Platform lengthening at Shepreth and Foxton

[MikePJ]

Probably only of niche interest, but I can confirm that work has started to lengthen the Cambridge-bound platforms at Shepreth and Foxton stations to eight cars. This will allow the Class 700/0s to serve these stations without fouling the adjacent level crossings. Some temporary site safety fences have been put up and vegetation cleared. Look at the sites, it appears that some signalling and OHLE equipment will have to be moved.

It's also rumoured that something similar will happen at Meldreth station.

The cheapskates at the DfT have, however, decided not to fund lengthening the London-bound platforms to match, so southbound trains will rely on SDO (selective door operation), with the back half of the train hanging off the end of the platform.

 

[Muzer]

Lol, that's rather a poor show. At least the trains are walk-through ones.

 

[Phil.]

You really couldn't make this sort of stuff up. Let's start a conspiracy theory. Only one side of the station is being lengthened as a prelude to the line being singled. It does after all make about as much sense as lengthening just one platform - if the story/claim is true and accurate.

 

[Muzer]

The issue is that the standard is to open only front doors, and I suspect it is probably hard if not impossible to open only rear doors in the 700s. If the train is heading away from London, the level crossings are on the London side, so the front of the trains stopping on the platform would mean the rears would overhang the level crossings, and cause delays to road vehicles. Therefore trains literally would not be able to stop at the station without causing big problems.

In the other direction, however, trains can stop fine, they just have to use SDO, because this time the fronts will be stopped before the level crossing, and the rears will overhang onto just plain line because there are no level crossings on the Cambridge sides of these stations.

 

[philjo]

The services that stop at the villages generally start from Platform 3 at Cambridge so those wanting to alight at the villages will have to go further down the platform (or walk through the train) - a lot of those from the villages tend to take their bike on the train with them.

 

[jopsuk]

You really couldn't make this sort of stuff up. Let's start a conspiracy theory. Only one side of the station is being lengthened as a prelude to the line being singled. It does after all make about as much sense as lengthening just one platform - if the story/claim is true and accurate.

Hah! Reckon this is a little far off- given the line is getting an extra 2tph off peak from Thameslink and in the future maybe another one or two from E-W rail.

Of course (as I was reminded riding through Foxton last night) what's really needed here as well as the longer platforms is a bypass to take the A10 out of the villages and up and over the railway on a bridge- though there would still need to be pedestrian (and bike) crossing of some sort (bridge? Underpass?) at Foxton

 

[philjo]

There were some route options somewhere last year for a Foxton bypass to eliminate the A10 level crossing - I think they were Network Rail's proposals? The main complaints were from the villagers saying that it would cut Foxton into 2 parts. I can't remember if was part of a larger A10 upgrade or not.

 

[Phil.]

OK, let's have a dose of reality.
What is to stop the platforms at Foxton being lengthened towards Cambridge? There would be no effect on the crossing.
What is to stop the platforms being lengthened at Shepreth towards Royston?
There would be no effect on the crossing.
What is there to prevent the lengthening of the platforms at Meldreth? There's no crossing at all.
Funny how it's Meldreth as the station is nearer Melbourne.

 

[MikePJ]

Foxton parish council led the work to look at getting the crossing closed a few years ago. Details are here, but the short answer is that NR won't pay for it in the current Control Period, so it probably won't happen until 2020 at the earliest. http://foxtonparishcouncil.gov.uk/page.php?id=156

It was on a longlist for Cambridge city deal money, but again has been dropped in favour of measures to try and reduce traffic in Cambridge.

 

[a good off]

OK, let's have a dose of reality.
What is to stop the platforms at Foxton being lengthened towards Cambridge? There would be no effect on the crossing.
What is to stop the platforms being lengthened at Shepreth towards Royston?
There would be no effect on the crossing.
What is there to prevent the lengthening of the platforms at Meldreth? There's no crossing at all.
Funny how it's Meldreth as the station is nearer Melbourne.

The station is actually in Meldreth and a mile away from Melbourn!

 

[Hadders]

So if a 12 car class 700 calls they will foul the level crossing. Or is the plan for 12 car trains to never serve the villages?

 

[jopsuk]

That is indeed the plan. Off peak, two 8 car trains per hour will be a heck of a step up from one 4 car. And they were to be paired with the Tattenham Corner branch which is 8 cars max.

 

[Ianno87]

Look at the annual usage figures for the stations, particularly Shepreth and Foxton. This may be an indication why extending all six platforms may not be considered "value for money".

Almost all users will be local in nature, so will learn about which part of the train to be in very quickly.

 

[Bald Rick]

You really couldn't make this sort of stuff up. Let's start a conspiracy theory. Only one side of the station is being lengthened as a prelude to the line being singled. It does after all make about as much sense as lengthening just one platform - if the story/claim is true and accurate.

Get real.

Why would 'we' (and it's our money, as taxpayers) spend another £5m or so extending platforms when we don't need to? The trains that will stop at the short platforms will hardly be full, everyone will be able to get on easily, and the very, very few people who want to get off to the short platforms will know where to be either through experience or through the on train announcements and info. There's far better things on the railway to spend that sort of money on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Foxton parish council led the work to look at getting the crossing closed a few years ago. Details are here, but the short answer is that NR won't pay for it in the current Control Period, so it probably won't happen until 2020 at the earliest. http://foxtonparishcouncil.gov.uk/page.php?id=156

It was on a longlist for Cambridge city deal money, but again has been dropped in favour of measures to try and reduce traffic in Cambridge.

It was in highways plans at least as far back as 1955. NR couldn't possibly justify spending all the cash required simply to help the A10 flow better.

 

[bramling]

That is indeed the plan. Off peak, two 8 car trains per hour will be a heck of a step up from one 4 car. And they were to be paired with the Tattenham Corner branch which is 8 cars max.

It's not actually that wonderful an upgrade. The service tends to be 2tph at many times of day anyway (M-F). The new service won't provide a fast or even semi-fast service towards London. I know I would prefer 1tph fast than 2tph slow. Another undesirable aspect of this is this will add loadings to the 8-car services as they head south from Stevenage - to the detriment of passengers at places like Welwyn and Hatfield.

 

[Bald Rick]

Oh come on. 'Many times of day' being morning peak and evening peak, Mon-Fri only. So roughly 20% of the operating hours of the week.

 

[mr_jrt]

The issue is that the standard is to open only front doors, and I suspect it is probably hard if not impossible to open only rear doors in the 700s. If the train is heading away from London, the level crossings are on the London side, so the front of the trains stopping on the platform would mean the rears would overhang the level crossings, and cause delays to road vehicles. Therefore trains literally would not be able to stop at the station without causing big problems.

In the other direction, however, trains can stop fine, they just have to use SDO, because this time the fronts will be stopped before the level crossing, and the rears will overhang onto just plain line because there are no level crossings on the Cambridge sides of these stations.

The ironic thing being that if things are indeed as you state the London-bound platforms would be dramatically cheaper to lengthen as you wouldn't need to move the signals - you'd still stop in the same place, you're just building some concrete blocks for people to step out onto alongside some plain line.

 

[Phil.]

Get real.

Why would 'we' (and it's our money, as taxpayers) spend another £5m or so extending platforms when we don't need to? The trains that will stop at the short platforms will hardly be full, everyone will be able to get on easily, and the very, very few people who want to get off to the short platforms will know where to be either through experience or through the on train announcements and info. There's far better things on the railway to spend that sort of money on.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


It was in highways plans at least as far back as 1955. NR couldn't possibly justify spending all the cash required simply to help the A10 flow better.

£5 million to extend six platforms? Time to get a quote from a local builder methinks. Concrete footings, concrete block facings with pre-cast concrete platform surfaces. Three lampposts with the associated electrical extensions. Three weeks ago a builder quoted me £30,000 to build a three storey house. The expensive bit of a house build is the cost of the land.

 

[jopsuk]

If any of the OHL masts need moved I'd imagine that's quite a considerable expense as the weekend long blockade would have to be paid for by the project. It can't be easy to do.

At Foxton, it would be OHL that's the main issue with extending the Up platform, there's plenty of space

At Shepreth, the buildings (old goods sheds?) get very close to the railway at the country end of the Up, that may be an issue.

At Meldreth, it would simply be land acquisition and that OHL work.

 

[Bald Rick]

£5 million to extend six platforms? Time to get a quote from a local builder methinks. Concrete footings, concrete block facings with pre-cast concrete platform surfaces. Three lampposts with the associated electrical extensions. Three weeks ago a builder quoted me £30,000 to build a three storey house. The expensive bit of a house build is the cost of the land.

No you haven't. £300k perhaps, and it won't be a big one.

Now tell that builder he can only work for 4 hours overnight (and that he has to do that without annoying the neighbours), or occasional Sundays; that he can only have materials delivered at the far end of your road and has to lug it all to site using specialist equipment, that he has to move a load of cables for the traffic lights a few miles away, and test the safety integrity of same. You might like to mention that you will only employ people who have certain competencies for working on your land, and that they must wear certain specified protective equipment, and that you will check, and if you find anyone without same you will summarily remove them from the site, stop the work, and the builder doesn't get paid. Then mention that the house is next to a very busy road, and if any of the work causes any traffic to be delayed, you will be charged over £100 for every minute a car is held up, so the builder needs to guarantee that he will finish each morning at the time required. Mention that for every Sunday he needs to work, you have to pay the people that normally drive in the road about £100k.

If he is still going to quote, it won't be £300k anymore.

 

[bramling]

Oh come on. 'Many times of day' being morning peak and evening peak, Mon-Fri only. So roughly 20% of the operating hours of the week.

It's a bit more than just peak hours if you look at the timetable, and in many such cases the faster services call. I was on one such service last night and I wouldn't call 2152 off King's Cross as 'peak', would you?

 

[Bald Rick]

2152 on Friday is peak on Thameslink!

I did look at the timetable, and have now realised it is different up and down. The two tph down direction does indeed extend later in the evening as you rightly say. It doesn't in the up direction. So the point still stands.

 

[Ianno87]

The ironic thing being that if things are indeed as you state the London-bound platforms would be dramatically cheaper to lengthen as you wouldn't need to move the signals - you'd still stop in the same place, you're just building some concrete blocks for people to step out onto alongside some plain line.

At Shepreth and Foxton, the Down direction signals are both quite some way off the end of the platform anyway (way more than 4 coaches worth of distance), so no cost to move them.

If anything, extending the Up platforms could require the platform end signals (that both protect the level crossings) to be moved to comply with current standards (if they don't already - I have no idea) if physical changes are made to the platform. In both cases the signal is offset part way down the platform the give adequate overrun protection to each Level Crossing.

 

[snowball]

Funny how it's Meldreth as the station is nearer Melbourne.

As far as I can see from the map it's nearer Meldreth than Melbourn, and an awful long way from Melbourne.

 

[MikePJ]

As far as I can see from the map it's nearer Meldreth than Melbourn, and an awful long way from Melbourne.

I use Meldreth station every day. It's definitely in Meldreth, but it's not far from Melbourn. I work at the north end of Melbourn village and it's a 20 minute walk or a 5-6 minute cycle ride. There's a footpath across the field from the London-bound platform which passes through a subway under the bypass so as to give access to Melbourn village for cyclists and pedestrians.

The local Rail User Group would like to rename the station "Meldreth and Melbourn" (which was its original name) because Melbourn is the bigger village and attracts a reasonable number of commuters to its various businesses.

 

[Passenger John]

Progress so far at Shepreth, taken Sunday 11 September.

 

[jopsuk]

Neatly showing how constrained the Up side is

 

[MikePJ]

Meldreth is getting its Cambridge-bound platform lengthened too - safety fencing has appeared at the south end, so the new extension will run along the back of the car park.

 

[MikePJ]

Work is due to start on February 19th.

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/new...riving-three-cambridgeshire-stations-12495486

 

[TheDavibob]

It looks like it'll be getting done pretty rapidly (as in a projected August completion date) which makes it a little odd that it wasn't started a few months ago to match it to Cambridge North opening/Class 700 running. But I accept there were probably issues.