Possible service changes following the Ely North Junction upgrade works

[TheBigD]

Moderator note: Split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-north-junction-upgrade-proposals.68376/

So it looks like the plan is to have double track junctions on all routes. Like it used to be.

Will also be interesting what the proposed extra passenger paths are used for. Making Cambridge-Peterborough half hourly should be high on the list of priorities.

 

[Maltazer]

Will also be interesting what the proposed extra passenger paths are used for. Making Cambridge-Peterborough half hourly should be high on the list of priorities.

There's only one unassigned extra passenger path after the doubling of the Kings Lynn and Ipswich services are taken into account.

Peterborough - Cambridge might be most likely, although by the time this work is all done it may well be Wisbech-Cambridge instead!

 

[Bald Rick]

Peterborough - Cambridge might be most likely, although by the time this work is all done it may well be Wisbech-Cambridge instead!

if this work gets done, I’d be surprised if Wisbech Came the path. As posted elsewhere, you get 85% of the benefit of building a new line to Wisbech for zero capital spend by simply operating an extra service Cambridge to March…

 

[DynamicSpirit]

There's only one unassigned extra passenger path after the doubling of the Kings Lynn and Ipswich services are taken into account.

Peterborough - Cambridge might be most likely, although by the time this work is all done it may well be Wisbech-Cambridge instead!

I can also see demand for another Norwich-Cambridge - particularly when East-West rail arrives at Cambridge - which is a bit of a problem because the upgrade won't give enough paths for both.

In the long term, I do wonder whether the Norwich-Liverpool service might end up getting split: As it stands, each Norwich-Liverpool train uses the Queen Adelaide junctions and level crossings twice en route, without serving the local big commuter city. Is that the best use of paths, or would it be better for it to become separate Liverpool-Cambridge and Norwich-Cambridge(-Oxford?) services, thereby allowing more frequent services from basically everywhere through Ely to Cambridge? (That's assuming that, after the upgrade, the bottleneck will remain north of Ely, and it is possible to provide additional services between Ely and Cambridge).

 

[quantinghome]

... would it be better for it to become separate Liverpool-Cambridge and Norwich-Cambridge(-Oxford?) services, thereby allowing more frequent services from basically everywhere through Ely to Cambridge? (That's assuming that, after the upgrade, the bottleneck will remain north of Ely, and it is possible to provide additional services between Ely and Cambridge).

Norwich is pretty isolated from the rest of the country as it stands. The current Liverpool-Norwich service is its only non-London long distance service. Even if this is curtailed (is the Nottingham split still planned?), a direct Norwich-Peterborough train will still be needed to connect conveniently to the ECML.

Long term, if we're serious about major increases in rail freight, some sort of freight bypass of Ely should be considered.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Norwich is pretty isolated from the rest of the country as it stands. The current Liverpool-Norwich service is its only non-London long distance service. Even if this is curtailed (is the Nottingham split still planned?), a direct Norwich-Peterborough train will still be needed to connect conveniently to the ECML.

Strictly speaking, if splitting the service creates a post-EW-Rail Norwich-Oxford service, then Norwich would have a direct connection with the ECML at Sandy (although it wouldn't be such a convenient connection for Northbound travel). It would also retain a direct connection with the MML - at Bedford.

 

[quantinghome]

Strictly speaking, if splitting the service creates a post-EW-Rail Norwich-Oxford service, then Norwich would have a direct connection with the ECML at Sandy (although it wouldn't be such a convenient connection for Northbound travel). It would also retain a direct connection with the MML - at Bedford.

Sure, although multiplying the number of stops on the ECML to maintain connections with East Anglia has its drawbacks. We already have Peterborough and Stevenage.

If HS2 were to be built in full, then a more highly connected service on the ECML would make sense.

 

[Tobbes]

Strictly speaking, if splitting the service creates a post-EW-Rail Norwich-Oxford service, then Norwich would have a direct connection with the ECML at Sandy (although it wouldn't be such a convenient connection for Northbound travel). It would also retain a direct connection with the MML - at Bedford.

Exactly this. If EWR ends up with hourly Norwich-Oxford and Ipswich-Oxford services, then there will be considerable connectivity improvements, notably for me on the MML. At the moment, Ipswich to Leicester (c 120 miles by road) is just under three hours via London; via Bedford it should be quicker (, cheaper (not via London) and easier (no tube, single change at Bedford).

 

[eastdyke]

Exactly this. If EWR ends up with hourly Norwich-Oxford and Ipswich-Oxford services, then there will be considerable connectivity improvements, notably for me on the MML. At the moment, Ipswich to Leicester (c 120 miles by road) is just under three hours via London; via Bedford it should be quicker (, cheaper (not via London) and easier (no tube, single change at Bedford).

Currently Bedford-Leicester alone is around 50 mins (+ connection time at Bedford). [Because the journey requires a change at Kettering - not sure whether this is 'permanent']
The most efficient current journey might be the 3hrs +- via Peterborough although of course only 1 per 2 hours. Completing Ely N + all the other crossing works could at least make that hourly.

 

[Steve Harris]

Strictly speaking, if splitting the service creates a post-EW-Rail Norwich-Oxford service, then Norwich would have a direct connection with the ECML at Sandy (although it wouldn't be such a convenient connection for Northbound travel).

I wouldn't be so sure on that one ! Currently the proposal is to build a new station on EWR wherever it crosses the ECML with the "option of potentially" building a new station on the ECML.

 

[Starmill]

Currently Bedford-Leicester alone is around 50 mins (+ connection time at Bedford). [Because the journey requires a change at Kettering - not sure whether this is 'permanent']
The most efficient current journey might be the 3hrs +- via Peterborough although of course only 1 per 2 hours. Completing Ely N + all the other crossing works could at least make that hourly.

It may or may not be permanent, but it will at least be long-term, as the scope to introduce more than the current tiny handful of direct trains between Leicester and Bedford is very limited indeed.

 

[dk1]

There would be eruptions if Norwich ever lost its direct link to Peterborough' for Intercity connections. I can never see that happening thankfully .

 

[trebor79]

There would be eruptions if Norwich ever lost its direct link to Peterborough' for Intercity connections. I can never see that happening thankfully .

Indeed. Although Making the Liverpool-Norwich into a Liverpool-Cambridge and putting in a Norwich-Peterborough isn't a bad one. Especially as it would mean a lovely 755 instead of a stinky noisy old 158!

 

[dk1]

Indeed. Although Making the Liverpool-Norwich into a Liverpool-Cambridge and putting in a Norwich-Peterborough isn't a bad one. Especially as it would mean a lovely 755 instead of a stinky noisy old 158!

170s on the way back so some improvements in the pipeline.

 

[ashkeba]

170s on the way back so some improvements in the pipeline.

170s not much improvement on 158s, if any.

 

[dk1]

170s not much improvement on 158s, if any.

I’ve always preferred the 170s & enjoyed travelling on & driving them since new. The Anglia 3-cars where particularly nice.

 

[Class 170101]

It’s quicker, because the space is less constrained through these proposals.

I assume you mean more land is required for the new layout compared to both the current layout and especially the pre 1990s layout? Interestingly, perhaps its me, but the layout proposed in the consultation looks similar to the pre 1990s layout.

 

[Bald Rick]

Interestingly, perhaps its me, but the layout proposed in the consultation looks similar to the pre 1990s layout.

It’s similar functionally, but will be very different on the ground.

 

[trebor79]

170s not much improvement on 158s, if any.

I’ve always preferred the 170s & enjoyed travelling on & driving them since new. The Anglia 3-cars where particularly nice.

Yes I'll take a 170 over a 158 as a passenger any day. And yes the middle of a 3-car unit can be quite cosy, in a good way.
170 is quieter than a 158, has air conditioning that works and doesn't stink of exhaust fumes if you're in the "wrong" part of the train. Just the glacial acceleration that's not so good.

 

[Starmill]

Presumably the proposed Derby to Norwich via Grantham service would have been able to use mostly three car class 170s also, the current service mostly using two car class 158s between Nottingham and Norwich?

 

[dk1]

Presumably the proposed Derby to Norwich via Grantham service would have been able to use mostly three car class 170s also, the current service mostly using two car class 158s between Nottingham and Norwich?

If I am correct EMR are only getting 8x3-cars (201-208) which would probably cover most Norwich services if terminating Nottingham although I doubt they will be dedicated to this for long if at all. Is the Derby extension still going ahead?

 

[Starmill]

If I am correct EMR are only getting 8x3-cars (201-208) which would probably cover most Norwich services if terminating Nottingham although I doubt they will be dedicated to this for long if at all. Is the Derby extension still going ahead?

I don't know. I don't think anyone particularly knows yet given their well documented problems.

 

[bspahh]

if this work gets done, I’d be surprised if Wisbech Came the path. As posted elsewhere, you get 85% of the benefit of building a new line to Wisbech for zero capital spend by simply operating an extra service Cambridge to March…

The heavy rail link to Wisbech is officially dead for now, so the paths through Ely North should be safe.

https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/traffic/wisbech-march-light-rail-could-be-an-option-8432794 says

Wisbech to March light rail signalled in radical ‘levelling up’ bid by Mayor

Mayor Dr Nik Johnson could substitute the pipe dream of a £200m rail link between March and Wisbech with a cut-price revolutionary light rail system.

[snip]

Abandoning current proposals for a March-Wisbech rail line and substituting a light rail option, would almost certainly sound the death knell for a mega incinerator for Wisbech.

Without a freight link to carry waste – that a new rail connection would allow – it is unlikely an incinerator could remain viable by simply relying on roads for waste delivery.

If Mayor Johnson opts to sanction a light touch rail link locally, he would almost certainly look to the Wisbech to March connection where a track already exists.

 

[edwin_m]

The heavy rail link to Wisbech is officially dead for now, so the paths through Ely North should be safe.

https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/traffic/wisbech-march-light-rail-could-be-an-option-8432794 says

Bit of confusion there between the on-street Very Light Rail for Coventry and the Revolution vehicle aimed at off-street branch lines that don't share track with the rest of the network. To use this the Wisbech line needs to find a way around the access tracks for the Whitemoor infrastructure depot.

 

[WesternS]

Bit of confusion there between the on-street Very Light Rail for Coventry and the Revolution vehicle aimed at off-street branch lines that don't share track with the rest of the network. To use this the Wisbech line needs to find a way around the access tracks for the Whitemoor infrastructure depot.

Not sure why you consider either of these to be daft. The guided bus is off-topic but the light rail vehicle actually exists as a prototype, as featured in November's Modern Railways. This may be a more appropriate vehicle for the demand from Wisbech, rather than running a short "proper" train in a scarce path across Ely North Junction and into Cambridge.

And aren't WMCA doing something right now on the ground with both light rail (Wednesbury - Brierley Hill) and very light rail (in Dudley itself) ?

 

[edwin_m]

And aren't WMCA doing something right now on the ground with both light rail (Wednesbury - Brierley Hill) and very light rail (in Dudley itself) ?

The very light rail is a test centre for the Revolution and the Coventry-type vehicle, running through Dudley tunnel. It won't be a useful transport route, although I guess they might have open days to popularise the idea. The Metro extension is similar to other Metro routes and will use the same tram fleet. This follows the railway from Wednesbury then diverts off to serve the centre of Dudley which the tunnel goes underneath. It then re-joins the railway towards Brierley Hill.

 

[William3000]

Indeed. Although Making the Liverpool-Norwich into a Liverpool-Cambridge and putting in a Norwich-Peterborough isn't a bad one. Especially as it would mean a lovely 755 instead of a stinky noisy old 158!

If there are additional Norwich to Cambridge/Stansted services and Cambridge to Birmingham NS/Liverpool LS then it may be possible for Norwich to Peterborough to use Ely West curve and thus not taking up valuable paths. On another note if EW rail happens, I would have thought Cambridge to Birmingham NS may be better routed via Milton Keynes with perhaps the existing service shortened to a Birmingham to Peterborough or Cambridge to Leicester.

 

[Tobbes]

If there are additional Norwich to Cambridge/Stansted services and Cambridge to Birmingham NS/Liverpool LS then it may be possible for Norwich to Peterborough to use Ely West curve and thus not taking up valuable paths. On another note if EW rail happens, I would have thought Cambridge to Birmingham NS may be better routed via Milton Keynes with perhaps the existing service shortened to a Birmingham to Peterborough or Cambridge to Leicester.

Would you gain a whole path by routing the Norwich - Peterborough via the West Curve? Seems like a retrograde step as that Ely call allows for connections to Cambrige and the Lynn line - you'd need a pretty strong case to remove that.

 

[Ianno87]

Would you gain a whole path by routing the Norwich - Peterborough via the West Curve? Seems like a retrograde step as that Ely call allows for connections to Cambrige and the Lynn line - you'd need a pretty strong case to remove that.

In theory, if you compensated by making Cambridge-Peterborough 2tph, then all you're doing is replacing a connection at Ely with a connection at Peterborough, so no material difference to passengers.

 

[Tobbes]

In theory, if you compensated by making Cambridge-Peterborough 2tph, then all you're doing is replacing a connection at Ely with a connection at Peterborough, so no material difference to passengers.

Is this in addition to Ipswich-Peterborough hourly? And forgive me if 'no material difference' is the kind of wording that always worries me....