-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
Redoubling Cambridge to Chippenham Junction (Newmarket)
- Thread starter Tobbes
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
eastdyke
Established Member
Except that 1km never was double!
Warren Hill tunnel:
Train emerging from the north portal of Warren Hill tunnel. The station is behind the photographer.
From Disused Stations website:
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/n/newmarket_warren_hill/
Last edited:
Steve Harris
Member
That and i can't see there being room to double at Coldhams Junction in Cambridge.Except that 1km never was not double!
Warren Hill tunnel:
Train emerging from the north portal of Warren Hill tunnel. The station is behind the photographer.
From Disused Stations website:
http://www.disused-stations.org.uk/n/newmarket_warren_hill/
Down North
Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2013
- Messages
- 6
From Newmarket until Coldham Lane all the space is still there to put another line back in, however it’s unlikely to happen. Another passing loop to give the timetable more resilience and allow some additional peak services between Newmarket and Cambridge is very much needed and maybe a more likely possibility?
@Down North: I was thinking in connection with a line to Mildenhall when the airbase become a housing estate - an extra 2tph in each direction (Cambs - Cherry Hinton - Fulbourn - Newmarket - reinstated W/N curve - Mildenhall - Beck Row) would seem to come close to requiring redoubling, especially given the single line tunnel?
A number of the level crossings would probably need work/replacement/closure and I'm pretty sure it would hit the line speed in places (unless extra land were taken) as the current singling was done 'BR-style' in places - slewing from side to side to get the most out of the line speed of the remaining single.
Newmarket station would also likely require rebuilding if the doubling encompassed it. And no doubt a number of underbridges/culverts/embankments would require refurbishment/strengthening.
A good start on the existing single line would, in my view, to look to improve on the current sedate 60mph where possible.
Newmarket station would also likely require rebuilding if the doubling encompassed it. And no doubt a number of underbridges/culverts/embankments would require refurbishment/strengthening.
A good start on the existing single line would, in my view, to look to improve on the current sedate 60mph where possible.
eastdyke
Established Member
All sorts of issues there arising from land sales and subsequent development
https://www.google.com/maps/place/N...:0x3c27bf897e7611fd!8m2!3d52.24488!4d0.407962
Down North
Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2013
- Messages
- 6
I wonder if a Penryn style loop would be possible at Newmarket, I suppose it depends on if the railway still owns the currently unused section on the platform there.
A good idea if that's where a new loop is required. From aerial photography, the full length of old platform looks like it's all still there, abandoned and a bit overgrown. the business in the old buildings doesn't look like it has access. The platfrom was about 240m long and over 7m wide. Would have to cope with longer trans than on the Falmouth branch so the total length required could be quite substantial. Be nice if an entrance more central to the platform length could be restored too, with a larger car park. The current entrance is rather hidden away no longer opposite the end of Station Approach, and there can't be more than about a dozen spaces today.
Problem is, Penryn is quite a slow arrangement (the first arriving train has to stand for 4 minutes due to the required signalling), fine for a branch line, but not suitable for what is aspired to become a main line (East West Rail); rather than stand in a loop at Newmarket, just as well carrying on the short extra distance to the end of the single line at Chippenham Jn.
Three minutes dwell in the up direction at Penryn according to RTT, and nothing in the down. It's not a limitation of the signalling. An up train can actually run into the up platform at the same time as a down enters the loop. There's a clear overlap beyond the up platform starter and a signal with a clear overlap on the down loop itself. The long dwell is added for reliability I believe, and it's often the case at passing loops of all forms that one train is timed to wait longer than the other. A Penryn style configuration could also be situated at one end of a longer, more dynamic loop as well with trains timed to normally pass outside the station and thus with no prolonged dwell for either direction.
While the double track is not far away at Chippenham Junction, a passing loop somewhere near that end of the line could be useful to hold a Cambridge bound train for a late running opposing move without delaying other following traffic from Ipswich, including freight.
There's got to be a better solution than Penryn.
If RAF Mildenhall does become a housing estate, its 482 hectares would comfortably suit 20-24,000 houses, for a population of 50-75,000. Heavy rail to Newmarket and Cambridge will be essential for this sort of population to commute to work - and a northward connection to the Breckland Line near Brandon would make Mildenhall easily commutable to Norwich as well. But even the Cambs end would require 3 or 4 tph (peak) and 2 tph all day, preferably with an improvement on the "sedate" 41 mph average for most Cambs - Newmarket trains (21mins, 14.5 miles) - which I can't see working with the Cambs-Newmarket line as it now is.
I'm not suggesting an optimal route to Mildenhall, other than to say "go via Newmarket", even though the old direct branch route would be about 6.5 miles shorter to Fordham because you'd have to reconstruct the whole thing from scratch. Indeed, it may be better not use any of the old formation from Fordham as it meandered for 7.25 miles to get to the terminus, which is on the extreme south of the existing town, and would be very inconvenient for the large developement on the RAF Mildenhall site: much better to have a new station on the west of the existing town and then to continue the line up to Beck Row, serving the whole of the base site. A new line could leave the Bury St Eds - Ely line north of the A14 and head NE direct to Mildenhall and then on to Beck Row - it about the same distance as Aylesbury to AVP. Depending on the route, I estimate that it would be about 8 miles from the A14 overbridge to Beck Row, saving 3-5 miles over the old route via Newmarket.
Based on this, a c. 30 min running from Beck Row to Cambridge seems feasible, which would be very attractive indeed, esp. with stops at Fulbourn and Cherry Hinton.
Oh, and £25k contribution from each of 24k homes gives you £600m to get this work done....
If RAF Mildenhall does become a housing estate, its 482 hectares would comfortably suit 20-24,000 houses, for a population of 50-75,000. Heavy rail to Newmarket and Cambridge will be essential for this sort of population to commute to work - and a northward connection to the Breckland Line near Brandon would make Mildenhall easily commutable to Norwich as well. But even the Cambs end would require 3 or 4 tph (peak) and 2 tph all day, preferably with an improvement on the "sedate" 41 mph average for most Cambs - Newmarket trains (21mins, 14.5 miles) - which I can't see working with the Cambs-Newmarket line as it now is.
I'm not suggesting an optimal route to Mildenhall, other than to say "go via Newmarket", even though the old direct branch route would be about 6.5 miles shorter to Fordham because you'd have to reconstruct the whole thing from scratch. Indeed, it may be better not use any of the old formation from Fordham as it meandered for 7.25 miles to get to the terminus, which is on the extreme south of the existing town, and would be very inconvenient for the large developement on the RAF Mildenhall site: much better to have a new station on the west of the existing town and then to continue the line up to Beck Row, serving the whole of the base site. A new line could leave the Bury St Eds - Ely line north of the A14 and head NE direct to Mildenhall and then on to Beck Row - it about the same distance as Aylesbury to AVP. Depending on the route, I estimate that it would be about 8 miles from the A14 overbridge to Beck Row, saving 3-5 miles over the old route via Newmarket.
Based on this, a c. 30 min running from Beck Row to Cambridge seems feasible, which would be very attractive indeed, esp. with stops at Fulbourn and Cherry Hinton.
Oh, and £25k contribution from each of 24k homes gives you £600m to get this work done....
Last edited:
eastdyke
Established Member
We should not be building houses anywhere other than where we need houses. Just because an airbase is redundant it should not automatically be ripe for 'a housing estate'.
Roads would be every bit as much an issue as public transport in all its forms.
Not sure either about using every corner of the base for housing even if it were to be developed.
I expect though it will become part housing, up to 4,000 units being the figure that I have seen.
http://www.eadt.co.uk/property/4-000-homes-to-be-built-at-raf-mildenhall-in-suffolk-1-4384394
And when it comes to supporting infrastructure someone has to PAY the money to build it. It won't be the current landowner (MOD) paying will it?
Last edited:
£25k /home is very optimistic, particularly given that a development of this size - essentially a new town - also has to pay for a whole host of local public infrastructure (healthcare and education to name but two). If it was the most expensive parts of London, the average new build home would contribute about £4K via the Mayors Commuity Infrastructure Levy.
True, @Bald Rick but we're working on a different funding model here - happy to explain idc.
I completely agree that just because an airbase is redundant it isn't an automatic first choice for a housing estate. However the greater Cambridge area is desperate for new housing, and at scale, and Mildenhall is very well located to provide this. Having good access to the A14 is obviously also a boon.
I don't have any doubt that the whole base will be used, albeit not all at once. The key is getting the infrastructure in first so that builders and future residents can have confidence that promises aren't all hot air.
No, it won't be the MoD. I hope to post on the proposed funding mechanism in September, but it is robust.
Class 170101
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Mar 2014
- Messages
- 8,391
But how much would Section 106 money as against the Infrastructure levy get you?
We're not talking about s106, but in broad terms we are talking about the government acting as the developer, and taking the planning uplift which s106 seeks to capture directly. On that basis, the £25k per plot is more than achievable; details to follow in September.
Oh I get that. But £25k implies a 10% premium on average house prices in the area, caused by the presence of a station with a half hourly service to Cambridge. Still seems optimistic.
Yes, happy to discuss.
eastdyke
Established Member
Perhaps any new development for Cambridge 'at scale' would be better placed west of Cambridge astride the future route of East-West rail? I am sure £600m towards that would be most welcome.
Good access to the A14 East of Cambridge will hasten a new section of grid-lock.
And from a previous post why would anyone want to commute to Norwich from a Mildenhall development with houses at (inflated) fringe Cambridge prices?
They can already commute to Norwich from Diss, Attleborough, Wymondham and other nice places that have lower house prices, in some cases much lower house prices.
Edited to correct £600k to £600m!
Last edited:
ac6000cw
Established Member
Early 1980s (1983/84?) when the Cambridge area was re-signalled, AFAIK.
The train service at the time was two-hourly Mon-Sat (less on Sundays), so a single track was more than adequate for the traffic.
Shown as all single track in my 1984 edition.
Steve Harris
Member
Wasn't Dullingham station double track then ?
I'm pretty sure it was a passing place when i bashed the line with a Rover in the mid/ late 80's.
a good off
Member
It was singled on Sunday 22nd May 1983. Very short sighted.
eastdyke
Established Member
After the singling in 1983 there was, and still is, a loop at Dullingham with 2 platforms retained.
Platform 2 is now the 'mainline' and all trains use this platform except when trains are required to pass.
Dullingham , along with Kennett, Elmswell and Thurston were saved from 'Beeching' closure by Eldon Griffiths MP and a certain Gerard Fiennes.
There is a passage to that effect in 'I Tried to Run a Railway'.
Last edited:
Jim Jehosofat
Member
- Joined
- 17 May 2017
- Messages
- 181
They already commute from Diss, Attleborough and Wymondham to Norwich but the problem is that if you do shift work there are no trains before 0700 and precious little after 2200. At least Diss has a half hourly off peak service compared to the hourly service for Attleborough and Wymondham. There is a lot of house building planned for Attleborough in the next few years with no plans made to improve the train service.
Yes, the 1984 Baker shows Dullingham with the symbol for a station with a passing loop.
It is still there and used at 0800 most mornings!
- Status