Wisbech-March line reopening cost increase to £200m

[berwicksfinest]

Surely first a look at why freight (specifically our stone traffic) as soon as we leave Peterborough we are restricted to 40 mph. This would tie up pathing time.
Manea to Ely does have considerable sections so possibly shortening the sections could increase capacity BUT increase it for what ??

EMR currently hourly -- Any more your looking at increasing the bottle neck around Manchester
XC currently hourly -- Not sure Birmingham New Street can handle any more Platforms to be occupied in turning round, certainly Cambridge hasn't got a huge spare capacity
GA Currently 2 hourly -- Again Ipswich lacks Capacity so does platfom 6 - 7 at Peterborough for turnarounds

You can splash the cash at Ely and make it a super fast merger that delays nothing !! However I fear your just pushing the problem elsewhere

 

[Broken70]

I'd heard rumours that GA we're muted to be going hourly along the EMP? I think a better solution here would be a stopping XC or EMR on the unserved hours at Whittlesea. Manea doesn't really warrant a hourly service and is in close enough proximity to March for commuters.

 

[berwicksfinest]

I'd heard rumours that GA we're muted to be going hourly along the EMP? I think a better solution here would be a stopping XC or EMR on the unserved hours at Whittlesea. Manea doesn't really warrant a hourly service and is in close enough proximity to March for commuters.

Manea to March 8.8 miles
Wisbech to March 10.5 miles

Now is it really worth spending £200m plus for 1.7 miles

 

[Bald Rick]

Why do you say that?

Level Crossing risk is a complicated subject, with ferociously impenetrable algorithms in the risk model. However, the very simple explanation is that for any given individual Level Crossing, risk is roughly proportional to:

1) the number of interactions between road users and the number of trains, ie the number of times a vehicle, or pedestrian crosses on the road / path part of the crossing, and the number of times the barriers come down (and how long for),

2) the number of individuals involved, both on the road / path and on the train.

As an example, take two identical level crossings, both with a half hourly passenger service operating at the same speed, and crossing an identical road with identical levels of traffic. But for one of the crossings, the half hourly service has a 2 car train with on average 20 people on; the other has an 8 car train with on average 200 people on it. The chances of a collision will be identical, the risk to the road / path users will be identical, but the total risk to passengers (in terms of fatalities / injuries) would be 10 times greater.

So, because an imaginary Wisbech to (say) Cambridge service would have passengers on it, there would be a greater risk in level crossing terms than if the train had no psssengers on it. I’m afraid I wouldn’t be able to say what that increased risk is without using the level crossing risk model; however it is likely to be material at some if not all crossings, and it is an absolute a requirement that this is assessed, which is a non-trivial activity to say the least.

Surely first a look at why freight (specifically our stone traffic) as soon as we leave Peterborough we are restricted to 40 mph. This would tie up pathing time.
Manea to Ely does have considerable sections so possibly shortening the sections could increase capacity BUT increase it for what ??

EMR currently hourly -- Any more your looking at increasing the bottle neck around Manchester
XC currently hourly -- Not sure Birmingham New Street can handle any more Platforms to be occupied in turning round, certainly Cambridge hasn't got a huge spare capacity
GA Currently 2 hourly -- Again Ipswich lacks Capacity so does platfom 6 - 7 at Peterborough for turnarounds

You can splash the cash at Ely and make it a super fast merger that delays nothing !! However I fear your just pushing the problem elsewhere

This is all a fair point, however....

There is no proposal to increase EMR frequency, and if there was it need not go to Manchester (they won’t be doing so fairly soon anyway).

The XC service would be an extension of the Leicester terminators, so no issues at Birmingham; in any event there are live proposals to increase capacity from the Leicester direction at Birmingham.

GA - Ipswich and Peterborough can both deal with the extra service. Indeed The new platforms at Peterborough were built partly with that in mind. The Werrington job also helps.

 

[cle]

EMR will soon only go as far as Nottingham, but likely Derby. Doubtful it needs to increase in frequency.

XC has been mentioned - this would be an extension of the second Birmingham-Leicester. Terminating at Cambridge in one of the northern bays would work best - wouldn’t need to run to Stansted and tough re tunnel and platforms.

GA - could handle hourly, and has been mentioned. Soham will help here too, especially a station.

 

[Class 170101]

Level Crossing risk is a complicated subject, with ferociously impenetrable algorithms in the risk model. However, the very simple explanation is that for any given individual Level Crossing, risk is roughly proportional to:

1) the number of interactions between road users and the number of trains, ie the number of times a vehicle, or pedestrian crosses on the road / path part of the crossing, and the number of times the barriers come down (and how long for),

2) the number of individuals involved, both on the road / path and on the train.

As an example, take two identical level crossings, both with a half hourly passenger service operating at the same speed, and crossing an identical road with identical levels of traffic. But for one of the crossings, the half hourly service has a 2 car train with on average 20 people on; the other has an 8 car train with on average 200 people on it. The chances of a collision will be identical, the risk to the road / path users will be identical, but the total risk to passengers (in terms of fatalities / injuries) would be 10 times greater.

So, because an imaginary Wisbech to (say) Cambridge service would have passengers on it, there would be a greater risk in level crossing terms than if the train had no psssengers on it. I’m afraid I wouldn’t be able to say what that increased risk is without using the level crossing risk model; however it is likely to be material at some if not all crossings, and it is an absolute a requirement that this is assessed, which is a non-trivial activity to say the least.

So are you saying that a freight train is more likely to pass the risk model at any given level crossing than passenger train over same?

 

[Bald Rick]

So are you saying that a freight train is more likely to pass the risk model at any given level crossing than passenger train over same?

No, I’m saying that at any given level crossing, the increase in risk for an additional train will be lower for a freight train that it will be for a passenger train. And therefore the costs for mitigating that risk will be lower for a freight train. And that when you add up all the difference in risk over a lot of level crossings, that cost makes a difference. There’s 25 level crossings between Ely and March alone.

 

[bspahh]

https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/wisbech-march-rail-link-gets-board-approval-1-6687693 says that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority has approved the plans to reopen the Wisbech-March railway.

The full business case presented to the board has taken over five years to complete, cost £1,445,376 and has been financed by the CAPCA over the 2019/20, 2020/21 financial years. A further £987,606 has been approved by the CAPCA board for a detailed design study and proposed land acquisitions.

Having completed the full business case, it will now be put to Network Rail and the government who will be funding the construction costs currently estimated at £218.4m.

This includes a 20 per cent risk allowance and based on 2019 prices but does not include optimum bias or land acquisition costs. This figure will continue to be refined as the project develops.

 

[Bald Rick]

https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/wisbech-march-rail-link-gets-board-approval-1-6687693 says that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority has approved the plans to reopen the Wisbech-March railway.

I’m sorry, and I don’t like to be the wet weather to spoil a party, but there is no way that this is a “Full business case” as defined by the DfT Rail Network Enhancements Pipeline, ie one that would be suitable for a Final Investment Decision, ie Decision to Deliver. For that, you need all consents in place, confirmed prices from contractors, design done to a reasonably detailed level and a proper risk assessment, not just bunging 20% on an estimate. You do not get that for an astonishingly precise £1,445,376. For this sort of scheme it would be at least 10-20 times more to get to a full business case stage.

Of course I could be wrong. But I doubt it very much.

Also worth noting that £218m is still more than £30m a mile, for a single track line on some of the easiest topography you will find in the country. Other reopening schemes take note.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Also worth noting that £218m is still more than £30m a mile, for a single track line on some of the easiest topography you will find in the country. Other reopening schemes take note.

Not quite sure what you're seeking to imply with that final 'take note' warning? That other schemes are likely to be more expensive than expected?

Presumably this is a single track line on some of the easiest topography you'll find, but balanced by pretty difficult geology/hydrology and an unusual number of level crossings to deal with, no?

 

[Glenn1969]

Still unfunded. So probably not going to happen any time soon

 

[Bald Rick]

Not quite sure what you're seeking to imply with that final 'take note' warning? That other schemes are likely to be more expensive than expected?

Presumably this is a single track line on some of the easiest topography you'll find, but balanced by pretty difficult geology/hydrology and an unusual number of level crossings to deal with, no?

The implication is that there are an awful lot of ‘reopening’ proposals out there which still cling to the belief that they can open a new line for about £10m a mile. You can’t. SELRAP seem to think they can get 12miles of double track railway for £100m, for example.

The geology for Wisbech isn’t that difficult, the Level crossings are an issue, yes, but there’s not that many of them. At an educated guess, if this line opens, many of them will be closed with no bridge. The number of bridges provided on a ‘per mile’ basis will probably be less than on most new lines.

 

[Kingham West]

The implication is that there are an awful lot of ‘reopening’ proposals out there which still cling to the belief that they can open a new line for about £10m a mile. You can’t. SELRAP seem to think they can get 12miles of double track railway for £100m, for example.

The geology for Wisbech isn’t that difficult, the Level crossings are an issue, yes, but there’s not that many of them. At an educated guess, if this line opens, many of them will be closed with no bridge. The number of bridges provided on a ‘per mile’ basis will probably be less than on most new lines.

I hope this study will determine the facts once and for all,£ 218m does seem a lot of money .
But would buy very little road , at this sum it stacks up, but what about Ely, that will not come cheap .

 

[Glenn1969]

The article says they are submitting the scheme to NR and DfT so it is actually a long way off being approved. Even if the money is found they have to go through all the processes so it prob wouldn't open before 2040. Or have I missed something?

 

[Bald Rick]

I hope this study will determine the facts once and for all,£ 218m does seem a lot of money .
But would buy very little road , at this sum it stacks up, but what about Ely, that will not come cheap .

I’d love to know how it “stacks up”, especially compared to other public transport alternatives, as discussed upthread.

 

[bluenoxid]

The paper presented to the combined authority board is an interesting read.

 

[berwicksfinest]

Also the fact the A47 bypass opened on nights yesterday after being re-surfaced without provision for the crossing

 

[bspahh]

The paper presented to the combined authority board is an interesting read.

Do you have a URL for the paper?

 

[Tobbes]

Let's assume that £220m-ish is the cost of reopening, and that someone else delivers a solution for Ely North.

It's still not clear to me that the Mayor has the funding to begin to pay for this, or that the City Deal cash (if there's any left after the ridiculous autonomous bus is done) would be prioritised for this. My heart says "Yes!", my head says "Yes, but...."

 

[The Planner]

Also the fact the A47 bypass opened on nights yesterday after being re-surfaced without provision for the crossing

To be honest, that probably wouldn't even get in to the top 25 list of issues for re-opening.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I’d love to know how it “stacks up”, especially compared to other public transport alternatives, as discussed upthread.

Genuine question.... Is there any requirement for these kinds of studies to compare with other public transport alternatives, or do they tend to simply compare the costs and benefits of the proposed railway work with doing nothing and keeping the status quo?

 

[Bald Rick]

Genuine question.... Is there any requirement for these kinds of studies to compare with other public transport alternatives, or do they tend to simply compare the costs and benefits of the proposed railway work with doing nothing and keeping the status quo?

The people taking decisions on such projects, which in this case will be the Secretary of State (and possibly cabinet) want to have choices for their decision. Long before the decision gets there, though, it will have to go through a few panels and committees where the project is discussed and it is decided what recommendation to ‘put upstairs’. These panels and committees have some very sharp people on them. Any proposal presented with a ‘do this option, this is the only way’ will get kicked out, indeed it wouldn’t get through the door. Alternatives must be considered. What those alternatives are is of course variable by the nature of the problem that each proposal is trying to resolve. However for any new railway proposal in a predominantly rural area and/or serving a relatively small market (ie all of them!), alternative public transport options will need to be considered.

I’ve written elsewhere on this thread my view of alternatives that would offer much better value for money.

 

[A0wen]

I hope this study will determine the facts once and for all,£ 218m does seem a lot of money .
But would buy very little road , at this sum it stacks up, but what about Ely, that will not come cheap .

Well, the new dual carriageways around Norwich are costing £205m and that's buying about 12.5 miles of new dual carriageway, so it's reasonable to assume a new single carriageway or an improvement would cost less than that. And it doesn't just buy the infrastructure that allows a 2 car DMU to shuttle back and forth between a couple of places for 18 hours a day.

 

[A0wen]

https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/wisbech-march-rail-link-gets-board-approval-1-6687693 says that the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority has approved the plans to reopen the Wisbech-March railway.

Fortunately the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority aren't the ones who'll make the final decision as they certainly aren't the one's who'll be paying the final bill.

 

[Kingham West]

Well, the new dual carriageways around Norwich are costing £205m and that's buying about 12.5 miles of new dual carriageway, so it's reasonable to assume a new single carriageway or an improvement would cost less than that. And it doesn't just buy the infrastructure that allows a 2 car DMU to shuttle back and forth between a couple of places for 18 hours a day.

But the real case for Wisbech is social and economic, I know it well, it desperately needs a boost.
I am sure some of the other ideas, have fair BCR s, but the final decision makers ( in this case it will be HMT), have to make a subjective judgement on poverty /growth, future Tax Revenues.
Making recommendations in a briefing note is quite hard as the issues are so finely balanced.

 

[Class 170101]

At the moment the only way it could be served is a shuttle from March or maybe diverting the Ipswich to Peterborough service to Wisbeach but that won't be popular with those who want to improve links to Peterborough rather than ruin them.

 

[bspahh]

At the moment the only way it could be served is a shuttle from March or maybe diverting the Ipswich to Peterborough service to Wisbech but that won't be popular with those who want to improve links to Peterborough rather than ruin them.

The report to the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority Board on June 3rd says:

The draft FBC concludes that the most commercially viable solution is a heavy rail service serving a station centrally located within Wisbech. A two trains per hour service should run between Wisbech and Cambridge to reach the highest Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR).

I assume this is done by getting the cost for the Ely North junction to be paid by someone else

 

[Bald Rick]

But the real case for Wisbech is social and economic, I know it well, it desperately needs a boost.

No doubt it does, but there are almost certainly better ways of giving Wisbech a boost than spending £200m+ on a rail link to the next town. Being extreme, you could give every household £20k and still be better off.

 

[A0wen]

But the real case for Wisbech is social and economic, I know it well, it desperately needs a boost.
I am sure some of the other ideas, have fair BCR s, but the final decision makers ( in this case it will be HMT), have to make a subjective judgement on poverty /growth, future Tax Revenues.
Making recommendations in a briefing note is quite hard as the issues are so finely balanced.

You're making the mistake too many are of assuming a rail link will solve the town's ills. It won't - for many reasons, but primarily because at best it will end up being a Wisbech to March shuttle, because anything else will have a much greater impact. There isn't the capacity to run through to Cambridge. There is a much better case for increasing P'boro - Cambridge or P'boro to Ipswich services.

And a rail link won't help those travelling to Kings Lynn, Peterboro, Spalding or Boston.

Nobody's posted any figures about where people from Wisbech are currently travelling to.

 

[berwicksfinest]

But the real case for Wisbech is social and economic, I know it well, it desperately needs a boost.
I am sure some of the other ideas, have fair BCR s, but the final decision makers ( in this case it will be HMT), have to make a subjective judgement on poverty /growth, future Tax Revenues.
Making recommendations in a briefing note is quite hard as the issues are so finely balanced.

So do I !!! its my home !!!

To answer this (again) the prime use of a railway is to move people or goods.

Firstly lets look at goods, Currently there is arguably no industry large enough to sustain regular freight service. Baring in mind Spillers (now Nestle) used to have a shared service with Metal Box (Now Crown) and latterly John G Russell at Grantham. This was not sustainable and finished. wagonloads are not wanted these days its more bulk services.

Secondly Passenger.

Wisbech to March. Back in the day you could not fill a Emblings Bus (52 seater)to March. so how on earth will you sustain a train service. Wisbech to further a field look to the east.
Ely North rears its ugly head again (thats why the new Aberdeen - Spalding Colas slurry, goes to Spalding and not to King's Lynn where its wanted !!)

To the West. I personally work at Peterborough. would i use it ?? No because I would anytime between 00.01 and 23.59 chances are the service won't be available when I want, Also do I want to wait x amount of minutes after my shift, when now I can get in my car and to be fair the A47 isn't that bad.
Most big employers over Peterborough (amazon etc) provide a workers bus (Blue Fox) so really where is re-instatement going to boost the economy.

If you know Wisbech so well, undoubtely you are aware that roughly 30% are East European and work in the local factories such as Moy Park, Lamb and Weston etc. I don't know the pecentage of retirement age people. and then people like me that it wouldn't be suitable for, but really the actually patronage would not make this a viable option.

THATS BEFORE you get me started on the actual trackbed !!