Ely Upgrade under threat

[XAM2175]

That's not a yes or no, that's an "I don't know" or an "I don't want to say"!

I've worked on projects where, as they develop, costs escalate, or time runs out, it is necessary reduce scope and/or to go back and revisit options earlier rejected. Has that happened? Is it happening now?

Industry employees posting here in a personal capacity can hardly be expected to divulge information like this at will.

 

[Bald Rick]

That's not a yes or no, that's an "I don't know" or an "I don't want to say"!

I've worked on projects where, as they develop, costs escalate, or time runs out, it is necessary reduce scope and/or to go back and revisit options earlier rejected. Has that happened? Is it happening now?

I wasn’t directly involved so don’t know.

Or perhaps I was, and can’t say.

Either way, those involved are extremely competent, and will have considered all realistic options.


as a reminder, the project objective is not to ‘sort Ely’. The objective is to provide additional capacity throughought the whole Ely area, effectively from Peterborough to Stowmarket.

 

[Magdalia]

as a reminder, the project objective is not to ‘sort Ely’. The objective is to provide additional capacity throughought the whole Ely area, effectively from Peterborough to Stowmarket.

What's proposed at Ely North Junction is of no value if it only moves bottlenecks somewhere else.

But it isn't just about Stowmarket-Peterborough, it is also about Cambridge-Kings Lynn. Sorting Ely North Junction, on its own, does create new capacity for Cambridge-Kings Lynn. Though that does beg the question of whether Cambridge-Kings Lynn capacity could be increased more cost-effectively by reinstating some of the double track that was singled prior to electrification.

 

[Bald Rick]

Sorting Ely North Junction, on its own, does create new capacity for Cambridge-Kings Lynn.

are you sure about that?

 

[Magdalia]

are you sure about that?

Yes. The single lead at Ely North Junction onto the Kings Lynn line prevents the introduction of an all day 30 minute service between Ely and Kings Lynn.

 

[Bald Rick]

Yes. The single lead at Ely North Junction onto the Kings Lynn line prevents the introduction of an all day 30 minute service between Ely and Kings Lynn.

as I said - are you sure about that? Are you sure there aren’t other factors?

 

[TheBigD]

Yes. The single lead at Ely North Junction onto the Kings Lynn line prevents the introduction of an all day 30 minute service between Ely and Kings Lynn.

I'd suggest that the biggest barrier is all the level crossings and the associated risk from a roughly 50% increase in trains.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

All bidders for the GA franchise saw the plans for this and the reaction in our bid team was, “How much? For just that?!”.

precisely and until the industry puts forward cost effective schemes this will be the first of many schemes just parked in the sidings. I'd also suggest that intermodal traffic from Felixstowe has probably peaked with many companies now realising the folly of outsourcing everything to China and other Asian countries and looking at what can be on shored.

 

[Class 170101]

Yes. The single lead at Ely North Junction onto the Kings Lynn line prevents the introduction of an all day 30 minute service between Ely and Kings Lynn.

Not sure that it does actually.

 

[Magdalia]

as I said - are you sure about that? Are you sure there aren’t other factors?

I'd suggest that the biggest barrier is all the level crossings and the associated risk from a roughly 50% increase in trains.

The Ely-Kings Lynn line has an approximately (but not quite) half hourly service in the peaks. The infrastructure has demonstrated that it can cope.

In particular the level crossings cope at peak periods, so they can cope off peak when road use is lower. The increase in risk at the level crossings is marginal. With the peak time approximately (but not quite) half hourly service already in place, the increase in train movements is only about 35%, not 50%. But the increase in level crossing risk is much lower than that because the additional trains are running at a time when the roads are not so busy.

 

[Bald Rick]

I'd also suggest that intermodal traffic from Felixstowe has probably peaked with many companies now realising the folly of outsourcing everything to China and other Asian countries and looking at what can be on shored.

quite the opposite, actually

In particular the level crossings cope at peak periods, so they can cope off peak when road use is lower. The increase in risk at the level crossings is marginal.

I think you misunderstand how level crossing risk works.

 

[Magdalia]

I think you misunderstand how level crossing risk works.

I know how risk management works, I did a lot of it myself.

If the level crossings are too risky with 20 additional off peak trains then they are already too risky now.

If there is an unacceptable risk at level crossings from 4 train movements per hour instead of 2, that requires mitigation, then that mitigation should be happening now, because the unacceptable risk is already there at peak times. Furthermore, it is a greater risk at peak times because there is more road traffic.

If Network Rail don't recognise that, then they misunderstand how risk management works.

 

[Bald Rick]

I know how risk management works, I did a lot of it myself.

If the level crossings are too risky with 20 additional off peak trains then they are already too risky now.

If there is an unacceptable risk at level crossings from 4 train movements per hour instead of 2, that requires mitigation, then that mitigation should be happening now, because the unacceptable risk is already there at peak times. Furthermore, it is a greater risk at peak times because there is more road traffic.

If Network Rail don't recognise that, then they misunderstand how risk management works.

I’ll come back to this later, but LX risk is related to the total number of trains over a crossing per day, not per hour.

 

[Magdalia]

I’ll come back to this later, but LX risk is related to the total number of trains over a crossing per day, not per hour.

No. The way Network Rail assess LX risk is related to the total number of trains over a crossing per day, and it shows a misunderstanding of how risk management works.

 

[trebor79]

I’ll come back to this later, but LX risk is related to the total number of trains over a crossing per day, not per hour.

No. The way Network Rail assess LX risk is related to the total number of trains over a crossing per day, and it shows a misunderstanding of how risk management works.

Why wouldn't it be possible to increase the number of train movements by upgrading the level crossings to a safer type, with full gates and obstacle detection, for example?
To a relatively lay person, it does seem absolutely mad that the proposed "solution" to mitigating the risk of an additional 20 or so trains per day was £450m worth of massive bridges and engineering. On any measure, that's incredibly poor value for money and way over the top.

 

[Maltazer]

Why wouldn't it be possible to increase the number of train movements by upgrading the level crossings to a safer type, with full gates and obstacle detection, for example?

That is in the plan, but those types of crossing have to close earlier and so are down for longer. Some estimates predict up to 50 minutes of closure per hour at the busiest times.

With three crossings so close together there will be greater risk of the queue of vehicles backing up over the previous crossing.

 

[Julia]

The Ely-Kings Lynn line has an approximately (but not quite) half hourly service in the peaks. The infrastructure has demonstrated that it can cope.

It can cope, just about, but the single lead at Ely North together with the two single line sections further north mean it's not resilient to any delays - or at least wasn't pre-COVID when I was travelling from my office near Cambridge North! Whether fixing one, without fixing them all, will make much difference I'm not at all sure.

The practice of coupling an up service to an extra 4 cars at Cambridge that had just come off a down one introduced even more ways for things to fall apart, though I think that's stopped now.

 

[MikeWM]

To a relatively lay person, it does seem absolutely mad that the proposed "solution" to mitigating the risk of an additional 20 or so trains per day was £450m worth of massive bridges and engineering. On any measure, that's incredibly poor value for money and way over the top.

Absolutely.

I don't understand why we can't accept that *in this one case*, there are very unusual factors with the level crossings that are very hard to solve, and therefore reach the entirely reasonable conclusion that the many benefits of the upgrade more than justify the increased risk from leaving the crossings as they are, and just get on with it.

The fact that we apparently can't do that sums up a great deal of what is currently wrong with this country.

 

[trebor79]

Absolutely.

I don't understand why we can't accept that *in this one case*, there are very unusual factors with the level crossings that are very hard to solve, and therefore reach the entirely reasonable conclusion that the many benefits of the upgrade more than justify the increased risk from leaving the crossings as they are, and just get on with it.

The fact that we apparently can't do that sums up a great deal of what is currently wrong with this country.

Couldn't agree more. A classic example of the perfect being allowed to become the enemy of the good.
Very frustrating when the Norwich-Cambridge/Stansted/Oxford [at some future point] would do very well as a half hourly service.

 

[Bald Rick]

No. The way Network Rail assess LX risk is related to the total number of trains over a crossing per day, .

That’s what I said!

I don't understand why we can't accept that *in this one case*

because, if it is accepted ‘in this one case’, then others will want the same in the same circumstances, and one case becomes many.

Also, one day, there will be an incident at the crossing. And someone who signed off the change will have to stand in front of the judge to answer the question from the prosecution “the risk assessment showed that the risk assessment of an incident increased by x, and you chose not to implement the proposed mitigations That would reduce that. As the controlling mind, that makes it your fault. How do you plead To the charge of manslaughter by gross negligence?”

if you think I’m scaremongering, I’m not. I know people who have been through this (or the precursors to it).

 

[Magdalia]

That’s what I said!

Indeed, and assessing LX risk related to the total number of trains over a crossing per day is fundamentally flawed in three different ways.

• Each train passing over a level crossing is not of equal risk: for example length of train, speed and time of day will all lead to different amounts of risk;
• Train movements are not independent, because they run to a timetable, and a train movement following closely after another movement will have a different risk to a train where there has been a long gap since the previous movement: this means that risk cannot be aggregated by summing the risk of each individual movement;
• this is the worst bit, number of trains per day measures the average risk, but what's required is to measure the peak risk, which in most cases will be at the times of day when there is most traffic, both on the rails and on the roads.

Applying these to Ely-Kings Lynn:

• the Middleton sand trains will be of different risk to the Kings Cross passenger trains;
• the risk at Littleport bypass has increased significantly since the 2018 timetable change, even though the number of trains barely changed, because off peak the trains now pass at Littleport not Downham;
• the risk should be managed at 4 trains per hour already, because that is the peak risk.

Also, one day, there will be an incident at the crossing. And someone who signed off the change will have to stand in front of the judge to answer the question from the prosecution “the risk assessment showed that the risk assessment of an incident increased by x, and you chose not to implement the proposed mitigations That would reduce that. As the controlling mind, that makes it your fault. How do you plead To the charge of manslaughter by gross negligence?”

if you think I’m scaremongering, I’m not. I know people who have been through this (or the precursors to it).

Indeed again. If a litigant's solicitor called a risk management professional to give evidence then Network Rail's risk assessments based on number of trains in a day would not stand up in court.

 

[trebor79]

because, if it is accepted ‘in this one case’, then others will want the same in the same circumstances, and one case becomes many.

Where else in the country does a road cross 3 level crossing on 3 different rail lines in little more than a quarter of a mile? I'm struggling to think of another example. Ely North/Prickwillow Road is a unique circumstance.
Even if that were not the case, common sense would say if alternative mitigations are acceptable at Ely, they may well be acceptable elsewhere.

Also, one day, there will be an incident at the crossing. And someone who signed off the change will have to stand in front of the judge to answer the question from the prosecution “the risk assessment showed that the risk assessment of an incident increased by x, and you chose not to implement the proposed mitigations That would reduce that. As the controlling mind, that makes it your fault. How do you plead To the charge of manslaughter by gross negligence?”

if you think I’m scaremongering, I’m not. I know people who have been through this (or the precursors to it).

In that case the crossing should be closed now - you've said it yourself - one day there will be an accident.
Surely the person who signed off would be able to say "Well, we mitigated it by putting in full barriers with obstacle detection. There was no other cost effective mitigant. The deceased deliberately chose to ignore flashing lights, beacon, and the gates and trespassed/drove onto the railway anyway. Therefore fault lies with the deceased."
Why does the railway fret so much over these theoretical issues when in other sectors blatantly unsafe stuff like "smart" motorways gets signed off, people get killed far more regularly than at level crossings and everything's fine?
Is it not just possible that the railway goes a bit over the top on these things?

 

[Magdalia]

It can cope, just about, but the single lead at Ely North together with the two single line sections further north mean it's not resilient to any delays - or at least wasn't pre-COVID when I was travelling from my office near Cambridge North! Whether fixing one, without fixing them all, will make much difference I'm not at all sure.

The practice of coupling an up service to an extra 4 cars at Cambridge that had just come off a down one introduced even more ways for things to fall apart, though I think that's stopped now.

The resilience would be much better if the single lead at Ely North Junction was upgraded.

And, yes, there's very little splitting and joining at Cambridge now.

Where else in the country does a road cross 3 level crossing on 3 different rail lines in little more than a quarter of a mile? I'm struggling to think of another example. Ely North/Prickwillow Road is a unique circumstance.

A simpler situation, but nearby Three Horse Shoes has 4 level crossings in a bit more than a mile.

 

[MikeWM]

because, if it is accepted ‘in this one case’, then others will want the same in the same circumstances, and one case becomes many.

Also, one day, there will be an incident at the crossing. And someone who signed off the change will have to stand in front of the judge to answer the question from the prosecution “the risk assessment showed that the risk assessment of an incident increased by x, and you chose not to implement the proposed mitigations That would reduce that. As the controlling mind, that makes it your fault. How do you plead To the charge of manslaughter by gross negligence?”

if you think I’m scaremongering, I’m not. I know people who have been through this (or the precursors to it).

Oh, I expect you're correct. And this perfectly elaborates what I said in the previous post - this sums up a great deal of what is currently wrong with this country.

 

[Maltazer]

You can't mitigate by putting in full barriers with obstacle detection, because that leads to the crossing beings closed to traffic for an unacceptable amount of time.

The only way to avoid expensive interventions is to increase the number of trains and just leave the crossings as half barriers - and it doesn't sound like anyone would sign off on that.

 

[trebor79]

A simpler situation, but nearby Three Horse Shoes has 4 level crossings in a bit more than a mile.

That's crossing the same railway line 4 times though, not 3 or 4 separate rail routes. If you get stopped at one of the crossings you almost certainly aren't going to get stopped at any of the others.

You can't mitigate by putting in full barriers with obstacle detection, because that leads to the crossing beings closed to traffic for an unacceptable amount of time.

The only way to avoid expensive interventions is to increase the number of trains and just leave the crossings as half barriers - and it doesn't sound like anyone would sign off on that.

Maybe there's some other solution? Like the barriers default to the closed position, and if a road user wants to cross the railway, they press a button or there's an induction loop in the road that (if/when the line is clear) puts the signals to danger, opens the barriers and then closes them again once the vehicle has crossed?
@MikeWM is correct when he says it's symptomatic of what is wrong with this country if the choice is "Spend an insane amount of money on an insanely over-engineered 'solution' or put in the 'too difficult' box forever".

 

[Maltazer]

It's not a quiet country lane though. A traffic study was performed over a 3 day period in November 2016 and found the average number of vehicles using the Peterborough and Kings Lynn crossings to be around 4400 per day (3700 for the Norwich crossing) - that's a lot of people to inconvenience.

 

[TheBigD]

A simpler situation, but nearby Three Horse Shoes has 4 level crossings in a bit more than a mile.

That's crossing the same railway line 4 times though, not 3 or 4 separate rail routes. If you get stopped at one of the crossings you almost certainly aren't going to get stopped at any of the others.

The 4 crossings controlled by Three Horse Shoes signalbox are on 2 different roads.

THS no 1, 2 , & 3 are on one road, and Burnt House on another road that leads off the road with the 3 crossings on.
The distance for road users is just over half a mile, and a really tight bend, between THS no 1 and THS no 2, and a distance of around a 3rd of a mile and another really tight bend between THS no 2 and THS no 3.
Burnt House is on a straight road leading to around 20 houses and a couple of farms, with the turning off on to that on a sharp bend. Granted coming from the Coates direction you can speed over it if nothing is about, but from the March direction you are making a 90 degree turn.

It is absolutely nothing like the situation at Queen Adelaide with 3 crossings in quick succession on 3 different railway lines.

 

[Starmill]

Ideed again. If a litigant's solicitor called a risk management professional to give evidence then Network Rail's risk assessments based on number of trains in a day would not stand up in court

It appears from your posts however that you don't have a subject specific understanding of how crossing safety can be assessed. As a result your grand pronouncements about litigation are very likely to be wrong.

The safety of the crossing will change with any changes in usage. This is categorised over time, but any change the industry wants to make will influence the way the crossing is categorised. This will require the modelling to be done again.

If the number of people on the train rises or the number of vehicles crossing the railway at the crossing rises, the risk will increase and thus mitigations will be recommended by the review of the crossings.

The mitigations are costly and sometimes difficult to implement. Sometimes no mitigation can be recommended because the only way to keep risk within acceptable levels is to close the crossing.

 

[trebor79]

It's not a quiet country lane though. A traffic study was performed over a 3 day period in November 2016 and found the average number of vehicles using the Peterborough and Kings Lynn crossings to be around 4400 per day (3700 for the Norwich crossing) - that's a lot of people to inconvenience.

Hmm. I respectfully suggest the survey is wrong. 4,400 vehicles is an average of once every 20 seconds, day and night. Given there's hardly any traffic at night, it suggests a vehicle every few seconds during the day. That is just plain wrong as anybody who knows the area will instantly realise.
If these are the numbers feeding into the crossing risk assessment, it's conclusions are also wrong.