• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Cambridge South new station construction progress.

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I personally think that for the new station to be served by all "non fast" trains (Ie 4 Thameslink from the GN line, two from Liverpool Street plus the Stansted to Norwich train) at 7 in all should be enough, so not the Kings Cross Cruisers or the Liverpool Street peak fasts.

We all want good connectivity and it's going to be an important station, however this should not be at the expense of losing other benefits like the non stop headline of the Cruisers.
There will be one an hour from Ely, plus it's easy to change there so no issue coming from Lynn or Peterborough. Once EWR comes to the party it will also call, so those as well will be plenty.

On the layout, would two islands really take up more space? Surely the width of two outer platforms would be more than a second island,

The station for instance would need 4 lift/stair sets (rather than 3), and the tracks would have to fan out wider on approach to spread around them. Which means a widened alignment over a longer distance.

The other facet of "user friendliness" is the side platform gives one platform from which the hospital / biomedical campus can be accessed without any level change.

the busway overbridge looks a bit tight but could easily be widened, as for Long Road bridge bigger project would be needed but is well overdue anyway.

The busway bridge (with cycle paths) is only a few years old, and already has to fall relatively sharply to meet Francis Crick avenue.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,027
Location
SE London
Without seeing the track layout from Cambridge to Shepreth Branch Jn potentially I could envisage crowding at the top of the stairs at Cambridge South as people wait for their train to 'decide' which platform it will use - the Up side platform or the centre island for London or the Down side platform or the centre island for Cambridge (Central) and stations north thereof.

That seems unlikely to me. Waiting to see what platform your train comes in at is only going to happen if trains regularly have their platform changed at the last minute. In practice we're not talking about tube-style frequencies - I'd guess more like, typical intervals of anything between 3 and 10 minutes between successive Northbound trains. People travelling to Cambridge or Cambridge North will presumably see which platform the next train goes from as soon as they enter the station and will head for that platform. No reason to hang around on the bridge unless extensive disruption means it's not certain which of two trains will leave first.

Personally I do agree with you that Northbound trains departing either side of an island would be more convenient (IIRC I even posted saying that a week or two ago), but it's not that big a deal, and easily compensated by some people on platform 1 and 4 not needing to cross any tracks at all.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
That seems unlikely to me. Waiting to see what platform your train comes in at is only going to happen if trains regularly have their platform changed at the last minute. In practice we're not talking about tube-style frequencies - I'd guess more like, typical intervals of anything between 3 and 10 minutes between successive Northbound trains. People travelling to Cambridge or Cambridge North will presumably see which platform the next train goes from as soon as they enter the station and will head for that platform. No reason to hang around on the bridge unless extensive disruption means it's not certain which of two trains will leave first.

Personally I do agree with you that Northbound trains departing either side of an island would be more convenient (IIRC I even posted saying that a week or two ago), but it's not that big a deal, and easily compensated by some people on platform 1 and 4 not needing to cross any tracks at all.

Signallers will just have to be told not to do last minute platform changes unless absolutely necessary!

Most passengers (going south in particular) will want a specific train, not just the first one that comes.

Interchanging passengers have the alternative of a cross-platform connection at Cambridge (particularly as Down trains generally use 1/4 and Up trains use 7/8)
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
On the layout, would two islands really take up more space? Surely the width of two outer platforms would be more than a second island, and as others have said the idea of a simple up and down islands should make things much more user friendly.
And yes, two island platforms does take up more land. Quite a lot more.
The width of the platform area itself would be a bit less with two islands than with two side platforms and one island. But the tracks have to spread further apart to accommodate two islands, so the width needed north and south of the station is more until the tracks can taper back in. For the same reason the four-tracking would probably have to be over a greater length.
Google Earth suggests plenty of space for a grade separation at Shepreth branch junction, most smoothly by taking the Down Main from Shelford over the Up Royston, to land parallel to the Down Royston either side of a northbound island.
I don't think that would work unless they could somehow bypass the level crossing, as it would be part way along the flyover ramp. Also there are some houses alongside where the ramp would have to be, no doubt very expensive and occupied by people who would complain vociferously about having a concrete viaduct at the bottom of their gardens.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
put the entire West Anglia in a trench from just south of Cambridge South to south of Great Shelford, and thus deal with both level crossings in Shelford (this would be very expensive and require a very lengthy closure of the railway)
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
put the entire West Anglia in a trench from just south of Cambridge South to south of Great Shelford, and thus deal with both level crossings in Shelford (this would be very expensive and require a very lengthy closure of the railway)

....What happens to Shelford station?!
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
....What happens to Shelford station?!

Presumably, it goes into the (very very big) trench. Can't see any problems from the residents with the West Anglia line being put into what will be, in effect, a giant amplifier. We're already talking about fantasy levels of engineering access and budget here.
 

ashkeba

Established Member
Joined
13 May 2019
Messages
2,171
Presumably, it goes into the (very very big) trench. Can't see any problems from the residents with the West Anglia line being put into what will be, in effect, a giant amplifier. We're already talking about fantasy levels of engineering access and budget here.
I think Copenhagen Airport station is in a trench. One on the way to Malmo definitely is.

I wonder if the ground conditions south of Cambridge station are as poor as those south of Ely where the station road bypass was built.
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
I think Copenhagen Airport station is in a trench. One on the way to Malmo definitely is.

I wonder if the ground conditions south of Cambridge station are as poor as those south of Ely where the station road bypass was built.

There are plenty of stations around the world in concrete boxes (Stratford not-International comes to mind). Nearly all of them are right next to another source of noise, were built when the line was closed 24/7 for the duration of the build, and are on lines considered to be nationally important.
The concept is technically feasible, it's the access to the railway (12month+ full closure almost certain, more likely 2-3yrs) and funding (£1bn+ easy) that's not.
 

bspahh

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
1,727
I wonder if the ground conditions south of Cambridge station are as poor as those south of Ely where the station road bypass was built.

The Ely Southern bypass was built on glacial sand and gravel on the Western side of the river, and peat on the Eastern side. South of Cambridge is mainly "Gault formation and upper Greensand formation (undifferentiated) - mudstone, sandstone and limestone".
That sounds like it would need less concrete than the Ely bypass.
This is a map from the British Geological Survey.
Cambridge_geology.png
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
There are plenty of stations around the world in concrete boxes (Stratford not-International comes to mind). Nearly all of them are right next to another source of noise, were built when the line was closed 24/7 for the duration of the build, and are on lines considered to be nationally important.
The concept is technically feasible, it's the access to the railway (12month+ full closure almost certain, more likely 2-3yrs) and funding (£1bn+ easy) that's not.

And what you don't want to do is make Shelford classified as an underground station and all the various rules and requirements that go with that...
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,502
Location
Reading
The width of the platform area itself would be a bit less with two islands than with two side platforms and one island. But the tracks have to spread further apart to accommodate two islands, so the width needed north and south of the station is more until the tracks can taper back in. For the same reason the four-tracking would probably have to be over a greater length.

Assuming that the station platforms will be of the same length as Cambridge North (280yds), and that the distance needed to spread for the islands is 150yards (based on the nearest existing examples at Biggleswade and Stevenage) then the whole thing would need 580 yards. There are around 660 yards between the Addenbrookes Road bridge and the Guided Busway bridge, and nearly as much again up to Long Road, so in all thats ¾ mile in which to spread the outer tracks out for two platforms, run through them and back to standard width again.


I don't think that would work unless they could somehow bypass the level crossing, as it would be part way along the flyover ramp. Also there are some houses alongside where the ramp would have to be, no doubt very expensive and occupied by people who would complain vociferously about having a concrete viaduct at the bottom of their gardens.

On the map below, there is a distance of over ¾ mile between the current Shepreth Branch Junction (red) and the Addenbrookes Road overbridge (blue), with open fields on either side. This should provide more than enough length for a single track flyover (which itself would be about ½ mile long) between these two points, starting to rise immediately north of the occupational crossing and footbridge at the current junction, and crossing the Up Royston line half way between the two points. This is 200yds North of the nearest property and ¼ mile from the Granhams Road level crossing, so well out of the way of either of these. This then delivers two pairs of tracks, paired by direction to run through the new station and onwards towards Cambridge itself.
 

Attachments

  • Shepreth Branch Junction.JPG
    Shepreth Branch Junction.JPG
    71.2 KB · Views: 33
Last edited:

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
Assuming that the station platforms will be of the same length as Cambridge North (280yds), and that the distance needed to spread for the islands is 150yards (based on the nearest existing examples at Biggleswade and Stevenage) then the whole thing would need 580 yards. There are around 660 years between the Addenbrookes Road bridge and the Guided Busway bridge, and nearly as much again up to Long Road, so in all thats ¾ mile in which to spread the outer tracks out for two platforms, run through them and back to standard width again.
The platforms will almost certainly be 240m (+ reversing allowance if needed), for 12-car trains. The distance for the flare of the track could be less than the ECML stations as linespeed isn't a Priority. BUT the big disadvantage is that the more platform furniture (waiting rooms, lift shafts, etc) you put on the Islands, the wider they will need to be. The wider the islands, the wider the flare of the track. You end up with 4 areas of essentially wasted space, at either end of each island. With 1 island in the middle, you only have 2 areas (so half the amount, give or take), and the side platforms only require the length and width of the platforms themselves so the total area taken for the railway boundary is less.

On the map below, there is a distance of over ¾ mile between the current Shepreth Branch Junction (red) and the Addenbrookes Road overbridge (blue), with open fields on either side. This should provide more than enough length for a single track flyover (which itself would be about ½ mile long) between these two points, starting to rise immediately north of the occupational crossing and footbridge at the current junction, and crossing the Up Royston line half way between the two points. This is 200yds North of the nearest property and ¼ mile from the Granhams Road level crossing, so well out of the way of either of these. This then delivers two pairs of tracks, paired by direction to run through the new station and onwards towards Cambridge itself.
Bear in mind the freight does come this way (and more is intended to do so), so the flyover would need to be built to allow 2000+ tonne trains to use it, without restricting the loading gauge of the line below. The only saving grace is that as it is the diverging line on the flyover any train using it is extremely unlikely to be held and so the gradients can be a little easier. But you'd still be looking at 1 in 100, with clearances of W12 + OLE to consider for the line below. Not impossible, but not easy.

For reference, at Weaver Junction (where Liverpool trains branch off the WCML) there is a straight-line distance of about 800m from the point where the tracks begin diverging to where they cross the main line, and about the same to get back together again on the branch.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
On the map below, there is a distance of over ¾ mile between the current Shepreth Branch Junction (red) and the Addenbrookes Road overbridge (blue), with open fields on either side. This should provide more than enough length for a single track flyover (which itself would be about ½ mile long) between these two points, starting to rise immediately north of the occupational crossing and footbridge at the current junction, and crossing the Up Royston line half way between the two points. This is 200yds North of the nearest property and ¼ mile from the Granhams Road level crossing, so well out of the way of either of these. This then delivers two pairs of tracks, paired by direction to run through the new station and onwards towards Cambridge itself.
I agree that may be possible and posted virtually the same idea a page or so back. I was responding to your previous suggestion of ramping up south of the junction. However, at the risk of repeating myself again, I think with the current and likely EWR service patterns and the layout at Cambridge, grade separation introduces about as much conflict as it removes.
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
Presumably, it goes into the (very very big) trench. Can't see any problems from the residents with the West Anglia line being put into what will be, in effect, a giant amplifier. We're already talking about fantasy levels of engineering access and budget here.

Wouldn't be an amplifier if the trench is covered!
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
4-sided display board now on display at Cambridge (Hauptbahnhof). See image:
 

Attachments

  • 20201024_152328.jpg
    20201024_152328.jpg
    1.2 MB · Views: 83

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,635
I refer the honourable member to @Ianno87's post #281

If the roof of the section of Trench covering the station platforms is above ground level, the station is not underground.
Therefore the regulations that require manning of a station that has an "underground enclosed" platform do not apply.

Indeed I had a thread on this.

But even so, ommiting the roof of the trench for 180m of the station platform would still not be anywhere near as bad as an uncovered trench.
 
Last edited:

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
Just wait until Cambridge East happens (after Marshalls move)

If there is going to be a massive development on the airport site then the time to start thinking about a "Cambridge East" is now. Somewhere around Fulborn Hospital would be ideal.
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,502
Location
Reading
If the development is to be on the airport site then "Cambridge East" would need to be much closer than that, somewhere like the Hanson Aggreates depot (yellow) would be quite pretty good. A site near Fulbourn Hospital (blue) is a further mile and a half away and would be of little use to the development as it is would be as far from the airport site as the main Cambridge station is now. Reopening of the original Fulbourn station has been brought up from time to time but that would be better developed at the Teversham Road crossing (red) than on the road towards Wilbraham.
Was going to go on to talk about how to serve these points but thats something for the speculative ideas thread.
1603622720437.png
 

zwk500

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Jan 2020
Messages
13,227
Location
Bristol
If the roof of the section of Trench covering the station platforms is above ground level, the station is not underground.
Therefore the regulations that require manning of a station that has an "underground enclosed" platform do not apply.

Indeed I had a thread on this.

But even so, ommiting the roof of the trench for 180m of the station platform would still not be anywhere near as bad as an uncovered trench.

Getting off-topic, but an above-ground development hardly sweetens the deal for the residents and the station will be the source of most of the noise, so covering the ends will make no difference, or even possibly make it worse.
The thread on what makes an underground station was interesting, thanks.
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
I guess thats just the basic station at this stage and no passive provision for East West Rail?

Let's see if the Cambridge Approaches lot object to it. If they don't want a southern approach to Cambridge they won't want a station design with provision for one.
 

Top