Ely area capacity enhancement (EACE) and possible service pattern

[greataj]

https://www.networkrail.co.uk/runni...lway-in-anglia/ely-area-capacity-enhancement/

Is there any recent update regrading this? Surely there's a strong business case for this to be done both on a passenger and freight perspective.

As detailed in the link, the existing Ely capacity utilisation is (6.5tph):

1x London Kings Cross - King's Lynn (GN)
1x Norwich - Liverpool Lime St (EM)
1x Birmingham New St - Stansted Airport (XC)
1x Norwich - Cambridge/Stansted Airport (LE)
0.5x Ipswich - Peterborough (LE)
2x Freight

Filling in some of the gaps, this is how I would see the new capacity (10tph) being best utilised:

2x London Kings Cross - King's Lynn
1x Norwich - Liverpool Lime St
1x Birmingham New St - Stansted Airport
1x Norwich - Cambridge/Stansted Airport
1x Peterborough - Ipswich
1x Birmingham New St - Cambridge (new/additional service)
3x Freight

OR

2x London Kings Cross - King's Lynn
1x Norwich - Liverpool Lime St
1x Birmingham New St - Cambridge (rather than Stansted Airport)
1x Norwich - Cambridge/Stansted Airport
1x Peterborough - Ipswich
1x Peterborough - Stansted Airport (new service)
3x Freight

The first option would essentially be an extension of the current Birmingham New St - Leicester service all the way out to Cambridge, providing capacity uplift along the Leicester - Peterborough route as well as the Peterborough - Cambridge section. The second option would create no change for the Leicester - Peterborough section, but would still double service frequency on Peterborough - Cambridge and could replace Stansted Airport service with bi-mode units (in any case you still wouldn't have capacity at Stansted to run extra services to there, unless the Norwich originating trains were to give way for it, so one would have to terminate at Cambridge).

Would be interesting to see people's thoughts?

 

[30907]

ISTR local authorities want 2tph Norwich-Cambridge.
I also wonder whether Ely-Peterborough will have capacity for a 4th passenger working each hour.

 

[TheDavibob]

I've often wondered if a slightly more aggressive approach of 2tph Norwich-Cambridge-(Stansted?) and 2tph (Midlands)-Peterborough-Cambridge but no Norwich-Liverpool would allow for more even timetabling and better overall capacity at the cost of annoying those going from Norwich north and west, essentially making the Ely-Cambridge corridor the focus for all services and requiring changes for anything from the various branches. With two trains to Lynn and an hourly Ipswich-Peterborough this would fit within the 7tph budget, and be a bit more flexible as the coupling of the paths of the Norwich-Liverpool into and out of Ely is broken.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

If Felixstowe to Nuneaton the Midlands and the north ever gets electrified and improved, I would have thought that Ely is absolutely key.

 

[cle]

The Leicester-P'boro stretch definitely could utilize 2tph as an aside.

For Ely, it feels like the most immediate is Ipswich-P'boro to hourly. After that, the tides seem to all be about additional Cambridge services. If South is as successful and strategic as everybody is projecting, then a Stansted-Norwich or P'boro (and on?) - is likely.

Interestingly, EWR's latest consultation docs didn't flag an extension to Norwich or absorption of the existing path. EWR may never get to Ely - but North, or even the 'East' turnback mentioned.

 

[30907]

I've often wondered if a slightly more aggressive approach of 2tph Norwich-Cambridge-(Stansted?) and 2tph (Midlands)-Peterborough-Cambridge but no Norwich-Liverpool would allow for more even timetabling and better overall capacity at the cost of annoying those going from  Norwich north and west

...which I suspect is a significant flow

 

[ScotGG]

Where's the housing going up and where's the new towns planned? That will determine a lot of demand in future and what should increase.

Is there much planned between Ely and Kings Lynn? Many homes are planned between Norwich and Ely so that seems an obvious candidate for all stopping 2 tph.

 

[Magdalia]

Would be interesting to see people's thoughts?

My thoughts are that there is a lot of uncertainty! For example:

• the OBR forecast and the Chancellor's statement next week
• the spending review
• mayoral and county council elections in May (note that the county council and the combined authority both contributed to the 2018 funding package)
• the report of the New Towns Taskforce, expected before the parliamentary summer recess

A lot has already changed since the Strategic Outline Business Case in 2020 and the last round of consultation in 2021. Most important are the increased importance of Cambridge and the deterioration in the UK public sector finances.

In the meantime, we can look at the data for 2023/24 to see where we are now (strictly speaking where we were a year ago). I think these are the biggest point to point passenger flows through Ely North Junction in thousands:

80 Cambridge-Peterborough
77 Cambridge-Kings Lynn
76 Cambridge-Norwich
60 Kings Lynn-Kings Cross
52 Downham Market-Kings Cross
50 Cambridge-Downham Market
45 Stansted-Peterborough
44 Cambridge-Littleport
42 Stansted-Norwich
41 Peterborough-Norwich
33 Cambridge-March
31 Ely-Kings Lynn

From the above I'd say that Cambridge-Peterborough is most in need of improvement, and that it shouldn't have to wait for more capacity. If anything, the above understates the importance of Cambridge-Peterborough because of connectivity at Peterborough with the ECML. There are more than 10k journeys between Cambridge and each of Leeds, York and Edinburgh.

Cambridge-Peterborough is likely to have most political impetus too as it is all within the Mayor's responsibility.

 

[greataj]

So on that basis it would make sense for the Norwich-Peterborough route to give way in effect to a 2tph service from each of the three branches down to Cambridge, as suggested up thread. However that would then give a net gain of a further 2tph down the Ely-Cambridge stretch, which there might be appetite for, but would there be the capacity through Cambridge North?

Also the accumulated totals on each route, for example the 80k doing Cambridge-Peterborough plus the 33k Cambridge-March using the same capacity is important to factor in. The Kings Lynn and Peterborough branches are far more patronised than Norwich on those numbers, but Kings Lynn does at least have 8-carriage capacity, whereas Peterborough is usually only 3, so has to be by far and away the most constrained route. Anyone who's travelled on that route will likely have seen that from bitter experience. Lengthening trains on Cambridge-Peterborough would help, but is a mammoth task as many stations on that route and beyond don't have platforms that can be easily extended to accommodate that, Stansted in particular.

As for new housing, both the Cambridge and Peterborough surrounding areas are significant builders, and Stansted Airport will be expanding rapidly in future years. As alluded to before, you can't really put additional capacity into Stansted itself, but increasing capacity from Peterborough-Cambridge would help free up some of the existing capacity for Stansted passengers, so these are the kind of factors that you'd hope be considered.

 

[65477]

When GBR is established could not additional capacity be created by combining/splitting trains at Ely? It would need some stock changes, that is unless Flirt can run in multiple with a 170.

 

[Magdalia]

Also the accumulated totals on each route, for example the 80k doing Cambridge-Peterborough plus the 33k Cambridge-March using the same capacity is important to factor in.

Not forgetting the 45k Stansted-Peterborough and >30k Cambridge-ECML flows.

many stations on that route and beyond don't have platforms that can be easily extended to accommodate that, Stansted in particular.

Stansted Airport platform capacity is indeed a significant constraint, made worse by the introduction of the class 745s on the Stansted Express to/from London.

But all stations between Stansted and Ely have long platforms, March could have with not very much work, and Manea and Whittlesea could be lengthened relatively easily too. It is absurd that services critical for Cambridge are being constrained by short platforms at stations more than 50 miles away with small flows to/from Cambridge.

The data shows that most use of trains between Peterborough and Ely is local East Anglian traffic not long distance journeys to/from the Midlands and North. Birmingham-Stansted run by Cross Country and Norwich-Liverpool run by East Midlands has resulted in the East Anglian parts of those routes not getting the resources they need. Railway history demonstrates that the long distance cross country routes in East Anglia need to be run outwards from East Anglia, not inwards from the Midlands and North. Great British Railways and devolution offer an opportunity for a change in priorities.

When GBR is established could not additional capacity be created by combining/splitting trains at Ely? It would need some stock changes, that is unless Flirt can run in multiple with a 170.

The trend is away from splitting and joining because of its big risks at times of disruption. There was a discussion here recently that showed how rare it is now.

 

[cle]

To me it feels like a turnback south of South (but before Stansted) would enable longer shuttle services up to Norwich or P’boro direction. Even shuttles to Ely if doable / worthwhile.

I agree that having 2-3 car services on our scares Ely paths is not a good thing, longer term.

And if freight paths aren’t being used we have to be able to repurpose after a reasonable time. Platform work (bays/extras) at Ely might enable more capacity pre-junction!

 

[TheBigD]

But all stations between Stansted and Ely have long platforms, March could have with not very much work, and Manea and Whittlesea could be lengthened relatively easily too. It is absurd that services critical for Cambridge are being constrained by short platforms at stations more than 50 miles away with small flows to/from Cambridge.

March Up platform is constrained by ME45 signal protecting the level crossing, and the diverging junction on to the East curve in to Whitemoor.
March Down platform is constrained by ME4 signal protecting West Jn, and ME37 signal protecting the level crossing.
Extending platforms at March would require alot of work.
Currently 5 x23m can be accommodated though it is very tight.

To me it feels like a turnback south of South (but before Stansted) would enable longer shuttle services up to Norwich or P’boro direction. Even shuttles to Ely if doable / worthwhile.

I agree that having 2-3 car services on our scares Ely paths is not a good thing, longer term.

And if freight paths aren’t being used we have to be able to repurpose after a reasonable time. Platform work (bays/extras) at Ely might enable more capacity pre-junction!

The 3 car 170s on the XC Stansted service have plenty of space on them, with free seats on peak services between Ely and Peterborough. The only overcrowding that occurs is between Cambridge and Ely northbound where the 3 car XC 170 is the first service for 25 minutes (reduces to 15 from December).
The (generally) 2 car units on EMR's Norwich service are also a good match for the current traffic, though when the GEML is closed on Sundays they can get very full between Ely and Norwich and vv.

On a separate note, the service off the March Line in to Cambridge is the worse of all the lines in to Cambridge with a later arrival in to Cambridge and earlier last train from Cambridge than all the other lines.

 

[bspahh]

On a separate note, the service off the March Line in to Cambridge is the worse of all the lines in to Cambridge with a later arrival in to Cambridge and earlier last train from Cambridge than all the other lines.

Demand will also be depressed on the line to Peterborough by the ticket prices.

Its just over half an hour from Ely to both Peterborough and Kings Lynn.

From Ely, anytime day return tickets to Peterborough are £17.20. To Kings Lynn, they are £11.70 on a weekday, £8.90 on a weekend, possibly with another 1/3rd off with a Network Railcard.

 

[Magdalia]

March Up platform is constrained by ME45 signal protecting the level crossing, and the diverging junction on to the East curve in to Whitemoor.
March Down platform is constrained by ME4 signal protecting West Jn, and ME37 signal protecting the level crossing.
Extending platforms at March would require alot of work.
Currently 5 x23m can be accommodated though it is very tight.

Thanks. It doesn't help not being able to see March on the Open Train Times map.

On a separate note, the service off the March Line in to Cambridge is the worse of all the lines in to Cambridge with a later arrival in to Cambridge and earlier last train from Cambridge than all the other lines.

This is a good example of my point about the service being managed from a long way away by people who don't care about it very much.

Demand will also be depressed on the line to Peterborough by the ticket prices.

Its just over half an hour from Ely to both Peterborough and Kings Lynn.

From Ely, anytime day return tickets to Peterborough are £17.20. To Kings Lynn, they are £11.70 on a weekday, £8.90 on a weekend, possibly with another 1/3rd off with a Network Railcard.

Thanks. Does that work in a similar way for people going the other way, especially to Cambridge?

I agree that having 2-3 car services on our scares Ely paths is not a good thing, longer term.

I think it is not a good thing now!

To me it feels like a turnback south of South (but before Stansted) would enable longer shuttle services up to Norwich or P’boro direction. Even shuttles to Ely if doable / worthwhile.

Interesting ideas but probably for another discussion.

 

[TheBigD]

Thanks. It doesn't help not being able to see March on the Open Train Times map.

Off topic but the layout (with a couple of errors) is shown on traksy, though as there are no data feeds for the line, no train movements are shown.

TRAKSY.UK

Live train maps and timetables

traksy.uk

 

[bspahh]

Thanks. Does that work in a similar way for people going the other way, especially to Cambridge?

Yes.

From Cambridge, anytime day return tickets to Peterborough are £26.90. To Kings Lynn, they are £17.60 on a weekday, £10.80 on a weekend, possibly with another 1/3rd off with a Network Railcard.

Off peak day returns are a little cheaper, and there are advanced single tickets to Peterborough.

 

[Trainbike46]

The 3 car 170s on the XC Stansted service have plenty of space on them, with free seats on peak services between Ely and Peterborough. The only overcrowding that occurs is between Cambridge and Ely northbound where the 3 car XC 170 is the first service for 25 minutes (reduces to 15 from December).
The (generally) 2 car units on EMR's Norwich service are also a good match for the current traffic, though when the GEML is closed on Sundays they can get very full between Ely and Norwich and vv.

That's different then from how it was pre-covid, when the XC trains were packed at least all the way to Peterborough (from Cambridge), except for the first and last few trains of the day. In my view, these should be 4-coaches, which AIUI is the maximum that fits in the Stansted bay.

For the Liverpool-Norwich, Something that may contribute is the pricing strategy. When I lived to Cambridge, travelling to Nottingham or Liverpool was alway cheaper via London, despite the direct train to both from Ely. If this happens for more flows, I understand how two coaches is enough.

On a separate note, the service off the March Line in to Cambridge is the worse of all the lines in to Cambridge with a later arrival in to Cambridge and earlier last train from Cambridge than all the other lines.

The amount of times I've travelled via Stevenage, because it was too early or too late to go from Peterborough via Ely is kind of insane.

 

[TheBigD]

That's different then from how it was pre-covid, when the XC trains were packed at least all the way to Peterborough (from Cambridge), except for the first and last few trains of the day. In my view, these should be 4-coaches, which AIUI is the maximum that fits in the Stansted bay.

Pre-Covid around half of the services were 2 car. Since then 170518-523 have been extended to 3 cars, and now all Stansted services are booked 3 cars.

Additionally, there is still 1 round trip missing (0922 ex BHM, 1327 ex SSD), and only around half continue through to Stansted, the rest are currently cut short at Cambridge.

Stansted platform 2 can take 4 x 23m, so 2 x 2 car 170. Pre-Covid the Sunday 1222 ex BHM and 1625 were booked a 4 car but it is now a 3 car. There are no booked 4 car workings to Stansted anymore.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 23 Mar 2025 ==

The amount of times I've travelled via Stevenage, because it was too early or too late to go from Peterborough via Ely is kind of insane.

Pre-Covid it was proposed that the 0740 CBG-SSD was to start back at PBO approx 0645, with the unit tagged on to the rear of 0515 CBG-BHM and detached at Peterborough (freight paths at the time prevented a separate ecs service).

 

[ac6000cw]

EACE is not mentioned in today's "Green light for over 50 road and rail upgrades supporting over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 jobs" Government press release, even as an 'under consideration' scheme.

But there is 'funding confirmed' of £2.5 billion "to drive forward the delivery of East-West Rail to unlock growth across the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor" so I think we know where the priorities lie, rail wise. Dualling of the A10 road between Ely and Cambridge is also 'under consideration'.

 

[Brubulus]

The quickest way to boost capacity between Cambridge and Peterborough is to move the split point on Norwich to Liverpool to Ely. This creates a slight performance risk at Ely, but this can be managed, given that Platform 6 at Cambridge can have all-day availability. This then enables a Norwich-Liverpool and Cambridge-Liverpool hourly service.

EACE is not mentioned in today's "Green light for over 50 road and rail upgrades supporting over 39,000 new homes and 42,000 jobs" Government press release, even as an 'under consideration' scheme.

But there is 'funding confirmed' of £2.5 billion "to drive forward the delivery of East-West Rail to unlock growth across the Oxford-Cambridge Growth Corridor" so I think we know where the priorities lie, rail wise. Dualling of the A10 road between Ely and Cambridge is also 'under consideration'.

The issue with A10 dialling is that Cambridge can't deal with the traffic as is!

 

[CMS1]

Out of interest, why was Huntingdon to Cambridge line not used for this crosscountry traffic instead of being made a busway, to prevent the Ely bottleneck? Peterborough to Cambridge was 7 miles shorter via Huntingdon than via Ely. Also the Ipswich-Peterborough trains could have gone that way as an extension of the hourly Cambridge service, whilst about 12 miles longer the line speeds are higher (current Ipswich - Peterborough is painfully slow) and it would be double the frequency.

 

[bspahh]

Out of interest, why was Huntingdon to Cambridge line not used for this crosscountry traffic instead of being made a busway? Peterborough to Cambridge was 7 miles shorter via Huntingdon than via Ely. Also the Ipswich-Peterborough trains could have gone that way as an extension of the hourly Cambridge service, whilst about 12 miles longer the line speeds are higher (current Ipswich - Peterborough is painfully slow) and it would be double the frequency.

Huntingdon to Cambridge was a single track line with a load of level crossings, including one across Milton Road in the North of Cambridge. The dry bits of land around St Ives and Huntingdon have been built on. Given sufficient concrete, you can build a railway across a flood plain, but its not cheap. Ipswich to Peterborough would also need to turn around in Cambridge, which would take more time, and use up paths on a busy bit of railway.

 

[ac6000cw]

The quickest way to boost capacity between Cambridge and Peterborough is to move the split point on Norwich to Liverpool to Ely. This creates a slight performance risk at Ely, but this can be managed, given that Platform 6 at Cambridge can have all-day availability. This then enables a Norwich-Liverpool and Cambridge-Liverpool hourly service.

But that only adds a bit of extra capacity between Ely and Cambridge (which with 8-car GN trains every 30 minutes plus XC plus GA to/from Norwich plus peak extras has quite a lot already), not between Ely and Peterborough other than through lengthening the EMR trains, which you could do anyway without adding a splitting/joining performance risk. EMR is already running 3-car 170s on some of those trains, which is a capacity boost. The extra capacity doesn't have to come by running direct trains.

The issue with A10 dialling is that Cambridge can't deal with the traffic as is!

It's really about dualling the A10 between the A142 at the south edge of Ely to the A14 at the north edge of Cambridge - important for truck traffic (like the agricultural traffic to, from and around the Fens), vans as well as cars.

 

[Brubulus]

But that only adds a bit of extra capacity between Ely and Cambridge (which with 8-car GN trains every 30 minutes plus XC plus GA to/from Norwich plus peak extras has quite a lot already), not between Ely and Peterborough other than through lengthening the EMR trains, which you could do anyway without adding a splitting/joining performance risk. EMR is already running 3-car 170s on some of those trains, which is a capacity boost. The extra capacity doesn't have to come by running direct trains.


It's really about dualling the A10 between the A142 at the south edge of Ely to the A14 at the north edge of Cambridge - important for truck traffic (like the agricultural traffic to, from and around the Fens), vans as well as cars.

Unsure of how it will resolve congestion at Milton interchange, unless there is a plan to remove the local access and put in place a direct link to the A14 eastbound.

Ely-Cambridge doesn't really have a capacity issue, except that XC needs 4 cars. The issue is that 2tph between Cambridge and Peterborough is a necessity and this is a really good way of achieving it. 2tph between Cambridge and Norwich is a nice to have, but harder to implement and less politically viable (Cambridge and Peterborough in same Mayoral authority)

Cambridge-Peterbrough at 2tph also enables better ECML access alongside this proposal giving Cambridge more direct links.

 

[cle]

I would 'vote' to truncate the Ipswich service at Ely, but increase it to hourly - or send it onto Kings Lynn (if that is at all easier at Ely?) - knowing that is probably the most marginal service in the mix, and if an additional P'boro path was to be opened up to Cambridge.

I do think that bays (after longer services) might be easier to deliver than many additional paths, closing crossings, building roads etc (many of these types rail projects end up being roading ones in drag) - you could add locals to Norwich especially (connecting into fast KX) or from the P'boro direction too.

 

[whoosh]

But all stations between Stansted and Ely have long platforms, March could have with not very much work, and Manea and Whittlesea could be lengthened relatively easily too. It is absurd that services critical for Cambridge are being constrained by short platforms at stations more than 50 miles away with small flows to/from Cambridge.

You say relatively easily, but the survey for Waterbeach to have platform extensions to modern standards was looking at piles 20 metres deep! I don't know if that's what they did in the end, but the ground conditions in the fens aren't particularly easy to work with!

Out of interest, why was Huntingdon to Cambridge line not used for this crosscountry traffic instead of being made a busway, to prevent the Ely bottleneck? Peterborough to Cambridge was 7 miles shorter via Huntingdon than via Ely. Also the Ipswich-Peterborough trains could have gone that way as an extension of the hourly Cambridge service, whilst about 12 miles longer the line speeds are higher (current Ipswich - Peterborough is painfully slow) and it would be double the frequency.

That would've required joined up thinking. So joined up, that four-tracking Huntingdon to Fletton would've needed doing. It's a pinch point now with none of the trains that currently run via Ely, and also, you can't reach platforms 6 and 7 at Peterborough from (and certainly not to!) Huntingdon.

 

[Magdalia]

Out of interest, why was Huntingdon to Cambridge line not used for this crosscountry traffic instead of being made a busway, to prevent the Ely bottleneck?

Huntingdon to Cambridge was a single track line with a load of level crossings, including one across Milton Road in the North of Cambridge.

There is a misunderstanding here, Cambridge-Peterborough never ran via Huntingdon (except for Eastern Counties 151 bus).

But Cambridge-Peterborough did run via St Ives, Chatteris and March. Until the 1960s this was the main route, and was double track throughout. In particular the large number of coal trains from Whitemoor to Temple Mills ran via St Ives.

St Ives-Huntingdon was part of the route to Kettering and it closed in 1959. It had very low route availability because of wooden trestle bridges over the River Ouse.

Level crossings were an issue, though Milton Road had an underpass like Ely and Stonea. The biggest level crossing issue was Histon, which got a bridge in 1963.

The coal traffic finished in summer 1966 and less than a year later St Ives-March was closed. The Chatteris-March section later became the A141 road.

Cambridge-St Ives passenger service lasted until 1970, after that the main traffic was sand and gravel from Fen Drayton which ran until about 1992.