Alternative plans for Ely upgrade work

[MikeWM]

As detailed in this thread

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-upgrade-under-threat.233815/

it seems the long-awaited Ely North upgrade, and related capacity work, is in doubt because the price is too high.


What alternatives could there be to deliver the upgrade with a smaller price tag, if that is deemed necessary to get something done?

My suggestion would be that the original proposals were over-spec'ed. For example, the idea of building a big massive bridge in the middle of an SSSI in order to account for the 'required' closure of a little-used level crossing. I wonder if scaling back things like this would make the costs look sufficiently less problematic in order to proceed.

I think everyone agrees that *something* needs doing with Ely North, if nothing else, and leaving it for another decade or more shouldn't be an option.

 

[30907]

As detailed in this thread

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-upgrade-under-threat.233815/

it seems the long-awaited Ely North upgrade, and related capacity work, is in doubt because the price is too high.


What alternatives could there be to deliver the upgrade with a smaller price tag, if that is deemed necessary to get something done?

My suggestion would be that the original proposals were over-spec'ed. For example, the idea of building a big massive bridge in the middle of an SSSI in order to account for the 'required' closure of a little-used level crossing. I wonder if scaling back things like this would make the costs look sufficiently less problematic in order to proceed.

Which is this? Kiln Lane? And is it little used when you take walkers and cyclists into account? (Genuine questions.).

 

[Magdalia]

My understanding is that a big part of the cost is the perceived need for a road flyover to take road traffic away from the three level crossings at Queen Adelaide.

 

[ac6000cw]

All sorts of alternative ideas have been discussed before in at least two threads - https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-north-junction-upgrade-proposals.68376/ and https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/could-ely-north-junction-be-grade-separated.223852/

I think NR a while ago had a proposal/idea on their website somewhere to build a freight bypass from the Ely Dock Junction area around the west side of Ely to a junction with the March line, basically following the route of the A10 Ely bypass road. But that just removes the south/southeast <-> northwest freight trains from Ely North.

Which is this? Kiln Lane? And is it little used when you take walkers and cyclists into account? (Genuine questions.).

Yes, it's Kiln Lane.

The vehicle traffic is pretty low for most of the day in my experience (it's a dead end road) but it gets quite a lot of recreational walking use in particular. I visit Ely often (and use the crossing as a pedestrian) but MikeWM's location is 'Ely' so he may well be able to tell you more. Kiln Lane is a private road, vehicular access to it is controlled by the Environment Agency, who have a riverside depot at the east end of the lane (along with two/three other businesses and a rowing club) and offices at the west end - this is the office end with the 'PRIVATE ROAD' markings: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@52.4...19.963036&pitch=0&thumbfov=100!7i13312!8i6656

Ignoring the cost, I suspect the impact of the NR proposed replacement bridge on the local environment might have mired the project in legal challenges for a while anyway.

 

[TheEdge]

The issue with Ely North is it's very constrained in every direction. Something could be achieved just by removing all the single lead junctions to allow some additional movements thorough the junction and remove the double blocking. That will remain within the footprint of the existing junction.

As soon as you try to build you have the issues of Queen Adelaide village itself and it's three crossings, the River Great Ouse, Potter and Co, the Ely Curve and Kiln lane. Potter and Co will still want rail access so that will have to be protected, the curve isn't heavily used but it's used enough that cutting it out isn't a great option. If Cambridgeshire county council are concerned about the extra traffic on the crossing you have to start building huge flyovers, which causes an issue with the above issues.

In the realms of pure fantasy you could always reroute the Norwich lines to diverge from the Lynn lines further north reducing the lines at Ely North to two.

 

[MikeWM]

Yes, I was referring to Kiln Lane. We had a discussion about it on here exactly a year ago (how time flies!), eg.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-north-junction-upgrade-proposals.68376/page-16#post-5203306

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.

Earlier in that thread there was a link to

http://abcrailwayguide.uk/kiln-lane-private-level-crossing-cambridgeshire#.YN3XeOhKhPY

which claims 333 pedestrians/cyclists a day (I'd guess this was about right) and 132 vehicles (which seems rather too high given my experiences of the area).


I appreciate we're unfortunately in a culture where individuals can no longer be allowed to make their own decisions about risks, but I maintain that despoiling an SSSI at substantial cost - or alternately not upgrading Ely North at all - are rather worse outcomes than simply keeping the crossing as it is. I've crossed here a number of times, and you're at zero risk of being hit by a train unless you're being especially reckless. The track is straight and there are no obstructions to viewing.

 

[Chris Butler]

Yes, I was referring to Kiln Lane. We had a discussion about it on here exactly a year ago (how time flies!), eg.

https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-north-junction-upgrade-proposals.68376/page-16#post-5203306


Earlier in that thread there was a link to

http://abcrailwayguide.uk/kiln-lane-private-level-crossing-cambridgeshire#.YN3XeOhKhPY

which claims 333 pedestrians/cyclists a day (I'd guess this was about right) and 132 vehicles (which seems rather too high given my experiences of the area).


I appreciate we're unfortunately in a culture where individuals can no longer be allowed to make their own decisions about risks, but I maintain that despoiling an SSSI at substantial cost - or alternately not upgrading Ely North at all - are rather worse outcomes than simply keeping the crossing as it is. I've crossed here a number of times, and you're at zero risk of being hit by a train unless you're being especially reckless. The track is straight and there are no obstructions to viewing.

I'm not a local, but the attached map shows the crossings that are the main issues (in red), ones that are just being upgraded (purple) and ones unaffected (blue). Isn't Kiln Lane the blue one just above the red 'J' of Junction ? If so, it's not affected.

It's not stated explicitly by Network Rail, but they imply that the issue with the Queen Adelaide trio is not a safety issue but the county council's refusal to accept any impediment to traffic flow (which an increased rail frequency obviously is).

The safety issue isn't really described clearly, but it seems to derive from ORR guidance that requires full barriers under different scenarios. In particular the longer the wait times per hour for road traffic the more full barriers are needed (which makes sense to me). If my interpretation is correct then the Queen Adelaide trio could be made acceptably safe by installing full barriers. The new road is not needed for safety, but to meet the council's objection to any impediment to traffic.

As I said, the Network Rail stuff isn't really clear, so I may have it wrong.

 

[ac6000cw]

It looks like NR has changed its mind about Kiln Lane - the original consultation proposals from May 2021, including several possible bridge proposals, are linked in this post https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/ely-north-junction-upgrade-proposals.68376/post-5149436

 

[MikeWM]

I'm not a local, but the attached map shows the crossings that are the main issues (in red), ones that are just being upgraded (purple) and ones unaffected (blue). Isn't Kiln Lane the blue one just above the red 'J' of Junction ? If so, it's not affected.

That map is from the second part of the second round of the consultation. The Kiln Lane crossing proposals were in the first part of the second round. (Yes, this is unnecessarily confusing).

It's not stated explicitly by Network Rail, but they imply that the issue with the Queen Adelaide trio is not a safety issue but the county council's refusal to accept any impediment to traffic flow (which an increased rail frequency obviously is).

The safety issue isn't really described clearly, but it seems to derive from ORR guidance that requires full barriers under different scenarios. In particular the longer the wait times per hour for road traffic the more full barriers are needed (which makes sense to me). If my interpretation is correct then the Queen Adelaide trio could be made acceptably safe by installing full barriers. The new road is not needed for safety, but to meet the council's objection to any impediment to traffic.

Part of the issue is that full barriers are required to be down for considerably longer than half-barriers (see eg. the replies to this post when we discussed this last year). So you're looking at barriers being down more often, and for considerably longer than at present. The people living in QA (and Prickwillow) are understandably not terribly keen on that idea.

As I see it, two things have got mixed up here - the rather urgent need to upgrade Ely North, and the general drive to eliminate and/or safety-gold-plate all level crossings. Personally I think the former is considerably more important than the latter, and if the considerable problems solving the latter *in this particular case* end up meaning the upgrade is scrapped or further delayed, I say that means we've got our priorities badly wrong.

 

[yorksrob]

Presumably the easiest thing would be to double the single track bottleneck at Queen Adelaide Jnc. At least then you could have an up Norwich train pass a down Kings Lynn.

 

[Bald Rick]

to hopefully help the discussion…. The programme is not just about Ely North Junction, but about how to cater for increased freight traffic from Ipswich to Peterboro’. Ely N Jn is obviously part of that, but there is an awful lot of work elsewhere too, principally Level Crossings and signalling.

Presumably the easiest thing would be to double the single track bottleneck at Queen Adelaide Jnc. At least then you could have an up Norwich train pass a down Kings Lynn.

I’m afraid it is not at all simple. I thought it was, then spoke to the chap who designed the current layout, and then it became clear why a double junction was not installed in 1992.

 

[AndrewE]

I’m afraid it is not at all simple. I thought it was, then spoke to the chap who designed the current layout, and then it became clear why a double junction was not installed in 1992.

And?
Do share, please.

 

[yorksrob]

I’m afraid it is not at all simple. I thought it was, then spoke to the chap who designed the current layout, and then it became clear why a double junction was not installed in 1992.

Indeed - please say as nothing seems immediately apparent from the maps.

 

[Maltazer]

Is the layout even the main constraint though? There seems to be time each hour for more paths - which might be usable with interventions elsewhere to enable the timetable to work.

Isn't this fundamentally a level crossing down-time problem?

 

[Bald Rick]

Is the layout even the main constraint though? There seems to be time each hour for more paths - which might be usable with interventions elsewhere to enable the timetable to work.

Isn't this fundamentally a level crossing down-time problem?

It’s both.

 

[yorksrob]

The level crossing issue is an interesting one - one could use the doubling to enable the existing service to run more smoothly without increasing the number of trains, however leaving that to one side, what's the problem with the layout that would prevent re-doubling ?

 

[Bald Rick]

well the first question is which route(s) to redouble - Norwich / Lynn / both.

Then there is what to do with the west curve, and of course Kiln Lane Lx.
There is also a SSSI right in the middle of the site.

it is not physically possible to double both junctions in a way that retains the current line speed through them, and retains access to the West curve, without significant land take. Similarly it is not possible to retain the LX, which means a bridge, also with land take. And that land take will impinge on the SSSI.

hence the proposals presented at the various consultations.

you could ‘simply’ reinstate the layout that existed pre 1992, albeit that was mostly at 20mph, and as I have explained before (on other threads) with half mile long freight trains that *reduces* capacity due to much longer junction margins. so there’s no point doing that.

 

[Magdalia]

Looking at a map (yes I know!), it would appear that moving the rail junctions north of the road would be possible, using the Kings Lynn line. Then a much shorter road bridge could be built which would need a couple of properties bought if done on the south side. Norwich to Peterborough would be via the loop.

There's no mention in the consultation that moving the railways was considered, but presumably it must have been and then discounted as too expensive

I'm responding to this here as it is essentially speculative.

Yes, trying to work out what to do in the Fens just by looking at a map is not advisable. In particular you have to get the Norwich line over the river.

But it did set me thinking, and I would do the polar opposite. At Ely North Junction/Queen Adelaide I would keep the Norwich line and the Peterborough line, but junk the Kings Lynn line. Furthermore, I would make no changes for the Norwich line at all. The Norwich line does not need more track capacity, any capacity issues can be addressed by running longer trains. If capacity on the Norwich line is unchanged then the easternmost level crossing can be left as it is and nothing needs to be done for Prickwillow Road, Queen Adelaide Way and Branch Bank.

I would take the Lynn line off the Peterborough line just north of Queen Adelaide on a new alignment to rejoin the existing alignment a bit further north. This would require crossing a few drains and the farm track that currently runs next to the line on the west side. It is about the same amount of new track as the Hitchin flyover, though double not single.

This also gives the opportunity for grade separation of the Peterborough and Kings Lynn lines. The line from March clips the north end of the Isle of Ely, passing through a cutting east of Chettisham and is then on a falling 1/230 gradient to Queen Adelaide. This is ideal for taking the up Peterborough line over the top of the new Kings Lynn alignment. The old alignment of the up line would need to be retained as far as Ely West Junction to give access to the Ely West loop.

Any bridges for the new alignment and grade separation ought to be no more of an engineering challenge than the Ely southern bypass.

Road wise all that is required is a bridge over the combined Peterborough/Kings Lynn line at Queen Adelaide, and possibly something at Kiln Lane. I have to confess that I don't know what to do about Kiln Lane!

 

[TheBigD]

Just send the liners via London, job sorted!

 

[Magdalia]

I have to confess that I don't know what to do about Kiln Lane!

My mind was wandering this morning, and it wandered to Kiln Lane. In a bit of lateral thinking, I wondered about other examples of rights of way across the railway where use is very restricted and controlled by the signallers. The example I thought of is Trowse swingbridge, where river traffic has a right of way but that right of way is only opened when traffic needs to use it. Could Kiln Lane crossing be operated in a similar way?

 

[Maltazer]

Most of the proposals in the consultation for Kiln lane seem rather extravagant - maybe deliberately to force the choice onto the one, cheaper, option. That option is a simple bridge from Queen Adelaide Way (see the access bridge to Potters a little downstream), allowing 24/7 access for vehicles and emergency services.

That just leaves the public footpath. Are crossing safety rules so strict that having people wait potentially 20 minutes rules out leaving the crossing in place (even with full barriers)? It's not like pedestrians need emergency access to the other side after all.

 

[HSTEd]

Ultimately we have a railway infrastructure in this location built in a fundamentally different time, using fundamentally different techniques, for a fundamentally different traffic profile to what prevails today.

Fixing this is going to be enormously expensive, and trying to take away rights of way from the local population is going to be just as expensive politically as an engineered solution will be financially.

EDIT:

Would ETCS allow double blocking to be eliminated and increase capacity that way?

 

[Bald Rick]

Would ETCS allow double blocking to be eliminated and increase capacity that way?

yes, but a reminder that this particular capacity scheme is not just about resolving junction layouts / junction margins etc.

 

[Maltazer]

Most of the costs seem to be related to dealing with the consequences of increased capacity rather than creating the new capacity itself.

But if HS2 can destroy ancient woodland and still be allowed to go ahead, should the loss of a footpath across the tracks, for example, be so unthinkable? Especially when both sides are connected at other places.

 

[bspahh]

But if HS2 can destroy ancient woodland and still be allowed to go ahead, should the loss of a footpath across the tracks, for example, be so unthinkable? Especially when both sides are connected at other places.

I think that there is absolutely no chance of the Kiln Lane crossing closing, without a pedestrian footbridge being built. This is the main green space near Ely, and Ely is growing rapidly. Too many people who vote, use this route for politicians to let this happen.
It would be possible to relocate the Environment Agency depot, factory and rowing club. This could be better value, and less politically contentious than building a different access road.

 

[Magdalia]

The Kings Dyke Bridge, which finally opened yesterday, is another example of the hazards of bridge building in the Fens. The BBC article here does not say what the initial projected opening date was supposed to be, but it is more than a year ago. The article does say that costs tripled, and that the original contractors were replaced part way through the construction.

King's Dyke bridge opens after 50-year bid to replace level crossing

Campaigners called for a level crossing to be replaced in the 1970s, and costs have soared to £32m.

www.bbc.co.uk

The opening sentences of the article are here:

"A £39m bridge built to overcome delays caused by a level crossing is finally open to traffic - after a 50-year wait.
The King's Dyke bridge - connecting Peterborough and Whittlesey over the Peterborough-Ely railway line - was first mooted in the 1970s.
But spiralling costs, a revised scheme and a change of contractor meant work did not start until July 2020."

 

[Maltazer]

Crayon time! I know we've been here before, but here's a route using the same curves as the existing one through Queen Adelaide, just shifted to start just after Kiln Lane crossing.

We'd lose the west curve, but the new route crosses Queen Adelaide at roughly the same point as the west curve bridge, eliminating the crossing. It only skims the Roswell Pits area, staying out of the deep water. People will moan about bats etc, but the impact is very small.

I've also superimposed the new developments, since they don't show on Google maps yet.

As a bonus, there's a 500m straight north of Prickwillow road for a potential Ely North station for when Cams Metro give up with the autonomous bus nonsense

Possibly expensive, but would it be as much as all the road bypasses in the official proposals?

 

[MarkyT]

View attachment 117547

Crayon time! I know we've been here before, but here's a route using the same curves as the existing one through Queen Adelaide, just shifted to start just after Kiln Lane crossing.

We'd lose the west curve, but the new route crosses Queen Adelaide at roughly the same point as the west curve bridge, eliminating the crossing. It only skims the Roswell Pits area, staying out of the deep water. People will moan about bats etc, but the impact is very small.

I've also superimposed the new developments, since they don't show on Google maps yet.

As a bonus, there's a 500m straight north of Prickwillow road for a potential Ely North station for when Cams Metro give up with the autonomous bus nonsense

Possibly expensive, but would it be as much as all the road bypasses in the official proposals?

Nice. The bridge would no doubt have to be rebuilt in situ to suit the new angle of intersection, but at least existing ramps might be reused. You could have a new double junction on the straight stretch with the Kings Lynn line diverging across open fields towards the current alignment (See my yellow addition). That would leave only the Norwich line level crossing.

 

[Maltazer]

You could have a new double junction on the straight stretch with the Kings Lynn line diverging across open fields towards the current alignment (See my yellow addition). That would leave only the Norwich line level crossing.

With the Peterborough traffic going under the bridge I think the problem goes away and you wouldn't need any intervention on the other crossings.

My line does come a little close to the new housing developments, although it would be in a cutting at the closest point so that might help.

 

[TheBigD]

The Kings Dyke Bridge, which finally opened yesterday, is another example of the hazards of bridge building in the Fens. The BBC article here does not say what the initial projected opening date was supposed to be, but it is more than a year ago. The article does say that costs tripled, and that the original contractors were replaced part way through the construction.

King's Dyke bridge opens after 50-year bid to replace level crossing

Campaigners called for a level crossing to be replaced in the 1970s, and costs have soared to £32m.

www.bbc.co.uk

The opening sentences of the article are here:

"A £39m bridge built to overcome delays caused by a level crossing is finally open to traffic - after a 50-year wait.
The King's Dyke bridge - connecting Peterborough and Whittlesey over the Peterborough-Ely railway line - was first mooted in the 1970s.
But spiralling costs, a revised scheme and a change of contractor meant work did not start until July 2020."

I drove over it yesterday not long after it opened. Currently traffic lights at the eastern end so currently not any quicker though that will change once the works are completed.

Original contractors were Keir. Jones Brothers replaced them with an allegedly much cheaper quote. Posts on one of local Facebook group suggest that a lower grade of stone has been used in the construction than what Keir proposed hence the lower quote. Some people are speculating that the area next to Star Pit (which has been partially filled for the new road) will give problems in the coming years. Time will tell.