• 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.

jfowkes

Member
Joined
20 Jul 2017
Messages
879
For those interested, pages 14-22 of this document, outlines the intended/expected/possible (delete as applicable) route for a cycle path under Mill Road on Network Rail land.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
Looking at all the diagrams in the planning application, the pointwork for the existing non-running lines looks like it would provide space for that 3rd line. Obviously, you would have to reconfigure the trackwork either side to reflect altering it, but assuming that's feasible a third running line doesn't look impossible?
 
Joined
20 Jan 2014
Messages
101
As the mill road bridge has been shut to cars it is the best time to rebuild mill road bridge so more lines to go under. But this will not happen at the moment. Wish would happen but the locals will have a nightmare if the reaction to the wash plant is anything to go by.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
As the mill road bridge has been shut to cars it is the best time to rebuild mill road bridge so more lines to go under. But this will not happen at the moment. Wish would happen but the locals will have a nightmare if the reaction to the wash plant is anything to go by.

Although the closure is under a Temporary Traffic Order, it seems highly likely it will become permanent.
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
As the mill road bridge has been shut to cars it is the best time to rebuild mill road bridge so more lines to go under. But this will not happen at the moment. Wish would happen but the locals will have a nightmare if the reaction to the wash plant is anything to go by.
Any news on the washer going through planning?
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
Any news on the washer going through planning?

What's the logic of wanting to put a wash plant in such a residential city centre location? You think it would be better off in an industrial area
 

hwl

Established Member
Joined
5 Feb 2012
Messages
7,354
What's the logic of wanting to put a wash plant in such a residential city centre location? You think it would be better off in an industrial area
Replacing the wash plant that had to be moved for the 12car lengthening.
 

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
New Consultation starts today

Is there somewhere we could host/archive a copy of the "Stakeholder Information Pack" linked at "Related Downloads"? This contains all the other documents linked on that page.

Railway relevant notes:
The indicative track plan on Appendix B shows that the line will be two track to the north and south of the station, with any further changes (ie four track to Shepreth branch and four track to Cambridge station) being left to East-West Rail, excepting minor changes at the junction and some changes just south of Hills Road Bridge (these are not specified however)
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
That seems a very strange choice of design - why go for an island and two side platforms when you could build two islands? Means another set of lifts and steps too. I can only presume that it's an attempt to minimise the land required for the track as side platforms mean the track doesn't have to bow out quite as much...but still. I guess it could be beneficial if there is a predicted heavy flow from Shelford to London and that the predicted track layout will be the WAML on the right two lines and the Shepreth branch on the left two, as this would result in a cross-platform interchange without needed to go via Cambridge central...
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,628
That seems a very strange choice of design - why go for an island and two side platforms when you could build two islands? Means another set of lifts and steps too.

As far as I can tell, both arrangements require three sets, unless people are expected to cross the track from the station entrance on the flat?
 

TheDavibob

Member
Joined
10 Oct 2016
Messages
406
As far as I can tell, both arrangements require three sets, unless people are expected to cross the track from the station entrance on the flat?
Given the intention for both eastern and western access, the double island would actually require a fourth set (assuming both entrances at ground level or near enough).
 

mr_jrt

Established Member
Joined
30 May 2011
Messages
1,400
Location
Brighton
As far as I can tell, both arrangements require three sets, unless people are expected to cross the track from the station entrance on the flat?
Ha yes, of course. Mea culpa. Point stands that that side platforms means minimal cross-platform interchange and you won't know which platform the next train north or south will serve so it'll be up and over the footbridges more than necessary.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Ha yes, of course. Mea culpa. Point stands that that side platforms means minimal cross-platform interchange and you won't know which platform the next train north or south will serve so it'll be up and over the footbridges more than necessary.

But with side platforms, some passengers won't need to go up/down at all; level access straight to/from the train.

I also suspect that available width combined with the road bridges (Busway and Addenbooke's Road) either end possibly limit what can be done.


NEW POST BELOW


Stakeholder consulation document provides more details: https://cambridgesouthconsultation....s/2020/10/Stakeholder_information-pack-v4.pdf

Including:
-Shepreth Branch Jn upgraded from 30mph to 50mph
-Extra crossover at south end of Cambridge by extending the current shunt neck (looks like it provides a Platform 7/8 parallel move that does not exist today)
 
Last edited:

jopsuk

Veteran Member
Joined
13 May 2008
Messages
12,771
If it was me, and I had sufficient budget, I'd be looking to have:
Twin island, paired by direction
A dive under or flyover of some sort at the junction
More services through to Cambridge North & Ely to minimise services crossing at Cambridge and to help with trans-Cambridge commuting (ie villages to the south on both lines to the Science Park/Business Park at Cambridge North, Ely & Waterbeach to the Hospitals and biomedical campus. This would make Platform 1 & 4 almost entirely northbound with 7&8 southbound (this is already happening to some extent)

I'd put the main station building on a deck above the tracks, with a rebuilt busway bridge providing ramped pedestrian & cycle access, with bus stops on the bridge
 

camflyer

Member
Joined
13 Feb 2018
Messages
876
If it was me, and I had sufficient budget, I'd be looking to have:
Twin island, paired by direction
A dive under or flyover of some sort at the junction
More services through to Cambridge North & Ely to minimise services crossing at Cambridge and to help with trans-Cambridge commuting (ie villages to the south on both lines to the Science Park/Business Park at Cambridge North, Ely & Waterbeach to the Hospitals and biomedical campus. This would make Platform 1 & 4 almost entirely northbound with 7&8 southbound (this is already happening to some extent)

I'd put the main station building on a deck above the tracks, with a rebuilt busway bridge providing ramped pedestrian & cycle access, with bus stops on the bridge

I suspect the logistics of building a whole station above busy live lines would be too complicated.

Personally, I think the design looks fine and hope it gets through the consultation with minimal need for changes. I'm pleased to see they've gone for a proper station rather than doing something on the cheap ("just a couple of platforms")
 

OxtedL

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
23 Mar 2011
Messages
2,563
Stakeholder consulation document provides more details: https://cambridgesouthconsultation....s/2020/10/Stakeholder_information-pack-v4.pdf

Including:
-Shepreth Branch Jn upgraded from 30mph to 50mph
-Extra crossover at south end of Cambridge by extending the current shunt neck (looks like it provides a Platform 7/8 parallel move that does not exist today)
The inclusion of those two is interesting.

By itself I'd have guessed that a 7/8 parallel move adds 2tph capacity from the south, but it's inclusion here must be to mitigate some capacity that's being lost by the existence of the new station?

Upgrading the Shepreth junction seems to basically involve moving it 300m north to allow full cant around the Royston curve.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
As I understand the layout Down trains from Liverpool Street to Cambridge Platforms 7/8 and Up Trains from Cambridge Platforms 2/3 to Kings Cross will potentially need to cross twice. Once at Shepreth Jn and again at Cambridge itself. Not sure there is enough information there.

I think I'd like to see a Quail based diagram from Audley End and Royston to Waterbeach / Dullingham to see how the whole section looks.
 
Last edited:

OxtedL

Established Member
Associate Staff
Quizmaster
Joined
23 Mar 2011
Messages
2,563
As I understand the layout Down trains from Liverpool Street to Cambridge Platforms 7/8 and Up Trains from Cambridge Platforms 2/3 to Kings Cross will potentially need to cross twice. Once at Shepreth Jn and again at Cambridge itself.
That is already the case today. The project to build the new station doesn't need to solve that unless it makes the existing timetable unworkable.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
That is already the case today. The project to build the new station doesn't need to solve that unless it makes the existing timetable unworkable.

True but this seems an ideal opportunity to perhaps unlock it.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
As I understand the layout Down trains from Liverpool Street to Cambridge Platforms 7/8 and Up Trains from Cambridge Platforms 2/3 to Kings Cross will potentially need to cross twice. Once at Shepreth Jn and again at Cambridge itself. Not sure there is enough information there.
That is already the case today. The project to build the new station doesn't need to solve that unless it makes the existing timetable unworkable.
The speed improvement to Shepreth Branch Jn will help by allowing diverging trains to get across it more quickly and the extra crossover in the station helps with capacity by allowing parallel moves to be timetabled. But I agree it's not a major improvement - that would need four-tracking though I'm still unconvinced grade separation would offer any extra benefit beyond given the layout at Cambridge (central) and future service pattern. I hope they don't spend a lot of money remodeling the junction, only for EWR to come along a few years later and have to pay for changing it again.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
True but this seems an ideal opportunity to perhaps unlock it.

No, the station design should just not prevent those things being solved in future. Load too much cost on to the station and you kill the scheme.

The inclusion of those two is interesting.

By itself I'd have guessed that a 7/8 parallel move adds 2tph capacity from the south, but it's inclusion here must be to mitigate some capacity that's being lost by the existence of the new station?

I'd guess adding the station call changes arrival/departure times at Cambridge so some trains that do not clash today would become a clash.


For example, the ex-Brighton service usually arrives P7 at xx10/40 with the King's Lynn-King's Cross departing from P8 at xx14/44.

Adding 2-3 minutes into them for a Cambridge South stop (Brighton arrives later, Kings Cross departs earlier) probably makes this a clash on the single lead.
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,502
Location
Reading
Has it been confirmed which trains will call at the new station?
I was assuming it would be all TL and GA, but not the GN Fasts (I still call them Cruisers!) or XC trains.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
The speed improvement to Shepreth Branch Jn will help by allowing diverging trains to get across it more quickly and the extra crossover in the station helps with capacity by allowing parallel moves to be timetabled. But I agree it's not a major improvement - that would need four-tracking though I'm still unconvinced grade separation would offer any extra benefit beyond given the layout at Cambridge (central) and future service pattern. I hope they don't spend a lot of money remodeling the junction, only for EWR to come along a few years later and have to pay for changing it again.

I think I alluded to my views previously, without seeing a track diagram I would have gone for four tracks (if possible) Cambridge Central to Shepreth Branch Jn in a Up, Down, Up, Down configuration. GN on the Down side pair to Platforms 1 to 4 at Cambridge with GA & XC on the Upside pair to 7/8 at Cambridge. The only trains running beyond Platforms 1 to 4 off peak being the Kings Lynn / Ely services, however I reckon EWR would change things and Platforms 1 and 4 would insufficient to head north.

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 risky to me and I am surprised they didn't go for a station layout like Stevenage with Up trains either side of one island platform and Down trains on the other island platform which then would need a flyover at Shepreth Branch Jn, but all people would have to do is swap from one side of the platform to the other in a Stevenage sty;e station.

Has it been confirmed which trains will call at the new station?
I was assuming it would be all TL and GA, but not the GN Fasts (I still call them Cruisers!) or XC trains.

XC trains don't call at Cambridge North now though perhaps they should, so perhaps they will continue ther tradition and not call at Cambridge South either.

As for the GN fasts only one calls at Cambridge North I think, so perhaps the other should call at Cambridge South.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
I think I alluded to my views previously, without seeing a track diagram I would have gone for four tracks (if possible) Cambridge Central to Shepreth Branch Jn in a Up, Down, Up, Down configuration. GN on the Down side pair to Platforms 1 to 4 at Cambridge with GA & XC on the Upside pair to 7/8 at Cambridge. The only trains running beyond Platforms 1 to 4 off peak being the Kings Lynn / Ely services, however I reckon EWR would change things and Platforms 1 and 4 would insufficient to head north.


With the proposed layout, adapting the current timetable ought to be straightforward - keep timings at Shepreth Branch Jn, add stops at Cambridge South, fiddle everything at Cambridge and north thereof.


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 risky to me and I am surprised they didn't go for a station layout like Stevenage with Up trains either side of one island platform and Down trains on the other island platform which then would need a flyover at Shepreth Branch Jn, but all people would have to do is swap from one side of the platform to the other in a Stevenage style station.



A Stevenage style layout almost certainly requires the 4 tracks to spread more - effectively you need two wideways to be created rather than one (Cambridge South's platforms will almost certainly be at modern standards and wider than Stevenage's). This means:

-The Easternmost and Westernmost tracks would need to spread more at the station which means...
-They have to start spreading further south and come together further north....
-Which might not be possible with the bridges at either end and other constraints like the cycle path, country park, etc.


Perhaps the station could be timetabled with the outer platforms as the "preferred" platforms to minimise movements on the bridge.

.

As for the GN fasts only one calls at Cambridge North I think, so perhaps the other should call at Cambridge South.

Both GN fasts call at Cambridge North.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
With the proposed layout, adapting the current timetable ought to be straightforward - keep timings at Shepreth Branch Jn, add stops at Cambridge South, fiddle everything at Cambridge and north thereof.

Except id you aren't careful it doesn't then work at Ely North Jn for Kings Lynn / Norwich clashing with Up services from Peterborough or on the single line sections to Kings Lynn or the single Jns to Norwich (Ely North Jn and Trowse Jn).






A Stevenage style layout almost certainly requires the 4 tracks to spread more - effectively you need two wideways to be created rather than one (Cambridge South's platforms will almost certainly be at modern standards and wider than Stevenage's). This means:

-The Easternmost and Westernmost tracks would need to spread more at the station which means...
-They have to start spreading further south and come together further north....
-Which might not be possible with the bridges at either end and other constraints like the cycle path, country park, etc.

Perhaps the station could be timetabled with the outer platforms as the "preferred" platforms to minimise movements on the bridge.

Both GN fasts call at Cambridge North.

I don't think thats possible otherwise in timetable it would have been built as a convential two platform station like Waterbeach (or many other stations) I would have thought. I would be interested though what the balance would be in going for the layout chosen over the two islands I suggested and the risks you and I have each highlighted.

Do both call at Cambridge North now, thats a recent change then.
 

arb

Member
Joined
31 Oct 2010
Messages
411
As for the GN fasts only one calls at Cambridge North I think, so perhaps the other should call at Cambridge South.
Both call at Cambridge North. One comes from King's Lynn, calling at all stations to Cambridge. The other comes from Ely, skipping Waterbeach but calling at Cambridge North. I would have assumed that the one from King's Lynn will call at Cambridge South, so that you have as many direct journey opportunities as possible from the Fen Line stations through to Cambridge South without having to change at Cambridge (the main purpose of the station is to provide convenient non-road commuter access to all the jobs at the new Biomedical Campus, right?).

But by that logic you'd also have the GN (Thameslink?) stopper from the villages south of Cambridge running through to Cambridge North, which it did originally, but stopped doing so sometime last year, so who knows...
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Except id you aren't careful it doesn't then work at Ely North Jn for Kings Lynn / Norwich clashing with Up services from Peterborough or on the single line sections to Kings Lynn or the single Jns to Norwich (Ely North Jn and Trowse Jn).

Although that's going to need consideration regardless of platform configuration, given trains are constrained to the south of Cambridge by the Lea Valley, Stansted, Welwyn etc. Adding a stop means one side or the other necessarily has to change. Fixing London end is probably more logical.

At least the King's Lynn fasts won't need to split/join off peak from December, which offsets a few minutes.

I don't think thats possible otherwise in timetable it would have been built as a convential two platform station like Waterbeach (or many other stations) I would have thought. I would be interested though what the balance would be in going for the layout chosen over the two islands I suggested and the risks you and I have each highlighted.

By preferred I mean "use it as much as possible but accept some trains using the non-preferred platform".

i.e. the two platforms are to cope with consecutive trains calling at the current 3 minute headway - but that's not going to be needed between every pair of trains at ~12tph usage, just when you get 2 or 3 trains in a bunch.

Do both call at Cambridge North now, thats a recent change then.

Since May 18. It was only the May 17 timetable (when North opened) that the King's Lynns omitted the stop.
 

Class 170101

Established Member
Joined
1 Mar 2014
Messages
7,908
But by that logic you'd also have the GN (Thameslink?) stopper from the villages south of Cambridge running through to Cambridge North, which it did originally, but stopped doing so sometime last year, so who knows...

GA went all services to Cambridge North due the length of trains and GN terminated in the Bay Platforms at Cambridge.
 

David Goddard

Established Member
Joined
8 Aug 2011
Messages
1,502
Location
Reading
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, and as others have said the idea of a simple up and down islands should make things much more user friendly. 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. 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. Once through there four tracks to Cambridge should be easy.

Given that the Great Eastern main line has a four track approach to Liverpool Street delivering at least fifteen trains an hour in each direction to about ten platforms with many crossovers and potential conflicts I think that four tracks South of Cambridge can do the same with ten trains an hour into to six platforms.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Given that the Great Eastern main line has a four track approach to Liverpool Street delivering at least fifteen trains an hour in each direction to about ten platforms with many crossovers and potential conflicts I think that four tracks South of Cambridge can do the same with ten trains an hour into to six platforms.

The GEML has 4 tracks delivering 36 rains an hour into about 10 platforms.


And yes, two island platforms does take up more land. Quite a lot more.
 

Top