section is totally attributable to freight to/from the Port.
When it comes to bits like 'Ely Area' - includes 'North Junction', attribution becomes much more difficult. How do you split between Freight and all the aspirational passenger service improvements (there are 5 or 6) all of which at least in part depend on those works?

Well, yes, but I thought that was what "privatisation" and unbundling the system was all about - or partly about - the ability to assign costs. Now it seeems - it doesn't help!

The Port (on the figures for 2015) serviced around 27% of containers by rail. Growth in rail share has upside based on both economic growth and modal shift. Apparently the current proposal will allow 33tpd to be increased to 47tpd (in each direction) without any further works to the branch.

Wow! That's a lot more than I had imagined. Thank you.

(Edited to add) The wider network however can cope with only 4tpd of the increase and therefore further works are required along the route to Nuneaton before the full benefits can be realised.

Oh dear. But step by stop, I suppose. That's 4 TPD each way?

I suspect there are people out there who wish the passenger service could be withdrawn and just let them get on and run freight. But of course, if the rest of the network can only deal with 4 TPD, it wouldn't count for that much.

as regards passenger traffic - just WHO uses the branch? Do most just go into Ipswich for work, or does a sizeable proportion go foreward to London? Is the branch used by port workers?