• 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!

Ely North Junction upgrade proposals

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
If it is replaced with a full-barrier crossing, probably so, per the discussion above. But why not just leave it exactly as it is?

I'd guess that half barriers, plus high pedestrian usage (333 pedestrians/cyclists per day according to http://abcrailwayguide.uk/kiln-lane-private-level-crossing-cambridgeshire#.YN3XeOhKhPY), plus increase in train service doesn't mix very well from a safety risk perspective.

It is already rated as C2 crossing from a safety risk point of view; very high for both user and collective risk. That's probably untenable to increase further with extra trains over the crossing.


And even if you built a footbridge alongside, pedestrians would still use the crossing to save having to go up and down the footbridge.


EDIT: Verging into Trivia world, but does make me wonder what the busiest Automatic Half-Barrier crossing in the UK is (in terms of train movements). Wouldn't at all surprise me if Kiln Lane is already up there.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
I'd guess that half barriers, plus high pedestrian usage (333 pedestrians/cyclists per day according to http://abcrailwayguide.uk/kiln-lane-private-level-crossing-cambridgeshire#.YN3XeOhKhPY), plus increase in train service doesn't mix very well from a safety risk perspective.

That's a very useful link for this discussion, thanks. I see there are also 132 vehicles a day - admittedly a bit higher than I expected.

It does seem it would have been helpful if NR had put these numbers into the consultation material - a point I made in my reply to the consultation.

It is already rated as C2 crossing from a safety risk point of view; very high for both user and collective risk. That's probably untenable to increase further with extra trains over the crossing.

I'd like to see some version of their safety assessment though (another point I made in my reply to the consultation).

If for example they're concluding one pedestrian death every 2 years, or one vehicle issue causing a derailment every 10 years, that's pretty serious and I'd say that justifies their decision to close the crossing. On the other hand, if those figures were say 2,000 years and 10,000 years respectively, then in my opinion that wouldn't justify the cost (financial or environmental).
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
That's a very useful link for this discussion, thanks. I see there are also 132 vehicles a day - admittedly a bit higher than I expected.

Well, to be more accurate, there were 132 vehicles the particular day the survey was done!

It does seem it would have been helpful if NR had put these numbers into the consultation material - a point I made in my reply to the consultation.

To be fair, this is all publicly available, both via my link and via the Transparency pages on Network Rail's website (that also goes into how the risk scoring comes about)


I'd like to see some version of their safety assessment though (another point I made in my reply to the consultation).

If for example they're concluding one pedestrian death every 2 years, or one vehicle issue causing a derailment every 10 years, that's pretty serious and I'd say that justifies their decision to close the crossing. On the other hand, if those figures were say 2,000 years and 10,000 years respectively, then in my opinion that wouldn't justify the cost (financial or environmental).

Mr @Bald Rick may correct me here, but the risk scoring (generated from a modelling calculation) is generally appraising the risk more in a relative (rather than absolute) sense to other crossings, and how mitigations offset any significant increase to this risk arising from an increase in train services. (Adding several services per hour is pretty significant when the crossing is already identified as high risk)

So, as the crossing is already very high risk, the only options to not increase risk further become either upgrade to full barriers (not practical due to the effect on down times) or closure (with bridge or diversion).
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
To be fair, this is all publicly available, both via my link and via the Transparency pages on Network Rail's website (that also goes into how the risk scoring comes about)

Interesting data for me to dig into :)

But I think it would have been helpful to have included this information (or a clear link to it) in the consultation.

Mr @Bald Rick may correct me here, but the risk scoring (generated from a modelling calculation) is generally appraising the risk more in a relative (rather than absolute) sense to other crossings, and how mitigations offset any significant increase to this risk arising from an increase in train services. (Adding several services per hour is pretty significant when the crossing is already identified as high risk)

So, as the crossing is already very high risk, the only options to not increase risk further become either upgrade to full barriers (not practical due to the effect on down times) or closure (with bridge or diversion).

Which would appear to be the case, and if you approach it from this perspective then yes, it makes sense.

However, we may be talking about comparing a tiny risk and a tinier risk. Just because it is probably more dangerous than some others doesn't necessarily mean that it is actually dangerous in any appreciable way.

If the approach of Network Rail is now 'remove *all* level crossings, priority for those with highest risk first' then I'd argue that approach was wrong, but I guess I'm straying onto wider issues at that point.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
But why not just leave it exactly as it is?

Mr @Bald Rick may correct me here, but the risk scoring (generated from a modelling calculation) is generally appraising the risk more in a relative (rather than absolute) sense to other crossings, and how mitigations offset any significant increase to this risk arising from an increase in train services. (Adding several services per hour is pretty significant when the crossing is already identified as high risk)

A C2 crossing is higherrosk - “2” is the second highest category of collective risk. Adding in more trains clearly makes it worse. There is a requirement that any crossing in the ‘higher risk’ category (any with a collective risk of 1,2 or 3, plus all 4 and 5 crossings in ABC) has additional assessments.

I don’t know the latest specifics at Kiln Lane, but a C2 that has a proposal for significantly more traffic on it will not be acceptable for an AHB. I forget the precise detail, but IIRC a “2” has IIRC a FWI (Fatality Weighted injury) index of around 0.01, ie a risk of fatality every 100 years, or risk of an injury every year. It is a common mistake to say “it’s an acceptable risk at this crossing, let’s keep it”, because when there are 100 such crossings on the Network (there’s more) that means a fatality every year, or 100 injuries a year. And that is clearly not acceptable when there are safer alternatives. In the case of AHBs the safer alternatives are full barriers or closure, and when you are replacing all the infrastructure in the area, the marginal cost of going to full barriers over AHB is close to negligible. Therefore it becomes reasonably practical to go to full barriers.

In the case of Kiln Lane, full barriers aren’t acceptable for the highway users: with 11 trains an hour each way, many of which are 750metre freights, the barriers would rarely be up. Therefore closure must be explored.

Re the risk scoring, it is absolute and comparable. If you add up the FWIs of all LX in the country, you get to the total LX risk in the country in terms of average fatalities / injuries per year. Obviously this is an average and the real results vary by year considerably. It only takes one Ufton Nervet for example to offset several years of no incidents.



EDIT: Verging into Trivia world, but does make me wonder what the busiest Automatic Half-Barrier crossing in the UK is (in terms of train movements). Wouldn't at all surprise me if Kiln Lane is already up there.

Fairly sure it’s Wharf Road, Broxbourne (as you surely should remember Sir!) but happy to be corrected.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,017
I don’t know the latest specifics at Kiln Lane, but a C2 that has a proposal for significantly more traffic on it will not be acceptable for an AHB. I forget the precise detail, but IIRC a “2” has IIRC a FWI (Fatality Weighted injury) index of around 0.01, ie a risk of fatality every 100 years, or risk of an injury every year. It is a common mistake to say “it’s an acceptable risk at this crossing, let’s keep it”, because when there are 100 such crossings on the Network (there’s more) that means a fatality every year, or 100 injuries a year.

In the case of Kiln Lane, full barriers aren’t acceptable for the highway users: with 11 trains an hour each way, many of which are 750metre freights, the barriers would rarely be up. Therefore closure must be explored.
Having done road accident analyses for a living a while ago, that approach of adding them all together and then saying it doesn't meet some criteria just wouldn't be accepted as appropriate. It used to be a rebuttal whenever someone put that road casualty figures would not be acceptable on the railway, to ask why it was that whenever the railway was disorganised they happily called out road coach replacements for the passengers.

Separately, one wonders why an AHB can have a closure time 25 seconds or so before the train arrives, but full barriers require several minutes and interlocking with the signals. One wonders how this divergence of what is acceptable arose. It can't be train frequency or speeds. If it's just the likelihood of someone getting locked in, that can readily be handled by CCTV etc not closing the outgoing gates, just like an AHB, until all is seen clear.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
It can't be train frequency or speeds. If it's just the likelihood of someone getting locked in, that can readily be handled by CCTV etc not closing the outgoing gates, just like an AHB, until all is seen clear.

You'd be relying on the human signaller making that check of CCTV literally seconds before the train passes. And on the brave assumption that nobody enters the still half-open barriers. A train cannot possibly be authorised to proceed onto a level crossing before it has been verified that the crossing is clear when a trapped member of the public has no escape.

Would you be willing to sign the safety case off for that?
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,017
And on the brave assumption that nobody enters the still half-open barriers.
Isn't that exactly how AHBs work ...?

If we are saying it's the full closure with no escape that is the risk, maybe that bit of the risk assessment that needs revisiting.
 

Ianno87

Veteran Member
Joined
3 May 2015
Messages
15,215
Isn't that exactly how AHBs work ...?

Well yes. But going to full barriers but leaving half the barriers up until the train is nearer arguably doesn't reduce the risk (compared to an AHB) by very much, as the scope for the same sort of abuse (walking around the half-closed barriers) is still present.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
Having done road accident analyses for a living a while ago, that approach of adding them all together and then saying it doesn't meet some criteria just wouldn't be accepted as appropriate.

I was using that as an illustraition, but things have moved on in this area a lot in the last 20 years, and specifically since Ufton Nervet.

Separately, one wonders why an AHB can have a closure time 25 seconds or so before the train arrives, but full barriers require several minutes and interlocking with the signals.

It’s simple logic.

AHBs are not part of the signalling system, and do not need to have the crossing proven clear (or even proven to have operated) before a train can be signalled across them.

Full barriers are part of the signalling system. For a route to be set over a full barrier crossing it has to be proven clear (either by technology, or a pair of Mk 1 eyeballs) before a train can be signalled across it. And then when the signal has cleared, the train needs to travel, as a minimum, from that signal to the crossing. For most such crossings, we like trains not to be delayed by them, so that means the train needs to have clear signals for all the signals on approach that can be affected by the crossing protecting signal - in many cases that is three signals - and usually at least 2-3 miles away. That means starting the crossing sequence before the driver of a train can see that first signal.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
A C2 crossing is higherrosk - “2” is the second highest category of collective risk. Adding in more trains clearly makes it worse. There is a requirement that any crossing in the ‘higher risk’ category (any with a collective risk of 1,2 or 3, plus all 4 and 5 crossings in ABC) has additional assessments.

I don’t know the latest specifics at Kiln Lane, but a C2 that has a proposal for significantly more traffic on it will not be acceptable for an AHB. I forget the precise detail, but IIRC a “2” has IIRC a FWI (Fatality Weighted injury) index of around 0.01, ie a risk of fatality every 100 years, or risk of an injury every year. It is a common mistake to say “it’s an acceptable risk at this crossing, let’s keep it”, because when there are 100 such crossings on the Network (there’s more) that means a fatality every year, or 100 injuries a year. And that is clearly not acceptable when there are safer alternatives. In the case of AHBs the safer alternatives are full barriers or closure, and when you are replacing all the infrastructure in the area, the marginal cost of going to full barriers over AHB is close to negligible. Therefore it becomes reasonably practical to go to full barriers.

In the case of Kiln Lane, full barriers aren’t acceptable for the highway users: with 11 trains an hour each way, many of which are 750metre freights, the barriers would rarely be up. Therefore closure must be explored.

That's very useful as well, thanks :)

I'd agree that it makes sense in general to mitigate to the safer option in places that are identified as higher risk. But this appears to be a rather special case, because as you say the usual mitigation isn't possible in this case, so we have to go 'above and beyond' to find a solution.

So it appears we are in the situation where we have to choose one of two things:

- accept a risk of what appears to be roughly one fatality per 100 years
- spend tens of millions of pounds, *and* have a significant environmental and visual impact on an important habitat and recreational area

I appreciate others may have different opinons, but I'd choose the latter every time.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
24,793
Location
Nottingham
Having done road accident analyses for a living a while ago, that approach of adding them all together and then saying it doesn't meet some criteria just wouldn't be accepted as appropriate. It used to be a rebuttal whenever someone put that road casualty figures would not be acceptable on the railway, to ask why it was that whenever the railway was disorganised they happily called out road coach replacements for the passengers.

Separately, one wonders why an AHB can have a closure time 25 seconds or so before the train arrives, but full barriers require several minutes and interlocking with the signals. One wonders how this divergence of what is acceptable arose. It can't be train frequency or speeds. If it's just the likelihood of someone getting locked in, that can readily be handled by CCTV etc not closing the outgoing gates, just like an AHB, until all is seen clear.
That's a very interesting thought.
Well yes. But going to full barriers but leaving half the barriers up until the train is nearer arguably doesn't reduce the risk (compared to an AHB) by very much, as the scope for the same sort of abuse (walking around the half-closed barriers) is still present.
I don't think it is. The exit side barriers would only remain up if there was somebody stuck on the crossing, and it's pretty unlikely a second vehicle would try to zigzag if there was one blocking their path. Even if the chance of zigzagging was unchanged, the accident sequence requires stuck vehicle and zigzagging during the same closure event, which makes it hugely less likely than either happening on its own.
Full barriers are part of the signalling system. For a route to be set over a full barrier crossing it has to be proven clear (either by technology, or a pair of Mk 1 eyeballs) before a train can be signalled across it. And then when the signal has cleared, the train needs to travel, as a minimum, from that signal to the crossing. For most such crossings, we like trains not to be delayed by them, so that means the train needs to have clear signals for all the signals on approach that can be affected by the crossing protecting signal - in many cases that is three signals - and usually at least 2-3 miles away. That means starting the crossing sequence before the driver of a train can see that first signal.
Yes according to standards and traditional practice, but @Taunton's point is to ask why that should be so.

I seem to recall that OD crossings do a check for obstacles before the exit barriers are lowered, and again afterwards, so implementing that suggestion might just be a case of making the signal clearance conditional on the first check not the second. Although there may be other hazards such as someone walking under the exit barrier just before it closes - less likely in principle than for an AHB, bud OD crossings are allowed where there are more people.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
So it appears we are in the situation where we have to choose one of two things:

- accept a risk of what appears to be roughly one fatality per 100 years
- spend tens of millions of pounds, *and* have a significant environmental and visual impact on an important habitat and recreational area

My 1 in 100 years was a broad guess. Having now checked the detail a “2” is a FWI of between (roughly) 0.01 and 0.05, ie the risk of a fatality between 1 in 100 years and 1 in 20 years. Kiln Lane will be nearer the latter than the former. Adding more trains in will make it worse. And don’t forget these are all averages - the accident could happen tomorrow, or not for decades, and it could cause one injury or it could cause dozens of fatalities.

On an individual level, almost any level crossing can be treated as a ‘special case’. I well remember the campaign against closing a crossing in Bishops Stortford that used that argument, which delayed the provision of a bridge. Then someone got killed, and the railway was accused of not acting quickly enough.

I seem to recall that OD crossings do a check for obstacles before the exit barriers are lowered, and again afterwards, so implementing that suggestion might just be a case of making the signal clearance conditional on the first check not the second.

That would reduce the downtime on approach by about 5 seconds. Certainly not worth the additional safety risk.
 

Taunton

Established Member
Joined
1 Aug 2013
Messages
10,017
We used to come at the roads issues from the opposite direction, rather than looking at overall likelihoods we looked at the detail of each individual event and the large number of parameters each had, to identify if there were any common characteristics that could be engineered out, and then read across to multiple locations. This also had the advantage of being very evidence-based, so difficult for political/pressure groups to challenge, although they used to (and increasingly do) find ways to do so. The way in which road fatalities are now one-quarter of what they were when I first became aware of the figures, on a system which is essentially used by amateurs, shows some success, by multiple participants.

I look at the NR videos of multiple pedestrians running under the closing barriers, but also note they seem to be taken principally from along the Waterloo-Feltham line, which (if you know it) is plagued with high density housing right up to the multiple very busy road crossings, and in particular very extensive closure times - sometimes for four trains. There is a road traffic signal requirement that the complete signal cycle cannot exceed 120 seconds precisely to overcome impatience when the red shows, which these crossings grossly exceed.
 

Bald Rick

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Sep 2010
Messages
29,070
We used to come at the roads issues from the opposite direction, rather than looking at overall likelihoods we looked at the detail of each individual event and the large number of parameters each had, to identify if there were any common characteristics that could be engineered out, and then read across to multiple locations.

That’s almost exactly how the All Level Crossing Risk Model (ALCRM) was developed. There’s a standard risk basis for each type of level crossing, based on the detail of actual data of incidents collected over the years, and identifying the common characteristics. This is then adjusted at individual crossings through the specific charteristics at each crossing, as assessed by the regular inspections / surveys.
 

Tomnick

Established Member
Joined
10 Jun 2005
Messages
5,825
Separately, one wonders why an AHB can have a closure time 25 seconds or so before the train arrives, but full barriers require several minutes and interlocking with the signals. One wonders how this divergence of what is acceptable arose. It can't be train frequency or speeds. If it's just the likelihood of someone getting locked in, that can readily be handled by CCTV etc not closing the outgoing gates, just like an AHB, until all is seen clear.
AHB have very strict criteria for suitability, one of them being consideration of the likelihood of the crossing being blocked by queueing traffic, a long vehicle waiting for oncoming traffic to clear so that it can turn right immediately after the crossing, etc.. It's not just about someone getting trapped by the trailing barriers closing ahead of them, it's about someone being stuck on the crossing and having nowhere to go - which happens remarkably often in the US, where they don't worry so much about these things. If there's any significant risk of the crossing being blocked, then quite rightly there's an expectation that a train won't be allowed to cross until it's been proven clear of road traffic or indeed any other obstruction, and to avoid delay to the train that means that the barriers invariably need to be down at least two or three minutes prior to the train's arrival on the scene.
 

fenman35

Member
Joined
28 Feb 2017
Messages
27
This happened a few years ago at the Waterbeach station road crossing. Sadly the train was not stopped and the car driver lost his life
 

dk1

Veteran Member
Joined
2 Oct 2009
Messages
15,821
Location
East Anglia
This happened a few years ago at the Waterbeach station road crossing. Sadly the train was not stopped and the car driver lost his life
Which is why a caution is put in place whenever the A14 is blocked.
 

chiltern trev

Member
Joined
28 Mar 2011
Messages
385
Location
near Carlisle
I sent some comments in to the consultation.

Today I received an email which I believed has been sent to all who sent in comments to Network Rail.


Subject: Network Rail - Ely Area Capacity Enhancement (EACE) Round 2 Consultation: Confirmation of receipt of your feedback
OFFICIAL​
Network Rail: Ely Area Capacity Enhancement (EACE) - Public Consultation Round 2.

I am writing to you on behalf of Network Rail to thank you for responding to the EACE public consultation, which ran from Monday 24 May – Sunday 4 July 2021. This note confirms receipt of your comments as part of the public consultation process.

We have received a tremendous response from the public and our statutory consultees on the proposals and options presented for the Ely South area. As you know, the EACE programme is a strategically important rail programme that is investigating the feasibility of increasing rail capacity through Ely for passenger and freight services. Your feedback during these early stages of the design and development process is important to help us to understand the views of the wider community on our proposals, and help us make informed decisions going forward.

The feedback from the public consultation is currently going through review and analysis to pull out the key themes from the comments we received over the six week period. A detailed summary of the results of the consultation will be included as part of the final consultation round being planned in 2022 (subject to securing further funding) which will focus on the preferred options selected to take forward to the consent application stage. The Round 2 consultation materials remain available to view by visiting https://phase2.elyareacapacity.com/

Next Steps

A public consultation round is now being planned for later this year, which will focus on proposals and options for Ely North Junction, the level crossings at Queen Adelaide, as well as other level crossings across the wider programme area. We will be making an announcement in due course about the dates of this consultation, which will be published on our project webpage www.networkrail.co.uk/Ely together with the latest information on how the development of the programme is progressing.

If you do not wish to be contacted by Network Rail regarding the next consultation rounds for the EACE programme, please email: [email protected] with a request to be removed from our project mailing list.

You can also choose to follow us on Twitter @networkrailANG using the project hashtag #ElyRail.

Kind Regards

Stephen

Senior Communications Manager (Anglia)

Sent on Behalf of the Ely Area Capacity Enhancement (EACE) project team





Follow us on Twitter: @NetworkrailANG
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,671
Location
Leeds
NR press release: the consultation on North Junction itself is opening on 18 October (2 weeks today).


From Monday 18 October, Network Rail is inviting the public to comment on proposals and options to increase rail capacity through Ely for passenger and freight services.


The aim of the Ely area capacity enhancement (EACE) programme is to allow more trains to run through Ely by improving rail capacity and reliability for passenger services between key destinations. It will also meet the demand for more rail freight between the Port of Felixstowe the west Midlands and the north to support sustainable, long-term economic growth.

This consultation is part of a wider programme of engagement with the community which began in late 2020 and will continue into 2022. The first Round 2 consultation in May 2021 sought feedback on proposals in the Ely South area. For this autumn consultation, proposals and options will be presented during a six-week period which will include:
  • Proposals to remodel the track layout at Ely North junction
  • Proposals and road options for level crossings at Queen Adelaide
  • Proposals and options for level crossings at Stonea, Burgess Drove (Waterbeach) and Well Engine foot crossing.
  • Proposals to upgrade 15 level crossings across the wider area
Increasing capacity on the Ely railway is expected to bring benefits to the national, local and regional economies, with better connectivity and reliability for passengers. Additionally, rail freight demand is growing and increasing the capacity of the rail network will help support a shift from road to rail. This is expected to provide a faster, greener, safer and more efficient way of transporting goods across the country and helping to remove lorries from the roads and further reduce pollution and congestion.

The results from this round of consultation, together with the feedback from the earlier Ely South consultation (spring 2021) will help to progress designs prior to selecting preferred options in 2022. Subject to further funding, we will present the preferred options as part of a final round of consultation in summer 2022 prior to submission of a Transport and Works Act Order, expected around winter 2022/23.
 

Maltazer

Member
Joined
7 Feb 2019
Messages
71
NR press release: the consultation on North Junction itself is opening on 18 October (2 weeks today).
This is the big one - we'll finally get to see their ideas for the Queen Adelaide crossings, which have been the stumbling block for all previous attempts.
 

59CosG95

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2013
Messages
6,476
Location
Between Peterborough & Bedlington
The link is live! https://phase2b.elyareacapacity.com/

The following LCs are due to be upgraded to full barrier with CCTV:
  • Badgeney Road (Badgeney Road, March)
  • Black Bank (Black Bank Road, Little Downham)
  • Bottisham Road (Bannolds Road, Waterbeach)
  • Burnt House (Burnt House Road, Turves)
  • Downham Market Bypass (A1122, Downham Market)
  • Eastrea (Wype Road, Eastrea)
  • Horsemoor (Upwell Road, March)
  • Littleport Bypass (A10, Littleport)
  • Norwood Road (Norwood Road, March)
  • Ramsey Road (Ramsey Road, Whittlesey)
  • Sandhills Littleport (Victoria Street, Littleport)
  • Three Horseshoes No.1, No.2 and No.3 (Whittlesey Road / March Road, Turves)
  • Welney Road (Wisbech Road, Manea)
Details on Burgess Drove, Stonea, Wells Engine & Queen Adelaide are explained in the documents.
 

snowball

Established Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
7,671
Location
Leeds
There are four road options to address the Queen Adelaide level crossings. The best plans and descriptions of them are found by clicking on "related downloads", then on "stakeholder information" and then looking at section 14 on pages 26-31 (page numbers as shown by your pdf viewer), figures 14-24.
 

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
It's rather a shame if they close the 'Ely North junction footpath' (is that the official name?) as proposed. Walking along there is an interesting experience!
 

quantinghome

Established Member
Joined
1 Jun 2013
Messages
2,262
So it looks like the plan is to have double track junctions on all routes. Like it used to be.
 

Maltazer

Member
Joined
7 Feb 2019
Messages
71
It all looks very expensive - I fully expect this to be kicked into the long grass yet again.
 

eastdyke

Established Member
Joined
25 Jan 2010
Messages
1,923
Location
East Midlands
So it looks like the plan is to have double track junctions on all routes. Like it used to be.
Almost, noting that Ely West Curve seems to be retained (phew!!), that too was at one time double track.
It all looks very expensive - I fully expect this to be kicked into the long grass yet again.
The freight enhancements potentially generate a lot of revenue, even bearing in mind all the other works needed across the network to enable extra freight to actually run there should be a goodly sum to offset against the costs.
If I read it correctly, Option 1 looks to be by far the cheapest and will likely generate the least objections from the locals.
They [the locals] will need to accept the crossing restrictions necessary for the through road traffic to effectively be banned from Queen Adelaide and for the huge hourly downtime on the retained crossing on the Peterborough when full barriers are closed for the enhanced services.

Going forward, I hope that the money for the works will be justified and provided within a reasonable time. [I do use Peterborough - Ipswich from time to time, that hourly service would benefit this occasional passenger :)]
 

TheBigD

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2008
Messages
1,991
So it looks like the plan is to have double track junctions on all routes. Like it used to be.

Will be interesting to know what the linespeeds will be over the redoubled Ely North Junction. Currently 50 mph for Lynn/Norwich and 50mph (up) and 60mph* (down) for Peterborough, along with 25 mph on to/off the west curve. The old layout speeds were low (30mph?) for most routes with the main line being towards Norwich as opposed to Peterborough currently. Unless there's land take I would be very surprised if they mange to maintain or increase those speeds, though I'm happy to be wrong!.

* 40mh for train in the up direction working over the down line from Ely West Junction.

Moderator note: possible service change discussion moved to https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-the-ely-north-junction-upgrade-works.223849/
 
Last edited by a moderator:

MikeWM

Established Member
Joined
26 Mar 2010
Messages
4,382
Location
Ely
If I read it correctly, Option 1 looks to be by far the cheapest and will likely generate the least objections from the locals.
They [the locals] will need to accept the crossing restrictions necessary for the through road traffic to effectively be banned from Queen Adelaide and for the huge hourly downtime on the retained crossing on the Peterborough when full barriers are closed for the enhanced services.

Does look like they're trying to 'nudge' towards option 1, but it is probably the best answer anyway. Maybe a bit rubbish for pedestrians, but they're aren't a vast number of them around there.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top