Using what paths? There’s a major capacity constraint across the fens as @Magdalia has highlighted.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
If Grand Central's new Brighton service is approved Cambridge becomes the only station with 6m+ passengers per year without a service to "The North"
- Thread starter William3000
- Start date
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The Planner
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 15 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 19,752
You would be paid out immediately.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,928
Looking at it from the other end of the telescope, it's useful to consider where Cambridge figures in the list of destinations currently without direct trains from the major ECML stations. Working off the ODM on the excellent railwaydata site, Cambridge is in the top 3 for Leeds, York, Newcastle and Edinburgh. So the idea is not without its merits. Although ECML capacity constraints mean that better connections at Peterborough are really the only viable option.
Agree. A lot of people travel to Bath too (I bet that is up there in the same estimation) - but it doesn't have great services other than the London-Bristol mainline and a few regionals.
That second service to Peterborough, whether it goes on to Birmingham, or up towards Nottingham - or terminates there, would be the most helpful realistic option right now. The north-facing bays at Cambridge absolutely have capacity, even if Stansted doesn't really.
Palmerston
Member
How feasible would it be to reopen the link to Huntingdon? Either based on the old route or via the East-West rail route?
The link that faced south at Huntingdon, and was never a serious through route?
Approximately 2/3 of the track bed is now the guided busway to St Ives; the alignment round Huntingdon is now under the A1307 (formerly the A14 before it was moved).
Cambridge - Ely and Ely - Peterborough are essentially full (there's a lot of freight). ECML between Peterborough and York is essentially full. The 2tph between Ely and Norwich is more than adequate for the size of civilisation there.
Where the existing Cambridge / Ely - Peterborough travel market is served by silly little trains and track capacity is fully utilised, there cannot be a case for running any additional TPH. Train length and interchange options need to be exhausted first.
Where the existing Cambridge / Ely - Peterborough travel market is served by silly little trains and track capacity is fully utilised, there cannot be a case for running any additional TPH. Train length and interchange options need to be exhausted first.
quantinghome
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2013
- Messages
- 2,928
You'd have to have a brand new alignment on the approach to Huntingdon and build a grade-separated junction over the ECML. The EWR route would be even more circuitous than the current route via Ely.
It would probably be cheaper to bypass Ely to the West and achieve the same improvement in journey time. And it would also solve the Ely North problem.
WestAnglian
Member
"yes, and..."
I think it's both - huge unserved demand to/from Cambridge. Capacity at Ely may not be optimized (e.g should a Norwich-P'boro service exist, given what it does to capacity? how much freight is unused and could we reclaim it? could the Ipswich 2-hourly also not cross and turn at Ely, if that opened something more up?) - some things could be reviewed. And a more reliable 2tph service from Cambridge (also much needed for commuting from likes of eg March, if Wisbech happened, P'boro itself etc) - might be more valuable than the Norwich connection. Norwich could go 2tph to Stansted potentially instead w Cambridge shuttles in peaks.
Whenever existing service levels are silly little trains with well below Tube levels of crowding, any statement with 'huge unserved demand' in it probably needs to be put under the microscope.
Isn't this all a bit rearranging deck chairs? Nottingham - Norwich is a reasonably established routing, breaking that connection would just be robbing Peter to pay Paul. Or put it that way, if Peterborough - Norwich requiring a change in a hypothetical future won't be a big deal, then Cambridge - the North requiring a change now can't be a big deal either.
As things stand we have three sides of a triangle (Peterborough / Cambridge / Norwich) all with 1tph direct and 1tph with a change at Ely in the opposite half hour - a very typical Swiss-style service pattern striking a good balance for all passengers (if this isn't quite the case today it certainly can be with relatively trivial retimings).
We have a 75% freight growth target. Some freight paths are better used by others but that's just the nature of the freight business. The intermodal paths to/from Felixstowe (the lion's share of freight in the area) are well used. Those freight paths aren't going anywhere.
I think there are two separate issues being conflated here. One is about the role of the EMR service and whether it is better turned at Ely for Norwich or run to Cambridge. The other is about the latent demand that could be unlocked if there were a better service (more frequent/earlier start/later finish) between Cambridge and Peterborough.
The success of the Norwich - Cambridge service suggests that there is latent demand in the area that can be unlocked with better services. Realising that may be best achieved by switching the EMR service to Cambridge - but that assessment needs numbers.
In all these cases, the reliance on 2-3 car units running infrequently is itself part of the problem
I agree on the very small silly trains part, they should be much longer before any infrastructure works.
I mean no disrespect to Norwich, it's a solid city and is geographically isolated, requiring good connections - but Cambridge has become something quite different and requires a different level of service and enablement than a regional centre does. Slightly busier than York or Newcastle, and that will keep going, regardless of South opening. With Stansted as a 'southern turnback' - it gives services another key purpose (plus South too).
So I would think Nottingham, Sheffield and other places (the closer, the more likely to travel to Cambridge more often - or that the direct is better than a fast London change, like Liverpool or Manchester are) - would prefer the direct to Cambridge, inc South, and Stansted.
Another thing to consider could be some splitting at Ely to increase frequency. It's a pain but might be worth considering for some journeys (ie adding a few extras). Or should the Norwich-P'boro service skip Ely entirely in some hours, and what might that unlock? Norwich-Cambridge @ 2tph must be more valuable locally.
If you want Peterborough - Cambridge and Norwich - Cambridge to be both 2tph, then you are adding 2tph between Ely and Cambridge, and I don't think the capacity exists. (Plain line capacity may exist, but once you factor in crossing moves at Ely, terminating moves at Cambridge or having to send trains through to Stansted, and freight, capacity quickly disappears).
The geometric reality is that, by giving each side of a triangle 1tph direct, you create an interchange opportunity in the opposite half hour. This relies on all three services to converge and diverge at Ely at the same time each hour half. (This isn't currently quite achieved for the Peterborough - Norwich movement, but it would only take a relatively small timetable adjustment) This is one of the few places in the country where a Swiss (or almost Swiss) pattern is achieved. Even if capacity did exist to divert the Liverpool - Norwich to Cambridge, you'd have to orphan the Cambridge - Norwich to Ely - Norwich, and I don't think it would work at Ely platforming wise. Skipping Ely then you are just de-Swissifying the timetable.
Ely - so it doesn't work for that. Better to call there, but maybe re-align the service patterns to have less conflicts/paths at Ely itself. I wish there was space for a few bays - maybe some permissive working on the eastern side - to allow 1tph Ely-Ipswich and 1tph Ely-Norwich as extra capacity for the local stations - with connections at Ely in various directions (on longer trains)
True, in theoreticals. But the commercial reality is that the markets are not equal, and revenue (and broader economic growth) are supported. by additional Cambridge service. But yes this could be longer trains as a starting point. Those bays (5/6) can take up to 6 cars, but not 720s currently.
There is the annoying Ipswich-P'boro service to factor into the triangle as well, which adds some frequency but also more conflicts.
I think you mean another tunnel (the existing tunnel has space only for the one track), but to answer the question, no, not reliably.
dk1
Veteran Member
Yes, this was a folly when planned/constructed but I suppose nobody could’ve predicted how busy Stansted Airport would become. I recall passing a big sign close to the railway proclaming ‘WHITE ELEPHANT’ in those early days which was matched by the exceptionally poor loadings on those 322s.
dk1
Veteran Member
That it was. Only 5 built I think. Was just the driver, a member of ICOBS catering and a revenue guy when my mate and I filmed up front a few weeks in. Oh, shouldn’t forget the half a dozen punters too but I may have exaggerated on the number of those.
bramling
Veteran Member
Completely agree with this view.
With Kings Lynn now having an all-day 8-car service, the next priority is the Norwich and Peterborough routes.
Both of these lack capacity, and Peterborough is hamstrung by being part of the Birmingham service, which constrains both capacity and reliability. Norwich just needs longer trains in the short-term.
I would find it hard to ditch the Birmingham connection simply because it’s well-established, however the next service for Cambridge should be a reliable and capacious service to Peterborough, and no further.
Both Liverpool-Norwich and Birmingham-Stansted are very much tail-wagging-dog services, where a comparatively very small number of people making long journeys are stifling the provision of much-needed local connections.
For journeys from Cambridge to “the north” there is the option to connect at Peterborough, which would have course be a lot more practicable if the Cambridge-Peterborough service was improved.
I'll catch up with the history first.
East West Rail faces the wrong way at Tempsford and would need grade separation, for which there is no space.
It is important to remember that Norwich and Ipswich passengers interchange with the ECML at Peterborough too. That's why neither Norwich or Ipswich want to lose their through trains to Peterborough.
In my view the first step is to give all of the services to Greater Anglia, and GBR creates that opportunity. I think that can only be done with the EMR service by splitting at Nottingham, but the XC service could possibly still run through to Birmingham.
Once that's done, Greater Anglia can use some creativity to make better use of the existing train paths. The peak time additional trains at Cambridge with Norwich and Ipswich, that were introduced in May, show that things can be done where the will is there. Greater Anglia have that will, EMR and XC know little and care less about what goes on east of Peterborough.
One disadvantage of the Origin and Destination Matrix data is that it has no directionality. But, anecdotally, I think that we are now in the position that the Norwich and Ipswich flows are dominated by Anglians wanting to get out, but the Cambridge and Stansted flows are dominated by outsiders wanting to get in.
So I would look at whether it would be feasible to do something like this. In the morning peak the eastbound trains to Norwich would run via a reversal in the north end bays at Cambridge. In the evening peak the westbound services from Norwich would run via a reversal in the north end bays at Cambridge. In each case they would take the path of the train an hour behind when they got back to Ely. The last morning train into Cambridge would terminate, because, if it went back to Ely, it would want the same path as the first train going direct to Norwich. Having sat at Cambridge all day, it would then form a westbound train starting at Cambridge, taking the path forward from Ely left free by the first afternoon train to go via Cambridge. None of this would need any more paths between Ely and Peterborough, though it would need more paths between Ely and Cambridge. For Norwich/Peterborough journeys diverted via Cambridge there would still be the option of getting no addition to journey time by changing at Ely.
I think this would probably have to start with a fleet of class 170s. As regular readers may know, I do see Stansted-Nottingham as an excellent route for battery bimodes, though that would need a more radical timetable change.
The old route is completely infeasible. As already stated, Cambridge North-St Ives is a guided busway. St Ives-Huntingdon closed to passengers in 1959 and has almost completely disappeared. It never saw diesel traction, apart from shunters, and steam traction was class 2s. It had (I think?) 4 bridges over the River Ouse, including some made of matchsticks.
East West Rail faces the wrong way at Tempsford and would need grade separation, for which there is no space.
Only between 1973 and 1982, when it was much quicker to change to/from ECML trains at Stevenage or Peterborough. Prior to that, all the daily Joint Line trains were to or from Norwich, Yarmouth and Lowestoft, apart from the North Country Continental. Cambridge passengers changed at Ely or March. The nearest Cambridge got to a through train to/from "the north" was a summer Saturday Manchester running as a relief to the boat train.
I couldn't have put it better myself!
I have watched the peak hour trains at Cambridge. They are full. The Cambridge-Peterborough trains are well loaded for most of the day.
The main constraint at Stansted is platforms, which make it difficult to run longer trains.
For quite a few years the North Curve only had a parly service.
It is important to remember that Norwich and Ipswich passengers interchange with the ECML at Peterborough too. That's why neither Norwich or Ipswich want to lose their through trains to Peterborough.
This is my starting position too. And until now it has been impossible to do anything about it because the silly little trains were run by three separate operators, each with their own different traction, driver route knowledge, and train paths to protect.
In my view the first step is to give all of the services to Greater Anglia, and GBR creates that opportunity. I think that can only be done with the EMR service by splitting at Nottingham, but the XC service could possibly still run through to Birmingham.
Once that's done, Greater Anglia can use some creativity to make better use of the existing train paths. The peak time additional trains at Cambridge with Norwich and Ipswich, that were introduced in May, show that things can be done where the will is there. Greater Anglia have that will, EMR and XC know little and care less about what goes on east of Peterborough.
One disadvantage of the Origin and Destination Matrix data is that it has no directionality. But, anecdotally, I think that we are now in the position that the Norwich and Ipswich flows are dominated by Anglians wanting to get out, but the Cambridge and Stansted flows are dominated by outsiders wanting to get in.
So I would look at whether it would be feasible to do something like this. In the morning peak the eastbound trains to Norwich would run via a reversal in the north end bays at Cambridge. In the evening peak the westbound services from Norwich would run via a reversal in the north end bays at Cambridge. In each case they would take the path of the train an hour behind when they got back to Ely. The last morning train into Cambridge would terminate, because, if it went back to Ely, it would want the same path as the first train going direct to Norwich. Having sat at Cambridge all day, it would then form a westbound train starting at Cambridge, taking the path forward from Ely left free by the first afternoon train to go via Cambridge. None of this would need any more paths between Ely and Peterborough, though it would need more paths between Ely and Cambridge. For Norwich/Peterborough journeys diverted via Cambridge there would still be the option of getting no addition to journey time by changing at Ely.
I think this would probably have to start with a fleet of class 170s. As regular readers may know, I do see Stansted-Nottingham as an excellent route for battery bimodes, though that would need a more radical timetable change.
dk1
Veteran Member
It did yes. Regional Railways introduced regular services in 1991 as part of the 1988 initiated Express network but due to poor loadings these ended up being withdrawn a few timetables later. From what I recall it was Central Trains that resurrected the link once again on a roughly hourly basis.
I think (but could well be wrong here) that the Stansted services to Birmingham were curtailed back to Cambridge in early 1993 when the Arley tunnel block meant that there were no through services to Birmingham from the Nuneaton direction anyway - for the best part of a year as it turned out. They didn’t go back to Stansted for about 3 years IIRC. I certainly caught one in 1999.
It would be much quicker, cheaper and simpler just to run four car rather than three car on the existing Birmingham New Street - Stansted Airport services, as this can be done without altering the infrastructure, and just finding appropriate rolling stock and doing any relevant traction training.
Of course, even this modest goal which has been long suggested in many quarters is rather difficult to achieve for a heavily subsidy-hungry operation.
Of course, even this modest goal which has been long suggested in many quarters is rather difficult to achieve for a heavily subsidy-hungry operation.
bramling
Veteran Member
How much demand is there through Cambridge on these services? Is Stansted the only constraint on providing longer services on this route?
Agreed. And also on the Stansted-Norwich service, and try to provide a solid 2tph Ely - Cambridge N/C/S - Stansted core service.
Would an additional platform at Stansted (p4 - a side, out of the shed and in the elements) - be at all useful with the single bore tunnel? Not sure but could be worth considering. It's much like the Manchester Airport incrementality of platforms and extensions... but is even doulbing the tunnel worth it with all the issues at Ely.
I genuinely think an Ely station rebuild with terminating capacity (ie some bays) would be useful. You could add Ipswich and Norwich local services comfortably, as well as future EWR, or extend from Liverpool St to add corridor frequency. It becomes more of an established interchange, and chances are not everyone is headed the same way (e.g a Norwich local terminates, maybe 25% into Ely itself, 25% P'boro and onwards, 40% Cambridge / London / Stansted (not all on the same services) - and 10% other (Kings Lynn line, Soham/Bury..) - so the transfers might not be so long for all. And then the hourly through services would be longer and provide the trunk service to Nottingham and to Birmingham which would likely be fine. Encourages more of a hub and connecting mentality, adds local Anglia journeys and commuting possibilities...
William3000
Member
If you had two Norwich to Cambridge; and two Peterborough to Cambridge, and then did the existing one Norwich to Peterborough via the Ely west curve (not stopping at Ely) it would save the two paths into Ely. Replacing the Ely stop with a March stop on the Norwich to Peterborough would assist connectivity. I also agree that ideally all these services would be 5-cars rather than 2-4 cars.
dk1
Veteran Member
Loadings seem very healthy from what I witness most of the time. Boarding the 15:25 ex-Stansted-Birmingham at the airport last Tuesday there was already a large crowd waiting for door release on platform 2 at 15:10. On departure it was very busy, then full from Cambridge South, standing in the aisles from Cambridge and still very busy departing Ely.
It’s a common misconception that Ely itself is the only problem. Ely North Junction is a big part of it, but the level crossings all the way from Peterboro’ to Cambridge / Stansted and to a lesser extent Ely - Norwich are another major issue in running significantly more trains anywhere in this area.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I was just going to use exactly the same example; 1525 last Tuesday!
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
I was just going to use exactly the same example; 1525 last Tuesday!