New Depot at Brantham, Suffolk

[LAX54]

For who? Not for Freighliner, who having got to 9 miles from Ipswich get shunted aside. That could add additional cost for them.

And certainly not for A137 users. Manningtree level crossing is a hot topic, at least a freightliner whizzes through at 70mph which reduces the time the gates are down.

Given GAs shopping list of infrastructure improvements, someone is going to have a big bill at the end of it.

For FL / GB / DBS ! Colchester box have been asking for Platform 4 to be extended and an connection to make it into a loop for years ! would be worth its weight in gold !
Lost count of the times a FL will sit outside Ipswich with no room at the inn, due to a booked freight not going

As for flooding at the new depot, in the years since I went to Colchester box (1989) I have never known that area to flood, warnings we do get, but it never seems to get to the wet stage.

As for access, bi-di from the crossover to Manningtree Stn, reinstate P4, (not that its 'closed' ) would be my choice, plus the bidi section would be very useful when we get failures and the like

 

[Llanigraham]

I have friends that have lived in Brantham for years and they have never known the site to flood

 

[306024]

For FL / GB / DBS ! Colchester box have been asking for Platform 4 to be extended and an connection to make it into a loop for years ! would be worth its weight in gold !
Lost count of the times a FL will sit outside Ipswich with no room at the inn, due to a booked freight not going

As for flooding at the new depot, in the years since I went to Colchester box (1989) I have never known that area to flood, warnings we do get, but it never seems to get to the wet stage.

As for access, bi-di from the crossover to Manningtree Stn, reinstate P4, (not that its 'closed' ) would be my choice, plus the bidi section would be very useful when we get failures and the like

From an operational flexibility perspective you couldn't argue against any of that, it all makes sense of course, but it is only needed for when things go wrong which makes it difficult to construct a busness case, even on the GEML. A loop at Manningtree would only give you an extra 10 minutes max to play with over having to loop the freightliner at Colchester (providing nothing else is on the Goods Roads).

The potential bill for GAs shopping excursion is huge. Having seen how much it costs to change a lightbulb getting the finance for a more flexible layout would be quite an achievement.

 

[eastdyke]

The new depot here will increase daily movements over the twin viaducts ('River Stour' and 'Cattawade').
What are the implications for both Inspection and Maintenance of the structures?

Thanks.

 

[OliverS]

For FL / GB / DBS ! Colchester box have been asking for Platform 4 to be extended and an connection to make it into a loop for years ! would be worth its weight in gold !
Lost count of the times a FL will sit outside Ipswich with no room at the inn, due to a booked freight not going

As for flooding at the new depot, in the years since I went to Colchester box (1989) I have never known that area to flood, warnings we do get, but it never seems to get to the wet stage.

As for access, bi-di from the crossover to Manningtree Stn, reinstate P4, (not that its 'closed' ) would be my choice, plus the bidi section would be very useful when we get failures and the like

If you were going to do that would you extend platform 4 to be full length? There isn't much room behind the waiting room and I would hate to have it demolished and just have a bus shelter there. It gets cold on Manningtree station in the winter wind!

Thinking of platform 4, when was the last time it was used for a passenger service?

 

[theironroad]

For who? Not for Freighliner, who having got to 9 miles from Ipswich get shunted aside. That could add additional cost for them.

And certainly not for A137 users. Manningtree level crossing is a hot topic, at least a freightliner whizzes through at 70mph which reduces the time the gates are down.

Given GAs shopping list of infrastructure improvements, someone is going to have a big bill at the end of it.

My sympathy is a little limited in that manningtree at least has two options , cars can easily use the rail underpass leaving the level crossing for vehicles that cannot use the underpass.

Maybe they should dig out the whole lot and have only a underpass and abolish the level crossing. Who would pay though?

 

[306024]

My sympathy is a little limited in that manningtree at least has two options , cars can easily use the rail underpass leaving the level crossing for vehicles that cannot use the underpass.

Maybe they should dig out the whole lot and have only a underpass and abolish the level crossing. Who would pay though?

Easily? Yes when traffic conditions are light, but not if you have the gates down longer.

The route under the railway is restricted to 9' 6" height, single direction working with priority to traffic from Ipswich. There is only room for a few larger vehicles either side of the level crossing before they start blocking back onto the road that goes under the railway, making it less easy to use the underpass.

Digging the whole lot out is the only solution, and diverting the station drive to come out onto the roundabout. I don't know what the minimum height for an A road bridge is, but you are looking at digging down over two metres, possibly hitting the water table. The diversionary route during construction would involve a huge detour nearly to Colchester which in itself would be a massive issue.

None of which would be a problem in Holland, but the construction and ongoing maintenance costs would be significant.

 

[OliverS]

Easily? Yes when traffic conditions are light, but not if you have the gates down longer.

The route under the railway is restricted to 9' 6" height, single direction working with priority to traffic from Ipswich. There is only room for a few larger vehicles either side of the level crossing before they start blocking back onto the road that goes under the railway, making it less easy to use the underpass.

Digging the whole lot out is the only solution, and diverting the station drive to come out onto the roundabout. I don't know what the minimum height for an A road bridge is, but you are looking at digging down over two metres, possibly hitting the water table. The diversionary route during construction would involve a huge detour nearly to Colchester which in itself would be a massive issue.

None of which would be a problem in Holland, but the construction and ongoing maintenance costs would be significant.

Last time (15 years ago???) they closed the underpass for improvements the queues were half way up Cox's Hill a lot of the time and I have memories of queuing over White Bridge from the other side.

As for the water table, you are a couple of metres above sea level at that point. Wignall Brook essentially runs under the roundabout (actually I think it is just north of the junction, so yes if you dig down pumps will be needed.

I suspect that if you could widen the underpass to two lanes then it would be better. A more radical (and expensive) solution would be a road layout where the level crossing had a separate junction with the roundabout to give more room for HGVs to queue with an additional lane for queuing on the north side.

I wouldn't be surprised if the signalling changes came in at about the same price as all of that...

 

[LAX54]

From an operational flexibility perspective you couldn't argue against any of that, it all makes sense of course, but it is only needed for when things go wrong which makes it difficult to construct a busness case, even on the GEML. A loop at Manningtree would only give you an extra 10 minutes max to play with over having to loop the freightliner at Colchester (providing nothing else is on the Goods Roads).

The potential bill for GAs shopping excursion is huge. Having seen how much it costs to change a lightbulb getting the finance for a more flexible layout would be quite an achievement.

I would have thought a business case would be quite simple, I have count of the amount of times we could have used a bi-di facilty at Manningtree via the Down Platform when we have had a track failure, points failure, train failure.....

 

[Class 170101]

I would have thought a business case would be quite simple, I have count of the amount of times we could have used a bi-di facilty at Manningtree via the Down Platform when we have had a track failure, points failure, train failure.....

I would agree. It would make the running of the depot simplier too but not relying on three sets of points working all the time to leave the depot.