How would you remodel Ely North Junction and surrounding lines?

[Nottingham59]

How much of that 800 metres would be earthworks, and how much concrete viaduct, in a grade separation on "normal" terrain? How would that be different on a Fenland peat bog with unstable ground conditions?

For what it's worth, HS2 generally transitions from embankment to viaduct at between 6m and 10m above ground level. If you only need 7m rail-to-rail height distance, then the economic structure is likely to be embankment (unless there is no space for it) or when actually crossing other infrastructure.

HS2 standard slope is 1 in 2.5, implying a total width of around 25m for a 7m high embankment supporting a double track aligment.

If you're interested in the ground conditions around Ely, the BGS borehole archive is viewable here:

https://mapapps2.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/home.html?layer=BGSBoreholes

EDIT:
Many of the deeper boreholes in the vicinity of Ely North junction show soft weathered clays down to around 10-15m, lying on stronger clays and mudstones below that. I don't know what that means for depth of piles that would be required.

 

[Bamford]

Would it be possible to split/join 158s on the Norwich - Nottingham - Liverpool service at Ely, with a portion for Cambridge aswell? You'd get the much wanted Peterborough - Cambridge enhancement without having to touch the north junction. Not sure if this could be done in the station ATM.

 

[Maltazer]

Would it be possible to split/join 158s on the Norwich - Nottingham - Liverpool service at Ely, with a portion for Cambridge aswell? You'd get the much wanted Peterborough - Cambridge enhancement without having to touch the north junction. Not sure if this could be done in the station ATM.

Sounds far too sensible.

If freight demand has fallen too with ships switching from Felixstowe to London instead, the only remaining services to fit in are the additional Peterborough - Ipswich every other hour, and another hourly Kings Lynn service.

Would those extra 3 paths per hour really require crossing interventions?

 

[zwk500]

Would it be possible to split/join 158s on the Norwich - Nottingham - Liverpool service at Ely, with a portion for Cambridge aswell? You'd get the much wanted Peterborough - Cambridge enhancement without having to touch the north junction. Not sure if this could be done in the station ATM.

Signalling wise it can, timetable wise I'd be *very* surprised if it lined up. And that's before the issues with portion working over such a long service get considered.

 

[Topological]

Signalling wise it can, timetable wise I'd be *very* surprised if it lined up. And that's before the issues with portion working over such a long service get considered.

Given that the train already portion works then splitting is not completely daft. Instead of part going to a siding in Nottingham, part would go to Cambridge.

It would need extra units though because the trip to the siding in Nottingham is much shorter.

At least the longest segment of the journey is not portion worked.

IF platform lengths allow, then increasing the frequency between Ely and Cambridge would seem more practical as it avoids the need to join/split and can be done with EMUs. The additional service would not need to cross the junction. Not quite as good as a direct Peterborough to Cambridge, but does increase the ease of changing trains at Ely.

 

[ac6000cw]

If freight demand has fallen too with ships switching from Felixstowe to London instead,

There's already a daily Tinsley - London Gateway intermodal routed via Ely and Cambridge, so don't assume that some traffic moving away from Felixstowe to Gateway means it's not going via Ely (or won't do in the future, or that other container ship traffic won't replace what's moved/moving away from Felixstowe).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2025 ==

Signalling wise it can, timetable wise I'd be *very* surprised if it lined up. And that's before the issues with portion working over such a long service get considered.

I agree - there's only three platforms at Ely, and they are quite heavily utilised (both by passenger trains and two of them as running lines for freight), plus you'd have to provide crew for the Cambridge portion.

Also have to deal with the situation of what to do when the 'main' part of the train is late arriving from Norwich (not uncommon because the inbound working from Nottingham etc. has been delayed) and it's not possible to leave the 'Cambridge' portion blocking a platform/running line waiting for it.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

There's already a daily Tinsley - London Gateway intermodal routed via Ely and Cambridge, so don't assume that some traffic moving away from Felixstowe to Gateway means it's not going via Ely (or won't do in the future, or that other container ship traffic won't replace what's moved/moving away from Felixstowe).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jun 2025 ==


I agree - there's only three platforms at Ely, and they are quite heavily utilised (both by passenger trains and two of them as running lines for freight), plus you'd have to provide crew for the Cambridge portion.

Also have to deal with the situation of what to do when the 'main' part of the train is late arriving from Norwich (not uncommon because the inbound working from Nottingham etc. has been delayed) and it's not possible to leave the 'Cambridge' portion blocking a platform/running line waiting for it.

Thank you for that. I've been wondering how this transfer from Felixstowe to London Gateway would affect workings on the North London Line west of Gospel Oak. Mind you, the section between Seven Sisters and Cheshunt is very busy in the peak period and would probably struggle with additional freight workings during those hours.

 

[Zomboid]

agree - there's only three platforms at Ely, and they are quite heavily utilised (both by passenger trains and two of them as running lines for freight), plus you'd have to provide crew for the Cambridge portion.

Also have to deal with the situation of what to do when the 'main' part of the train is late arriving from Norwich (not uncommon because the inbound working from Nottingham etc. has been delayed) and it's not possible to leave the 'Cambridge' portion blocking a platform/running line waiting for it.

Are there times of the day when a 2 car 158 would be overwhelmed with Cambridge to Ely passengers?

I like the general idea, but I suspect like most exercises in crayoning it'll fall down on practicality.

 

[Bald Rick]

Would those extra 3 paths per hour really require crossing interventions?

An extra 1 trai an hour does, so 3 - definitely.

 

[ac6000cw]

Are there times of the day when a 2 car 158 would be overwhelmed with Cambridge to Ely passengers?

There's 4tph (off-peak, with some peak-time GA 720 extras) between Cambridge and Ely already, but not evenly spaced. The 2tph GN ones being 8-car, 1tph XC 3-car and 1tph GA 3/4-car 755s (plus a few 5-car 720s in the peaks).

In reality I would hope that if a 2-car 158 was packed to bursting, sensible passengers would wait for the next Cambridge to Ely train (or platform staff would stop them boarding).

But personally I think splitting and joining the EMR service would be madness given it's often poor timekeeping (almost inevitable when it interacts with so many other routes and trains between Liverpool/Manchester and Norwich).

 

[dk1]

Would it be possible to split/join 158s on the Norwich - Nottingham - Liverpool service at Ely, with a portion for Cambridge aswell? You'd get the much wanted Peterborough - Cambridge enhancement without having to touch the north junction. Not sure if this could be done in the station ATM.

It can be done and was in the past but was and still would be an operational nightmare. This has been suggested so many times on this forum.

 

[Maltazer]

It can be done and was in the past but was and still would be an operational nightmare. This has been suggested so many times on this forum.

Combine it with cutting Norwich-Liverpool back to Peterborough and you get Peterborough-Cambridge, Norwich-Cambridge and Norwich-Peterborough direct trains, with far less imported delay.

Still a nightmare?

 

[Brubulus]

Would it be possible to split/join 158s on the Norwich - Nottingham - Liverpool service at Ely, with a portion for Cambridge aswell? You'd get the much wanted Peterborough - Cambridge enhancement without having to touch the north junction. Not sure if this could be done in the station ATM.

This is far more feasible and sensible than some other posters believe. Platform 6 at Cambridge is barely ever in use since the XC services went back to running to Stansted.

If there is a delay out of Norwich, it's a 16 minute journey to Ely from Cambridge, so the risks there aren't that substantial, since the train from Cambridge can be delayed until the EMR service is 17 mins from Ely. The train already has to reverse at Ely and split at Nottingham, and the split would likely have a relatively minimal impact on dwells, given the need to reverse. The timings for Cambridge-Ely look like they would work so that does not look like an issue.

 

[zwk500]

Combine it with cutting Norwich-Liverpool back to Peterborough and you get Peterborough-Cambridge, Norwich-Cambridge and Norwich-Peterborough direct trains, with far less imported delay.

Still a nightmare?

But what problem are you solving there that isn't solved by the existing provision of XC and GA's services?

 

[Maltazer]

But what problem are you solving there that isn't solved by the existing provision of XC and GA's services?

Extra services between Peterborough-Cambridge and Norwich-Cambridge, without extra paths through Ely North

 

[zwk500]

Extra services between Peterborough-Cambridge and Norwich-Cambridge, without extra paths through Ely North

If you're adding an Ely-Cambridge portion to the Norwich-Peterborough (and potentially further), how are you getting extra Norwich-Cambridge direct without additional paths across Ely North?

It also still hasn't solved the issue of getting a slot to do the detach/attach that lines up all 3 sides of Ely in the timetable.

It's always difficult to guess whether the operational or infrastructural solutions to a capacity problem are better value to the railway's end users, but in all cases operations can only stretch things so far. At a certain point (IMO, long past for Ely!) you can't get around the issue of more infrastructure capacity being required.

 

[Maltazer]

If you're adding an Ely-Cambridge portion to the Norwich-Peterborough (and potentially further), how are you getting extra Norwich-Cambridge direct without additional paths across Ely North?

There would be an Ely-Cambridge portion on the Norwich-Peterborough and the Peterborough-Norwich.

And now I see the problem - there would be a Cambridge-Ely waiting to attach going to Peterborough or Norwich, so three bits of train to play with and a massive dwell at Ely to detach one and attach another.

Forget that then!

 

[dk1]

Combine it with cutting Norwich-Liverpool back to Peterborough and you get Peterborough-Cambridge, Norwich-Cambridge and Norwich-Peterborough direct trains, with far less imported delay.

Still a nightmare?

That’s even worse in my opinion.

 

[HSTEd]

That all depends on the site, how much space there is, the angles, and ground conditions.

The difference in cost between concrete viaduct and embankment isn’t that much, even with big piling.

There was a proposal, ages ago, for building a nuclear plant in really bad ground conditions. The plan was to dig a hole, fill it with water and then have the nuclear plant on a barge.

The barge would basically be floating in a pond only marginally larger than the barge, but it would give effectively perfect weight distribution on the ground.

I suppose, in extremis, you could always resort to that!
But I expect that is probably overkill unless you are literally building on quicksand.

I've looked at Ely a lot recently and I am honestly just glad it is not my job to try and sort it out.

 

[Magdalia]

There was a proposal, ages ago, for building a nuclear plant in really bad ground conditions. The plan was to dig a hole, fill it with water and then have the nuclear plant on a barge.

The barge would basically be floating in a pond only marginally larger than the barge, but it would give effectively perfect weight distribution on the ground.

I suppose, in extremis, you could always resort to that!
But I expect that is probably overkill unless you are literally building on quicksand.

This is roughly speaking how the existing railways were laid on the Fens.

It has worked for about 180 years, but with significant drawbacks. Unlike a pond, which can be kept at the same level, the Fenland peat expands and contracts according to the weather. It expands and rises wen wet, it shrinks and falls when dry, and at different rates in adjacent locations. Over time there is more shrinkage than expansion, hence much of the Fens now being below sea level. Heavy structures are difficult, hence lots of level crossings. It means that it is impossible to build a really fast railway (see the ECML at Holme Fen). A bit off topic, but it is also why a lot of the Fens does not have mains gas or mains sewage.

We have had very little rain in the Fens for three months now, and are just entering a heatwave. Look out for lengthy speed restrictions in the Fens this summer as a result of variable shrinkage of the peat on which the track is floating.

 

[CMS1]

An alternative idea.... When reinstating the full junction at Haughley, add a curve at the same time and send the Norwich to Stansted services that way instead, relieving Ely and the WAML. It also will connect Bury St Edmunds & Newmarket (both tourist destinations) to Stansted and Norwich... 4 miles longer than current route.

 

[dk1]

An alternative idea.... When reinstating the full junction at Haughley, add a curve at the same time and send the Norwich to Stansted services that way instead, relieving Ely and the WAML. It also will connect Bury St Edmunds & Newmarket (both tourist destinations) to Stansted and Norwich... 4 miles longer than current route.

I have heard it all now. You will deprive the Thetford line of their train service, add extra trains to the single line section through Newmarket when there are no spare paths, and cost £millions to create a new curve and two additional junctions. Just why??

 

[CMS1]

This is a speculative forum! For the reasons above. The Ely enhancements being discussed would cost many times more and aren't included in this goverment's plans.

 

[dk1]

This is a speculative forum! For the reasons above. The Ely enhancements being discussed would cost many times more and aren't included in this goverment's plans.

If they aren’t included then this option certainly wouldnt be

 

[cle]

Stopping patterns / services, and Ely station itself do occur to me as being valid options to explore.

For example - could Ely station be rebuilt to either have some bays, or a fourth through platform. Especially on the sides that might enable the odd extra service which doesn't cross a lot of lines and junctions.

Such as: a south-facing bay on the eastern side which operates 1tph to Ipswich, or 1t2ph to make it up to hourly. But may as well do hourly if you can.

Or:
north-facing bay on the eastern side which runs a 1tph stopper to Norwich (allows commuting/frequency into Norwich, or sped up regionals) - but at Ely, connects into the Cruiser for quick Cambridge and London connections.

These could add frequency without messing with the operations too much. If it was a new through platform, this could run Norwich - Ely - Ipswich (woe betide anyone using it for the full length) - to move it out of the platforms, but really it's two threaded services. I'm not convinced on the Ipswich side demand for Peterborough.

Same thing though - could we sneak an extra Ely-Peterborough or even Cambridge (spare bays) - Peterborough hourly extra, if there was an additional western side platform.

Expanding the station isn't nothing - but it might well be less civils than a lot of the roading options being through around, and enable some incremental growth in services. Ultimately these could all be a bit longer too.

 

[Zomboid]

Looking at the current provision of tracks, if you're going to add a platform to the east then I don't see why you wouldn't make it a through platform. You could always terminate or reverse trains there.

 

[CMS1]

Or they get a move on with East West Rail! It will be a far shorter route for connecting the West Midlands with Cambridge/East Anglia, plus going via a lot more key cities/towns, and avoiding Ely. E.g. Birmingham, Coventry, Rugby, Northampton, MK, Bedford, Cambridge, Stansted (unfortunately there's a missing curve at Bletchley).

 

[cle]

Or they get a move on with East West Rail! It will be a far shorter route for connecting the West Midlands with Cambridge/East Anglia, plus going via a lot more key cities/towns, and avoiding Ely. E.g. Birmingham, Coventry, Rugby, Northampton, MK, Bedford, Cambridge, Stansted (unfortunately there's a missing curve at Bletchley).

It does something for the Cambridge to mainlines demand, but:
the St Neots/Tempsford whatever station won't have trains to Leeds and Edinburgh - Peterborough has a ton of other connections and is a large place in itself.
Bedford doesn't have the same calls (Notts/Sheffield) as Leicester does
Bletchley doesn't have the WCML calls
Oxford and west - yes.

I don't see them as mutually exclusive. EWR will be very useful for different journeys.
Also Ely could well be a good candidate for turning a EWR service (especially if bays were there)