March - Wisbech reopening

[DarloRich]

The A47 crossing is only a problem because they are making it one, that crossing shares many similarities to that on the A10 bypass at Littleport and that's a 60mph speed limit, if they are that scared of reopening the crossing at 60mph why not put a 40mph limit either side

There is one key difference - Littleport is a legacy crossing & not a new one. The drive from the regulator and government is to remove level crossing risk by closing them where possible.

I might agree if this were a side road or farm track but it isnt. In the current climate building a new level crossing on a busy A road by pass will not be acceptable.

To simply suggest it isnt an issue shows naivety. It is an issue and one that any reopening proposal must consider. A return to what was in place in 1967 will not wash today. That may not please you but it is the stated policy of NR and the regulator.

If that's true, NR have the wrong priorities. Closing a few level crossings should not trump the development of the network for the social/national good. Political pressure needs to be brought to bear.

It is, in part, political pressure that led to the focus on crossing closures. Personally a bridge would seem a better option than the crossing in question (if only from a traffic flow point of view) but the cost of that bridge has to be factored into any plans. We cant just sweep the issue under the carpet and pretend the world is the way we would prefer it to be.

Surely this is an example where, if there is demand for the line, third party investment could be attracted to the railway to help deliver the project. Perhaps the local council can pony up instead of offering warm words.

 

[eastdyke]

I agree entirely that it is a good thing that the study is being done independently.

In terms of level crossings, it is a source of anger for me that funding which should be going towards the improvement of the railway for it's users, has to be diverted towards a problem that in the vast majority of cases is caused by bad driving. It is about time that level crossing replacement was paid for out of the road budget.

If it was that simple I would agree. But cause is one thing, effect quite another.

Level Crossing interfaces are and remain a risk to 'The Railway', its staff, its passengers and its assets.

For the railway to continue to thrive, passengers especially, need to have confidence that they will be safe.

 

[A0]

There is one key difference - Littleport is a legacy crossing & not a new one. The drive from the regulator and government is to remove level crossing risk by closing them where possible.

I might agree if this were a side road or farm track but it isnt. In the current climate building a new level crossing on a busy A road by pass will not be acceptable.

To simply suggest it isnt an issue shows naivety. It is an issue and one that any reopening proposal must consider. A return to what was in place in 1967 will not wash today. That may not please you but it is the stated policy of NR and the regulator.



It is, in part, political pressure that led to the focus on crossing closures. Personally a bridge would seem a better option than the crossing in question (if only from a traffic flow point of view) but the cost of that bridge has to be factored into any plans. We cant just sweep the issue under the carpet and pretend the world is the way we would prefer it to be.

Surely this is an example where, if there is demand for the line, third party investment could be attracted to the railway to help deliver the project. Perhaps the local council can pony up instead of offering warm words.

I'm not sure we can actually be that sanguine about the minor road / farm track crossings - I can think of two recent incidents in East Anglia involving farm crossings - one on the Sudbury branch the other between Norwich & Ely - both of which caused serious damage to the trains in question and it was fortunate did not result in the death or serious injury of passengers. And that's on "lightly used" farm crossings. So reopening level crossings on main roads is an absolute no-no.

 

[eastdyke]

Some other comments.

One of the problems with the way that population growth is handled here in the UK is the tendency towards a piecemeal approach.

Here in Wisbech there is an opportunity to plan for 12,000 new homes. Planning on such scale will include basic safety, health, education, employment, transport and essential utility services.

There should be a presumption against development on this scale that does not give efficient access to the Rail Network (not just Wisbech but development of scale anywhere in the Country).

12,000 new homes would almost double the size of Wisbech to nearly 60,000 people. The position of any future station in Wisbech should not be bound by historic (or even current) infrastucture.

Property Developers stand to benefit considerably as average house prices in Wisbech are relatively low at £158,727 (2016 - source Rightmove). Transport access to Cambridge such that would be essential to allow for this scale of development would lead to the prospect of very considerable house price increases. Cambridge average house prices were £473,910 (2016 - source Rightmove).

I see no reason why development in Wisbech should not stand a very substantial Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) - or whatever follows any future review of CIL. Crossrail 1 is partly funded by CIL.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy

Perhaps £5000 per property could be apportioned to rail? That should help both with the 're-opening' and with Ely North .......

Quite apart from the costs of Ely North there is a huge problem about how costs are apportioned across the different potential beneficiaries and how do you get them to pay ......
The time must surely come when we stop arguing and just get on with it?

 

[70014IronDuke]

If the truth is known NR don't want the line open again, they have many reasons one is to do with train paths, the Felixstowe containers are a higher priority than a two car diesel unit travelling back and forth to the back drop of Cambridgeshire

NR have bigger fish to fry with their signal box and level crossing closure scheme

That's just two reasons to name a few hence the high £150m and growing price tag, might just scare people off

This, I fear, is the killer reason behind no serious action. NR have plenty of 'challenges' and if they can get even some of those sorted out, they will feel good. Taking on the challenge of Wisbech reopening (along with all the Ely level crossing stuff) is not going to win them many brownie points and could result in far more bad news than good.

They will only do this if Wisbech council and/or other responsbile local authorities raise the political pressure for a decent rail link to become a reality. Without such political pressure, the potential downside for NR is far greater than the perceived up side.

 

[70014IronDuke]

Some other comments.

One of the problems with the way that population growth is handled here in the UK is the tendency towards a piecemeal approach.

Here in Wisbech there is an opportunity to plan for 12,000 new homes. Planning on such scale will include basic safety, health, education, employment, transport and essential utility services.

There should be a presumption against development on this scale that does not give efficient access to the Rail Network (not just Wisbech but development of scale anywhere in the Country).
....

Absolutely!

But with the government all backing green initiatives, this is already incorporated into future housing developments, surely?

Oh, just a minute, you aren't suggesting all the talk about being green is, er, just talk, are you?

 

[eastdyke]

Absolutely!

But with the government all backing green initiatives, this is already incorporated into future housing developments, surely?

Oh, just a minute, you aren't suggesting all the talk about being green is, er, just talk, are you?

The word green has many connotations .........

 

[70014IronDuke]

The word green has many connotations .........
...
12,000 new homes would almost double the size of Wisbech to nearly 60,000 people. The position of any future station in Wisbech should not be bound by historic (or even current) infrastucture.
...

If you are correct in the above statement, I find it truly shocking that the authorities have not demanded a rail connection as a condition for this expansion of housing to go ahead.
12,000 homes = (guess) around 22,000 more people (?) - and the nearest rail link is March, yet a mothballed line leads to the town, except nobody (of note) wants to re-open it? Or rather, contribute towards re-opening it? Madness.

 

[eastdyke]

If you are correct in the above statement, I find it truly shocking that the authorities have not demanded a rail connection as a condition for this expansion of housing to go ahead.
12,000 homes = (guess) around 22,000 more people (?) - and the nearest rail link is March, yet a mothballed line leads to the town, except nobody (of note) wants to re-open it? Or rather, contribute towards re-opening it? Madness.

@ocelocelot has already published the links explaining were we are with the proposed Wisbech Garden Town Project. Funding for an overall study, which includes rail 're-opening', amounting to £6.4m is in place. Half the funds are for the next stage of the Rail Study.

It is to be hoped that 'inward investment' will not be just housing which would only create yet another Cambridge dormitory.

This article also mentions that half of a £6.4m funding request would go towards the rail study

http://www.fenlandcitizen.co.uk/new...nce-for-wisbech-says-council-leader-1-8023243

And i believe this article from yesterday is saying that the funding request has been approved :
http://www.heart.co.uk/cambridgeshire/news/local/wisbech-garden-city-plans-move-ahead/

Bodies of note:
The planning authority is Fenland District Council. The County resposiblities are discharged by Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA).
The Authority has a newly created and elected Mayor, James Palmer. The Mayor will be keen to progress Rail on his agenda (in common seemingly with all the other Mayors).

Ely North is also 'on his patch'.

 

[yorksrob]

If it was that simple I would agree. But cause is one thing, effect quite another.

Level Crossing interfaces are and remain a risk to 'The Railway', its staff, its passengers and its assets.

For the railway to continue to thrive, passengers especially, need to have confidence that they will be safe.

But it's still a risk in large part, not of the railways making. Passengers could have just as much confidence in the safety of the railway if the cost of diverting and closing the level crossing had come out of the highways budget.

 

[yorksrob]

There is one key difference - Littleport is a legacy crossing & not a new one. The drive from the regulator and government is to remove level crossing risk by closing them where possible.

I might agree if this were a side road or farm track but it isnt. In the current climate building a new level crossing on a busy A road by pass will not be acceptable.

To simply suggest it isnt an issue shows naivety. It is an issue and one that any reopening proposal must consider. A return to what was in place in 1967 will not wash today. That may not please you but it is the stated policy of NR and the regulator.



It is, in part, political pressure that led to the focus on crossing closures. Personally a bridge would seem a better option than the crossing in question (if only from a traffic flow point of view) but the cost of that bridge has to be factored into any plans. We cant just sweep the issue under the carpet and pretend the world is the way we would prefer it to be.

Surely this is an example where, if there is demand for the line, third party investment could be attracted to the railway to help deliver the project. Perhaps the local council can pony up instead of offering warm words.

No chance of getting Councils which have lost substantial budgets over the last few years to pony up. Getting the developers to contribute, as with Tavistock would be a good idea though.

 

[eastdyke]

But it's still a risk in large part, not of the railways making. Passengers could have just as much confidence in the safety of the railway if the cost of diverting and closing the level crossing had come out of the highways budget.

Sure, but in nearly every instance any increase in risk is down to 'The Railway'.

More trains, faster trains .....

And it is increase in risk that we are especially keen to avoid.

 

[bramling]

Sure, but in nearly every instance any increase in risk is down to 'The Railway'.

More trains, faster trains .....

Whilst a lot of risk has been added over the years by the demanning of crossings and the substitution of manned crossings with AHB or open crossings, I'd say another change has been increasing population size -- simply that the more people who use a crossing the more likely the crossing is likely to encounter someone who misuses it.

It's the same with roads in my area -- a section of motorway near me is now pretty much regarded as an accident blackspot, yet (rose-tinted spectacles maybe?) I don't remember anything like the same number of issues in the 1990s. Ditto the number of roundabouts round here which are now deemed to need traffic lights, yet which worked perfectly nicely in the 1990s.

 

[moggie]

The minutes of the meeting approving the cash to investigate the development and expansion of Wisbech as a town dropped some strong hints that NR will not be doing the reopening study. If so, then it is a welcome development as

a) A.N. other organisation can have a go,
b) comparisons can be made with NR studies, and,
c) it can stand or fall independently of what NR think about the branch.

Of course the consultant engaged will no doubt have to demonstrate how to deliver a train service south of March, if that is indeed the plan.

I'd fully expect 'other's' (consultants) working in accordance with GRIP principles did it in conjunction with NR's input. The next development step of GRIP 3 option selection which will select a preferred option meeting the sponsors requirement therefore little real rail infrastructure engineering is carried out at this stage. It will be mainly concerned with the rail route and
stations, affects to other infrastructure, e.g.road works, legal requirements, land requirements, planning and scheduling, outline rail service requirements and cost refinement of the preferred option.

Only IF the process gets to the next GRIP stage 4 will some meat get put on the bones of precisely what engineering is to be done to the rail infrastructure for the selected (single) option, whether the asset is suitable for alteration or needs wholesale replacement and how and when the necessary work will be undertaken taking it forward to an approved engineering proposal. This should be the time the rail costs are properly known albeit full design doesn't happen until the next GRIP stage when the work is put out to tender.

A long long way to go.

 

[yorksrob]

Sure, but in nearly every instance any increase in risk is down to 'The Railway'.

More trains, faster trains .....

And it is increase in risk that we are especially keen to avoid.

I don't think that's actually true. I think a lot of the increased risk is down to increased traffic, or increased use of personal devices, as an example.

The fact remains that in the majority of level crossing incidents, it is the road user that is at fault with potentially catastrophic consequences for road and rail user alike.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think that's actually true. I think a lot of the increased risk is down to increased traffic, or increased use of personal devices, as an example.

The fact remains that in the majority of level crossing incidents, it is the road user that is at fault with potentially catastrophic consequences for road and rail user alike.

It is correct to say that the majority (indeed almost all) LX incidents are caused by road users including pedestrians. Whether they are at fault or not is a moot point, but usually that is the case.

However, in general terms, the increase in risk is down to one or more of four things over the past decade or so:

1) Increase in the number of road vehicles / pedestrians on the crossing
2) Increase in the number of passengers on the trains
3) Increase in the speed of the trains
4) increase in the number of trains

1) is a factor for most highways of A and B class, and many (but by no means all) of the remaining highways. It is also a factor in a small proportion of footpath, bridle way and private crossings where traffic has risen. However on the majority of crossings in this country, crossing usage has not risen significantly.

2) is a factor on almost every LX in the country, bar those on the few lines where passenger numbers have not risen.

3) is rare, because where speed increases across a level crossing, mitigating actions are usually taken to reduce the risk back to its previous level

4) self evidently applies only where the number of trains increases.


Taken together, (2) is the only factor on a majority of crossings in the country, and is a significant factor in almost all the others where risk has increased.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'm not sure we can actually be that sanguine about the minor road / farm track crossings - I can think of two recent incidents in East Anglia involving farm crossings - one on the Sudbury branch the other between Norwich & Ely - both of which caused serious damage to the trains in question and it was fortunate did not result in the death or serious injury of passengers. And that's on "lightly used" farm crossings. So reopening level crossings on main roads is an absolute no-no.

Well quite. I have attended several level crossing incidents, including that at Sudbury. There were serious injuries there, and very nearly worse.

There is zero chance of a level crossing on the A47 or the B road On the Wisbech line. And the chance of any level crossings on that line being reinstated, whilst not zero, is about as close to zero as you can get without breaking your 0 key.

 

[IanXC]

We will focus on creating extra capacity on the railways, which will ease overcrowding, bringing new lines and stations, and improve existing routes - including for freight.

If the Government are to deliver 'lines' (plural) then it would seem the obvious place to start is mothballed and currently freight only lines, where infrastructure works can generally be completed offline. This could be the face saver in terms of the Government potentially no longer trusting Network Rail with electrification schemes, *and* keeping the money not only in the transport budget, but in railways.

 

[Bald Rick]

If the Government are to deliver 'lines' (plural) then it would seem the obvious place to start is mothballed and currently freight only lines, where infrastructure works can generally be completed offline. This could be the face saver in terms of the Government potentially no longer trusting Network Rail with electrification schemes, *and* keeping the money not only in the transport budget, but in railways.

Crossrail and EWRail will be the new lines (plural).

 

[Domh245]

It is correct to say that the majority (indeed almost all) LX incidents are caused by road users including pedestrians. Whether they are at fault or not is a moot point, but usually that is the case.

However, in general terms, the increase in risk is down to one or more of four things over the past decade or so:

1) Increase in the number of road vehicles / pedestrians on the crossing
2) Increase in the number of passengers on the trains
3) Increase in the speed of the trains
4) increase in the number of trains

1) is a factor for most highways of A and B class, and many (but by no means all) of the remaining highways. It is also a factor in a small proportion of footpath, bridle way and private crossings where traffic has risen. However on the majority of crossings in this country, crossing usage has not risen significantly.

2) is a factor on almost every LX in the country, bar those on the few lines where passenger numbers have not risen.

3) is rare, because where speed increases across a level crossing, mitigating actions are usually taken to reduce the risk back to its previous level

4) self evidently applies only where the number of trains increases.


Taken together, (2) is the only factor on a majority of crossings in the country, and is a significant factor in almost all the others where risk has increased.

I may be being a little dense here, but I don't see how the number of passengers on a train affects the risk - other than potentially bringing about point 4. Is it just as a result of the way the risk is measured, or related to the fact that a heavier loaded train may take longer to stop vs a lighter train, but that would seem an odd way of doing it.

 

[yorksrob]

It is correct to say that the majority (indeed almost all) LX incidents are caused by road users including pedestrians. Whether they are at fault or not is a moot point, but usually that is the case.

I don't think it is a "moot point". I don't see why money intended to improve the railway network for the benefit of rail users should be spent on something else because motorists can't be trusted to use level crossings properly.

 

[Bald Rick]

I may be being a little dense here, but I don't see how the number of passengers on a train affects the risk - other than potentially bringing about point 4. Is it just as a result of the way the risk is measured, or related to the fact that a heavier loaded train may take longer to stop vs a lighter train, but that would seem an odd way of doing it.

Because the risk is measured in 'Fatalities and Weighted Injuries' of all those who go across the crossing whether by road, foot or rail. Therefore if the number of passengers on the line rises, so does the risk.

 

[Bald Rick]

I don't think it is a "moot point". I don't see why money intended to improve the railway network for the benefit of rail users should be spent on something else because motorists can't be trusted to use level crossings properly.

I don't have the stats to hand, but I'm reasonably sure that more pedestrians are injured (or worse) than motorists at level crossings.

The moot point was about 'fault' of crossing users. If someone doesn't know how to use a crossing correctly (eg a child), and they get hurt or worse, it would be difficult to argue it is their 'fault'.

 

[yorksrob]

I don't have the stats to hand, but I'm reasonably sure that more pedestrians are injured (or worse) than motorists at level crossings.

The moot point was about 'fault' of crossing users. If someone doesn't know how to use a crossing correctly (eg a child), and they get hurt or worse, it would be difficult to argue it is their 'fault'.

I wonder how many of those injuries are due to more distractions being available to pedestrians in the form of personal media. That's an increase in risk generated by road users.

 

[eastdyke]

I don't have the stats to hand, but I'm reasonably sure that more pedestrians are injured (or worse) than motorists at level crossings.

The moot point was about 'fault' of crossing users. If someone doesn't know how to use a crossing correctly (eg a child), and they get hurt or worse, it would be difficult to argue it is their 'fault'.

The ORR stats are here:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/html/html/700d465d-99ee-4590-984a-d91e244365dd

Pedestrians seem to be involved more often than vehicles and on an upward trend. As the risk to passengers is clearly higher when vehicles are involved the risk to PAX would appear to be reducing. Ergo the current level crossing policy is working with respect to train users.

Perhaps improved education and signage directed at pedestrians should be in sharper focus if/when the industry policy is reviewed/continued beyond 2019?

 

[Bald Rick]

I wonder how many of those injuries are due to more distractions being available to pedestrians in the form of personal media. That's an increase in risk generated by road users.

Unfortunately the risk assessment algorithms do not specifically take into account the propensity of pedestrians to be distracted or otherwise affected by personal media. Principally because it is difficult to measure at any individual crossing, and each risk assessment is crossing specific.

 

[Bald Rick]

The ORR stats are here:

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/html/html/700d465d-99ee-4590-984a-d91e244365dd

Pedestrians seem to be involved more often than vehicles and on an upward trend. As the risk to passengers is clearly higher when vehicles are involved the risk to PAX would appear to be reducing. Ergo the current level crossing policy is working with respect to train users.

Perhaps improved education and signage directed at pedestrians should be in sharper focus if/when the industry policy is reviewed/continued beyond 2019?

The upward trend in pedestrian misuse is possibly as a result of an internal industry initiative to get incidents properly reported. Until around 2010/11 it was often the case that pedestrian misuse went unreported - some drivers told me they didn't report it because 'nothing ever got done'. When I pointed out that nothing could get done if it didn't get reported in the first place the penny dropped. I know of footpath crossings that are now closed as a result of better reporting.

Most vehicle misuse is reported simply because most crossings are monitored in some way, and because historically train drivers have more concern about the safety of their train if a vehicle is in the way than if a person is.

 

[bspahh]

https://twitter.com/elystandard/status/899939941085577217 says:

"Wisbech to Cambridge rail link - consideration to GRIP3 stage. Cost of rail link estimated at £116 million".

It doesn't give a source for this though

 

[eastdyke]

https://twitter.com/elystandard/status/899939941085577217 says:

"Wisbech to Cambridge rail link - consideration to GRIP3 stage. Cost of rail link estimated at £116 million".

It doesn't give a source for this though

I don't recall a figure of £116 million. The GRIP 2 came up with options in the range £70-£110 million. GRIP 3 has been funded but not got very far yet.

Network Rail would want funds towards Ely North Junction 'improvements' and level crossing works, both are likely to increase costs.

I looked at some of the detail and concluded that the re-opening was only likely with development of the Wisbech Garden Project for 10,000 new homes.
When I looked further at where these 10,000 new homes would go I concluded that purveyors of wellington boots would do very well.