Government Seeking Ways to Reverse Some Beeching Cuts.

[Bald Rick]

Frankly, if the engineering on this route is prohibitive, I can't see how any route construction, high speed included, can be justified. Its short and flat.
h.

Flat is the problem:
a) poor ground conditions
b) level crossings

 

[Starmill]

I'm still not convinced Ely to Cambridge is so at capacity it couldn't take the additional service.

I think there's a delayed/shelved scheme to increase capacity at Ely North Jn? The line between Ely and Cambridge potentially can accommodate more trains but that's irrelevant if they can't get a path through there.

Of course, if central government cash were on offer the link could be built anyway and operated as a shuttle until such time as the level crossings can be risk assesed again with mitigation and whatever kind of remodeling in the Ely area can actually proceed.

Funding does not appear to be available though - either for building the line or for the other two issues. I have said again and again I think is wrong, but apparently more people do not agree with me and have other spending priorities like state visits for Donald Trump, Brexit preparedness funding, reduced Stamp Duty, the cut to the Additional Rate of Income Tax and the increased threshold for the Higher rate (I could go on all night).

 

[The Ham]

Reopening of Exeter - Plymouth (or more strictly speaking, Yeoford - Bere Alston) via Okehampton and Tavistock is favoured by the Peninsular Rail Task Force (PRTF), a rail improvement campaign group consisting of Cornwall, Devon, Somerset, Torbay and Plymouth City Councils, and the Heart of the South West and the Cornwall & Isles of Scilly Local Enterprise Partnerships (LEPs). It is also supported by most of the MPs serving the area. The Task Force envisage the route as primarily a local one linking the communities en-route rather than providing an alternative main line, although its availability as a diversionary route during planned engineering work or unplanned emergencies is also welcome.

peninsularailtaskforce.co.uk

Even if it is primarily aimed at being a local service, in terms of business case it would likely get a boost by being an extension of the Waterloo to Exeter services.

Not that anyone is likely to travel from Waterloo (and if they do it would be for cost purposes and so would be reducing passenger numbers from Paddington and so would be a negative for the case), but rather it would make travel between Plymouth and places like Woking, most of Hampshire (other than Basingstoke to Eastleigh), Southampton, Portsmouth, Dorset and the like much easier.

Although numbers between Plymouth and those places may not be big, but because each passenger will bring in much more revenue than the local passengers and so every movement from further afield is likely to mean that they bring in the same revenue as about 5 local movements.

Any advantage from the political for diversions is likely to be fairly minimum (read nothing) in terms of business case, yet politically it would probably be very popular.

However, given the statement, it would likely mean substantial housebuilding along the line to justify the reopening.

 

[yorksrob]

I think there's a delayed/shelved scheme to increase capacity at Ely North Jn? The line between Ely and Cambridge potentially can accommodate more trains but that's irrelevant if they can't get a path through there.

Of course, if central government cash were on offer the link could be built anyway and operated as a shuttle until such time as the level crossings can be risk assesed again with mitigation and whatever kind of remodeling in the Ely area can actually proceed.

Funding does not appear to be available though - either for building the line or for the other two issues. I have said again and again I think is wrong, but apparently more people do not agree with me and have other spending priorities like state visits for Donald Trump, Brexit preparedness funding, reduced Stamp Duty, the cut to the Additional Rate of Income Tax and the increased threshold for the Higher rate (I could go on all night).

Ely North Junction is hardly Borough Market though. I find it hard to believe it's so much more difficult to thread an extra train through Ely North than through Shipley for example.

As for level crossings, it's not going to cost a great deal for someone to go round with a clip board and work out that they're no less safe with an additional train than they were previously.

 

[Ianno87]

Ely North Junction is hardly Borough Market though. I find it hard to believe it's so much more difficult to thread an extra train through Ely North than through Shipley for example.

As for level crossings, it's not going to cost a great deal for someone to go round with a clip board and work out that they're no less safe with an additional train than they were previously.

Because everything to and from Kings Lynn (up to 5 movements per hour in the peak), to and from Norwich (4 movements per hour) and from Peterborough (4-5 movements per hour) currently has to traverse the same point on a 5-way single lead junction. Up to 14 movements per hour.

The busiest point of the layout at Shipley is probably the Up line at Shipley Dock Jn, with 'only' 9-10 movements per hour over it (all Leeds-bound trains, plus everything to and from Ilkley).

Ely North Junction permits 3 minutes between consecutive movements. So the existing service already requires 42 minutes per hour of the available capacity. And that's before you consider that you can't timetable trains entirely round this junction due to constraints stretching as far as Liverpool Lime Street, Birmingham New Street, Trowse Swing Bridge, single lines to King's Lynn, Welwyn viaduct (and indirectly the Thameslink core), Stansted single line, Lea Valley, Liverpool Street....

Plus Level Crossings *are* a limiting factor on train services. You can't 'just' add more trains without considering (and where necedsary, mitigating) the additional safety risk that is created from extra movements.

Remember Level Crossings aren't just road crossings, but include occupation crossings, footpaths, etc., of which there are many in this part of the world.

 

[yorksrob]

Because everything to and from Kings Lynn (up to 5 movements per hour in the peak), to and from Norwich (4 movements per hour) and from Peterborough (4-5 movements per hour) currently has to traverse the same point on a 5-way single lead junction. Up to 14 movements per hour.

The busiest point of the layout at Shipley is probably the Up line at Shipley Dock Jn, with 'only' 9-10 movements per hour over it (all Leeds-bound trains, plus everything to and from Ilkley).

Ely North Junction permits 3 minutes between consecutive movements. So the existing service already requires 42 minutes per hour of the available capacity. And that's before you consider that you can't timetable trains entirely round this junction due to constraints stretching as far as Liverpool Lime Street, Birmingham New Street, Trowse Swing Bridge, single lines to King's Lynn, Welwyn viaduct (and indirectly the Thameslink core), Stansted single line, Lea Valley, Liverpool Street....

Plus Level Crossings *are* a limiting factor on train services. You can't 'just' add more trains without considering (and where necedsary, mitigating) the additional safety risk that is created from extra movements.

Remember Level Crossings aren't just road crossings, but include occupation crossings, footpaths, etc., of which there are many in this part of the world.

That's a ridiculous layout. Surely they should have double track throughout the junction to prevent up and down Norwich/Kings Lynn services from conflicting ?

I would have thought that this should be sorted out for the current service as a matter of urgency (and of course, completely separately from the Wisbech business case).

 

[Chester1]

So I'm afraid I'm cynical about, for example, Exeter to Plymouth re-opening until someone succeeds in getting a regular and frequent service on the existing line to Okehampton (although there does at least seem to be some movement on this), because pushing on westwards will be far more difficult.

A weekend year round service would be a good start testing the leisure market. If it is then a reasonable success Monday to Friday services could then be reduced. It might require the Saturday timetable of another line to be reduced though to free up rolling stock. Freight lines should be the focus of reopening schemes because the tracks are actually in place!

 

[Western Lord]

Why do people think that the residents of Wisbech have an urgent desire to go to Cambridge? Wisbech is between Peterborough and Kings Lynn and I would imagine that there is far more travel to those places than to Cambridge. Anyone in Wisbech travelling to London can drive to Peterborough and get a fast train from there, rather than faffing around with a slow local to Cambridge and changing to a not particularly fast train there. If the line were to reopen it would be better to run the service to Peterborough via a reversal at March (it would be easy to relay track into one of the old west end bay platforms).

 

[Master29]

How about a time machine....

 

[Starmill]

As for level crossings, it's not going to cost a great deal for someone to go round with a clip board and work out that they're no less safe with an additional train than they were previously.

What will happen is they will be risk assesed and the report will say that the risk increases by x as a result of the extra trains. Network Rail cannot just ignore that - the extra trains cannot be accepted until the risk has been mitigated against. This is what happened on the North Downs line. The problem for me is that modifying level crossings appears to be remarkably difficult and expensive when it's for everyone's benefit. What's more the risk assessment takes misuse of crossings into account - if nobody misused the crossing the results might be different, so we are paying for their misdemeanors. Finally, I have always thought that level crossing projects should have some kind of greater financial contribution from road enhancement budgets. However, how to achieve this without just delaying any crossing upgrades and thus service increases further I do not know.

I would have thought that this should be sorted out for the current service as a matter of urgency

Well, there was a plan to remodel it...

 

[Starmill]

Why do people think that the residents of Wisbech have an urgent desire to go to Cambridge?

Because it's a significant and growing centre of skilled employment and education - rather more so than Peterborough. Of course, some people would use such a service to travel between Wishbech and Peterborough with a change.

 

[Julia]

Because it's a significant and growing centre of skilled employment and education - rather more so than Peterborough. Of course, some people would use such a service to travel between Wishbech and Peterborough with a change.

Indeed. Huge numbers of jobs being created (particularly around Cambridge North, which is all up for redevelopment, plenty of new offices around the main station, and the Addenbrookes / AstraZeneca site - note how they're concentrated around existing and proposed stations, too), and insane house prices in Cambridge and its immediate hinterlands forcing people to live further out as a result; plus poor N-S road links - and all main roads in the Cambridge area are at/above capacity.

 

[Llanigraham]

What will happen is they will be risk assesed and the report will say that the risk increases by x as a result of the extra trains. Network Rail cannot just ignore that - the extra trains cannot be accepted until the risk has been mitigated against. This is what happened on the North Downs line. The problem for me is that modifying level crossings appears to be remarkably difficult and expensive when it's for everyone's benefit. What's more the risk assessment takes misuse of crossings into account - if nobody misused the crossing the results might be different, so we are paying for their misdemeanors. Finally, I have always thought that level crossing projects should have some kind of greater financial contribution from road enhancement budgets. However, how to achieve this without just delaying any crossing upgrades and thus service increases further I do not know.



Well, there was a plan to remodel it...

Couple of points for you to consider.
It depends on the type of crossing that is going to be "modified". To close an LX on a public road all the users along that road have to be considered, and a Traffic Regulation Order obtained. One or more objection and you could be looking at a Public Inquiry.
Closing a crossing on a Public Footpath/RoW can be equally as difficult, especially if there is a local vociferous Ramblers Assoc group. Another Public Inquiry on the cards!
Closing a User Worked Crossing, as is being done along The Cambrian, you need to get the agreement of all the possible users, probably provide them with another route and provide them with compensation. Often the Local Authority will also get involved because that UWC may also be on a RoW.
And then there are some crossings that are stipulated in the original Act for that railway, so they have to get Parliamentary permission to close.

Life is NOT simple!

 

[HowardGWR]

^^^It's a Public Inquiry. Hope that is helpful.

 

[Ianno87]

That's a ridiculous layout. Surely they should have double track throughout the junction to prevent up and down Norwich/Kings Lynn services from conflicting ?

I would have thought that this should be sorted out for the current service as a matter of urgency (and of course, completely separately from the Wisbech business case).

The present layout was installed by BR with Lynn electrification in 1992, and replaced double junctions to all routes (plus on the West curve). Trouble is the land constraints made these junctions very slow (want to say 20mph?) so throughput of the junction was very low. Think about how long a 775m freight train (or long passenger train) would take just to clear its own length at that speed, never mind the headway to the next train nor the time needed to get back up to speed afterwards.

So, arguably the present layout, in spite of having so few parallel moves, is actually higher capacity than the previous layout on account of being able to pump consecutive trains through the junction faster.

Remember in 1992 we were in the context of a declining railway, so (for example) the Norwich-Cambridge service didn't exist (not until 2002), and Felixstowe freight traffic was less dominant, so the junction would've been seen as perfectly adequate.

It's only now with the growth in Felixstowe freight, and passenger demand to/from booming Cambridge that the junction is now starting to form an actual constraint on what trains can run, so time to do something about it. We haven't really needed anything more in the last 25 years.

Anyway, £8.8m has been earmarked for a feasibility study into the Ely Area as a whole (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ly-north-move-forward-with-88m-lep-investment)

Not just limited to North Jn (only one piece of the puzzle) but looking holistically at everything that limits capacity in the Ely area (such as level crossings) to determine what is necessary to meet future requirements.

 

[eastdyke]

You cannot move very far over the 'flat' lands of East Anglia without encountering a level crossing.

It is accepted that level crossings impose a risk on the users of rail and of roads/bridleways/footpaths. But reading some inputs an outsider could gain an impression that the current policies of Network Rail with respect to crossings are designed to enable their Engineers to sleep easy in their beds and as a catch-all for no-can-do.

It is fundamentally wrong for any level crossing work across the wider network to be totally offset as a full cost on relatively minor schemes and changes. Patently work across the wider network will reduce risks to many existing travelers as well.

I am surprised to have heard nothing in relation to the proposed increase in service London-Norwich broadly from 2tph to 3tph. The risk of a crossing incident must be increased, perhaps all the crossings affected are 'low' or 'medium' risk?

I am not sure what money is likely to be available in CP6 and beyond, if any, for level crossing risk reduction works? As a risk identified by/to the Industry there really should be a substantial provision.

It has been said that some of the crossings March-Ely and Ely-Cambridge are 'high risk'. Such a designation should mean that they are already earmarked for mitigation works within a planning horizon (of say 10 years?) on the basis of the most risky first.
Minor schemes and changes should only be charged with the cost of bringing forward high risk crossing mitigation works, not with the full costs. There should be no charges at all in relation to crossing works where the risk has not already been assessed as 'high'.

 

[Lankyline]

And on BBC North West twitter feed Colne-Skipton and Preston-Fleetwood lines were quoted as “must open” lines. I mean really, SELRAP is just an impressive “talking shop” and nothing of note ever seems to get done. And if they bothered to check they would have realised the Fleetwood link was severed.
Like the politicians just a bunch of sound bites.

 

[Chester1]

And on BBC North West twitter feed Colne-Skipton and Preston-Fleetwood lines were quoted as “must open” lines. I mean really, SELRAP is just an impressive “talking shop” and nothing of note ever seems to get done. And if they bothered to check they would have realised the Fleetwood link was severed.
Like the politicians just a bunch of sound bites.

Wouldn't using most of the Fleetwood line to link Poulton with the tram system make more sense and be more likely than getting funding for a limited DMU service?

 

[Dr Hoo]

Wouldn't using most of the Fleetwood line to link Poulton with the tram system make more sense and be more likely than getting funding for a limited DMU service?

Accepting that there may be some intermediate business at Burn Naze, etc., surely the Blackpool Tramway extension from Talbot Square to Blackpool North (already in hand) provides improved links between National Rail and Fleetwood.
At least the Wisbeches, Portisheads and Okehamptons of this world would bring whole communities back onto rail-based public transport.

 

[Chester1]

Accepting that there may be some intermediate business at Burn Naze, etc., surely the Blackpool Tramway extension from Talbot Square to Blackpool North (already in hand) provides improved links between National Rail and Fleetwood.
At least the Wisbeches, Portisheads and Okehamptons of this world would bring whole communities back onto rail-based public transport.

I was comparing light rail and heavy rail reopening of the Fleetwood line. Okehampton to Exeter is different to most proposals because a basic service could be introduced very quickly if the funding becomes available. Middlewich would need some infrastructure spending but not a lot.

 

[ChiefPlanner]

And on BBC North West twitter feed Colne-Skipton and Preston-Fleetwood lines were quoted as “must open” lines. I mean really, SELRAP is just an impressive “talking shop” and nothing of note ever seems to get done. And if they bothered to check they would have realised the Fleetwood link was severed.
Like the politicians just a bunch of sound bites.

Nicely put ....

 

[yorksrob]

What will happen is they will be risk assesed and the report will say that the risk increases by x as a result of the extra trains. Network Rail cannot just ignore that - the extra trains cannot be accepted until the risk has been mitigated against. This is what happened on the North Downs line. The problem for me is that modifying level crossings appears to be remarkably difficult and expensive when it's for everyone's benefit. What's more the risk assessment takes misuse of crossings into account - if nobody misused the crossing the results might be different, so we are paying for their misdemeanors. Finally, I have always thought that level crossing projects should have some kind of greater financial contribution from road enhancement budgets. However, how to achieve this without just delaying any crossing upgrades and thus service increases further I do not know.



Well, there was a plan to remodel it...

Oh, I agree entirely regarding level crossings. If it was up to me I'd make the road budget pay for the lot, as these problems are primarily caused by misuse by motorists.

 

[yorksrob]

Why do people think that the residents of Wisbech have an urgent desire to go to Cambridge? Wisbech is between Peterborough and Kings Lynn and I would imagine that there is far more travel to those places than to Cambridge. Anyone in Wisbech travelling to London can drive to Peterborough and get a fast train from there, rather than faffing around with a slow local to Cambridge and changing to a not particularly fast train there. If the line were to reopen it would be better to run the service to Peterborough via a reversal at March (it would be easy to relay track into one of the old west end bay platforms).

To be honest, I wouldn't have a problem with the trains going that way if it suited the market better - it would save having to sort out Ely North anyway.That said, as Starmill mentioned, Cambridge is now a major employment centre.

 

[yorksrob]

The present layout was installed by BR with Lynn electrification in 1992, and replaced double junctions to all routes (plus on the West curve). Trouble is the land constraints made these junctions very slow (want to say 20mph?) so throughput of the junction was very low. Think about how long a 775m freight train (or long passenger train) would take just to clear its own length at that speed, never mind the headway to the next train nor the time needed to get back up to speed afterwards.

So, arguably the present layout, in spite of having so few parallel moves, is actually higher capacity than the previous layout on account of being able to pump consecutive trains through the junction faster.

Remember in 1992 we were in the context of a declining railway, so (for example) the Norwich-Cambridge service didn't exist (not until 2002), and Felixstowe freight traffic was less dominant, so the junction would've been seen as perfectly adequate.

It's only now with the growth in Felixstowe freight, and passenger demand to/from booming Cambridge that the junction is now starting to form an actual constraint on what trains can run, so time to do something about it. We haven't really needed anything more in the last 25 years.

Anyway, £8.8m has been earmarked for a feasibility study into the Ely Area as a whole (http://www.railtechnologymagazine.c...ly-north-move-forward-with-88m-lep-investment)

Not just limited to North Jn (only one piece of the puzzle) but looking holistically at everything that limits capacity in the Ely area (such as level crossings) to determine what is necessary to meet future requirements.

Ah yes, the 1992 "declining" railway, one of the most enduring figments of John Major's imagination. Doubtless it was this collective Tory party fantasy world which forced BR to install a less than ideal solution in the first place.

Anyhow, even though the layout might have enabled a moderate increase in speeds with train numbers at the time, we've had over twenty years of passenger growth since then, which is a comparatively long time to sort out such matters.

 

[yorksrob]

It is fundamentally wrong for any level crossing work across the wider network to be totally offset as a full cost on relatively minor schemes and changes. Patently work across the wider network will reduce risks to many existing travelers as well.

I am surprised to have heard nothing in relation to the proposed increase in service London-Norwich broadly from 2tph to 3tph. The risk of a crossing incident must be increased, perhaps all the crossings affected are 'low' or 'medium' risk?

Yes, a very good point. I too would find it very surprising if increasing the number of interCity trains on a mainline over level crossings resulted in no change to risk structure, yet an additional train over an existing passenger route as a result of a newly opened route further down the line did result in a change in risk.

 

[Kettledrum]

I was comparing light rail and heavy rail reopening of the Fleetwood line. Okehampton to Exeter is different to most proposals because a basic service could be introduced very quickly if the funding becomes available. Middlewich would need some infrastructure spending but not a lot.

Middlewich is interesting as the track is there and used for freight and occasional diversions.

Could Middlewich be trialed low cost quick win by using a class 230 Vivarail unit to do a shuttle service between Sandbach - Middlewich - Northwich? Line speed is very low, but that could be left as it is. Could use existing platform 3 at Sandbach. Would need temporary platforms and turnaround facilities elsewhere perhaps, but it would be good to try a low cost option as "proof of concept"

 

[wildcard]

I think the title of this thread should be " Government seeking a way out (of reversing some cuts)" . Expecting house builders to fund an ever increasing burden of transport infrastructure projects as well as providing a greater proportion of "affordable housing" ( aka cheap subsidised houses for the lucky few ) within their development is wishful thinking. Surely developers are going to walk away if councils place too onerous conditions on planning consent. Most builders have considerable land banks already and can wait this one out.
The only way is for central government to provide the majority of the money.

 

[yorksrob]

I think the title of this thread should be " Government seeking a way out (of reversing some cuts)" . Expecting house builders to fund an ever increasing burden of transport infrastructure projects as well as providing a greater proportion of "affordable housing" ( aka cheap subsidised houses for the lucky few ) within their development is wishful thinking. Surely developers are going to walk away if councils place too onerous conditions on planning consent. Most builders have considerable land banks already and can wait this one out.
The only way is for central government to provide the majority of the money.

Or to penalise developers for holding land banks.

 

[bspahh]

I am not sure what money is likely to be available in CP6 and beyond, if any, for level crossing risk reduction works? As a risk identified by/to the Industry there really should be a substantial provision.

It has been said that some of the crossings March-Ely and Ely-Cambridge are 'high risk'. Such a designation should mean that they are already earmarked for mitigation works within a planning horizon (of say 10 years?) on the basis of the most risky first.
Minor schemes and changes should only be charged with the cost of bringing forward high risk crossing mitigation works, not with the full costs. There should be no charges at all in relation to crossing works where the risk has not already been assessed as 'high'.

There is a public enquiry on right now to remove some level crossings in Cambridgeshire. http://cambridge-level-crossings.persona-pi.com/

http://bailey.persona-pi.com/Public-Inquiries/Cambridge/A Core Documents/NR06.pdf says:

The anticipated final cost of implementing the Order scheme is £3.931m. This will be funded in Control Period 5 (CP5) by the National Level Crossing Risk Reduction Fund and Anglia Route signalling funding. In addition to this, Anglia Route will apply for further funding in CP6 to enable the implementation of works at level crossings after March 2019

The big problem is the run of three level crossings through Queen Adelaide. When the Ely North junction upgrade gets done, and there are trains to Kings Lynn every 30 minutes, and a load more freight trains, then Queen Adelaide effectively going to be cut off for much of the time. Bridging the level crossings will not be cheap.

 

[bussnapperwm]

Schemes mentioned in the DfT documentation are usual suspects
Bristol to Portishead
Bristol to Henbury
Exeter to Okehampton
Bere Alston to Tavistock
Ashington-Blyth-Tyne
opportunities around Birmingham (no details given)
four new stations in the West Yorkshire area: Elland, Thorpe Park, White Rose and Leeds Bradford International Airport Parkway.

And that seems to be it

Opportunities around Birmingham most likely to be Camp Hill and Brierley Hill (even though extending it through to Dudley would be even better!)

I would assume that the reference to Birmingham in the opening post will be in relation to the Camp Hill lines, which was in fact announced by Abellio as one of their franchise proposals. That is unless the government are going to make an announcement about the Bordesley Chords at some point, but I'll believe that when I see it.

Same with Brierley Hill. Another Abellio announced project for the new franchise!