Could Ely junction be upgraded?

[evergreenadam]

Moderator note: split from

Labour Spending Review

Some announcements about rail were made in Rachel Reeves' spending review today. Items I noted were: - a 4-year settlement for TfL (content not known) - £3.5bn more for TRU (again, no details). Rachel said "a quarter of the Manchester-York route will be live this year". - £2.5bn extra for East...

www.railforums.co.uk

Nothing for Ely Junction then?

Seems short sighted given how it unblocks freight and caters for growth in the Cambridge area.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Nothing for Ely Junction then? Seems short sighted given how it unblocks freight and caters for growth in the Cambridge area.

Given movement of box traffic from Felixstowe to London Gateway immediate pressure at Ely will have eased. Many projects now seem stalled so NR needs look at how it can best optimise the infrastructure it has.

 

[Class15]

Given movement of box traffic from Felixstowe to London Gateway immediate pressure at Ely will have eased. Many projects now seem stalled so NR needs look at how it can best optimise the infrastructure it has.

Indeed. I think Felixstowe freight traffic will probably build up again (not sure though! Maybe someone is more knowledgeable on this) and the Ely scheme will need to be resurrected.

 

[evergreenadam]

There have been a few articles about it over the last few months, so the need still appears to be there.

Ely and Haughley junction improvements would spark rail revolution

For years the business community and rail operators have been talking about the importance of upgrading Ely and Haughley junctions. But why is that…

www.eadt.co.uk

The full re-doubling is not under immediate consideration, but improving the junction would boost the number of trains able to use the cross-country route.

The improvements to the Ely junctions would increase the number of trains able to use the routes every hour from 6.5 to 10 - and that would be a huge improvement for services.

 

[Magdalia]

The Network Rail website says this about the Ely Area Capacity Enhancement:

We have run several public consultations to seek feedback from the public and stakeholders. They were presented with options where changes to the rail infrastructure would be needed to increase capacity. The consultations were:

• Round 1 consultation 21 September to 1 November 2020
• Round 2 (part 1) consultation 24 May to 4 July 2021
• Round 2 (part 2) consultation 15 October to 28 November 2021

The consultation materials can be provided electronically upon request using the contact details below.

Subject to securing further funding, the results of these consultations are expected to be included as part of a future Round 3 public consultation. This would set out the preferred options selected to take forward to the consent stage.

Any funding for Ely is likely to be for another round of design and consultation. As far as I can tell there is no agreed proposal to apply for a Transport and Works Act Order to actually build anything.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 11 Jun 2025 ==

Seems short sighted given how it unblocks freight and caters for growth in the Cambridge area.

The key rail project for growth in the Cambridge area is East West Rail, which got £2.5bn in the spending Review.

Allocating £2.5 billion to progress the delivery of East West Rail, supporting housing developments and unlocking the potential of the Oxford to Cambridge Growth Corridor.

The Government may be holding back on any other Cambridge related investment decisions until after it has received reports from the New Towns Taskforce and the Cambridge Growth Company.

Investment needs to be based on what Cambridge needs in the future, as identified by the New Towns Taskforce and the Cambridge Growth Company, not a project that is based on what were thought to be the requirements many years ago.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 12 Jun 2025 ==

I have now found a reference in the Spending Review document about the New Towns Taskforce and Cambridge. It is in para 5.71 on page 76:

Investing in infrastructure and land remediation to deliver new housing schemes in partnership with the private sector. The government will shortly set out plans for New Towns and Cambridge;

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Jun 2025 ==

The BBC News website gives a fairly good summary of the history of the Ely Upgrade here:

Why are Ely North junction improvements taking so long?

There are hopes the long-awaited work could finally find itself on the list for funding.

www.bbc.co.uk

There are dozens of rail schemes waiting for government funding but few have had their hopes raised and then dashed as often as Ely North junction.

For 25 years campaigners have argued that improving it would make it possible to run more freight and passenger services and help grow the local economy.

But despite the project getting the go-ahead from previous governments on at least two occasions, the work is yet to start.

Rising costs, complicated engineering and a slowness to make decisions are being blamed.

With the government about to publish its 10-year infrastructure strategy, there are hopes that the project will make it on to this list for funding. But why is it taking so long?

Possibly linked to a feature on TV Politics East yesterday?

 

[yorkie]

Reopened for @Magdalia to post an update...

 

[Magdalia]

Thanks.

There was a debate in parliament yesterday about Ely. It was led by Charlotte Cane, the local MP, with Lillian Greenwood responding for the government. The BBC report is here:

Ely railway junction upgrade project discussed in Parliament

Upgrades to a major railway junction are discussed in Parliament, but no funding commitment is made.

www.bbc.co.uk

A transport minister has insisted the government is committed to improving a key railway junction "as quickly as possible" but only when the funding is available.

Lillian Greenwood told Parliament a proposed upgrade at Ely North junction in Cambridgeshire, which keeps missing out on government money, was still in the pipeline, but its complexity had made it very expensive.

It isn't often that the end of a news item needs to be quoted but this is an exception:

She warned the project would be expensive and complicated with 44 level crossings in the area needing to be upgraded as well improvements to bridges and signalling.

She suggested campaigners may want to update the business case for the junction and consider if private money could play a part in funding the project.

The minister confirmed what most people had already assumed — that Ely North junction would not appear on any list for government funding anytime soon.

For now it will be left to business leaders and local politicians to see if anything can be done to try to move this scheme forward.

It would be good if someone, with better internet searching skills than me, can find the Hansard report and provide a link.

 

[Stephen42]

It would be good if someone, with better internet searching skills than me, can find the Hansard report and provide a link.

The transcript of the discussion is available on Hansard here. There aren't any short bits relevant to quote and the BBC article summarises the key points, minus the various political point scoring about breaking commitments vs making commitments without funding that has been discussed elsewhere.

 

[Verulamius]

Thanks.

There was a debate in parliament yesterday about Ely. It was led by Charlotte Cane, the local MP, with Lillian Greenwood responding for the government. The BBC report is here:

Ely railway junction upgrade project discussed in Parliament

Upgrades to a major railway junction are discussed in Parliament, but no funding commitment is made.

www.bbc.co.uk

It isn't often that the end of a news item needs to be quoted but this is an exception:



It would be good if someone, with better internet searching skills than me, can find the Hansard report and provide a link.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-12-03/debates/E7389FF9-B270-4CDF-8242-34951A3DFF11/ElyRailwayUpgrade

As we have observed, the investment case for EACE is strong. However, no development work has taken place on the scheme since it was closed by the previous Government in 2022. Upgrading the business case, including revised cost estimates, demand forecasts and benefits assessments, would be a positive first step in bringing the programme forward.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

And without it, Felixstowe to Nuneaton, Birmingham electrification can not really be done. It really is a key bottleneck.

 

[Magdalia]

The transcript of the discussion is available on Hansard here.

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-12-03/debates/E7389FF9-B270-4CDF-8242-34951A3DFF11/ElyRailwayUpgrade

Thanks to both.

In debates like this, it is useful to see which other local MPs have something to say, and which do not!

What I found interesting, and different, in the Minister's response was the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority mayor got 3 mentions, all of them also mentioning the Rail Minister:

The Rail Minister recently met the Mayor of Cambridgeshire and Peterborough to discuss how the Ely programme could support housing and economic development in the east of England, and the potential for raising third-party funding to support the scheme. Given the strong local support for the scheme, and the real development and growth opportunities it could unlock across the region, it is important that all sources of funding are fully explored.

That is likely to be one of the most challenging and costly aspects of the scheme, particularly the planning consent, and securing local agreement to ease the delivery of these works on level crossings could radically reduce the cost of the scheme. The Rail Minister has asked the mayor to work with local highways authorities to explore how the required works around level crossings could be simplified or rationalised.

The Rail Minister has recently written to the mayor suggesting that he meets the chief executive of Network Rail to discuss how the EACE programme’s business case could be updated, and the mayor’s office would be well placed to co-ordinate other stakeholder engagement with Network Rail on that update. To that end, I encourage the hon. Member for Ely and East Cambridgeshire and other hon. Members to continue engaging with the mayor. It would also be important to time any business case updates to align with the potential release of funding at future spending reviews.

The last of these sets out a clear way forward. The mayor, and all the local interests, need to break free from their "something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do this" approach, and come up with an updated proposal that can secure funding at the next spending review, which I'd expect to be in 2028.

 

[MikeWM]

It is good to see the suggestion from the Government that the proposed level crossing works 'could be simplified or rationalised' to cut the costs that have ballooned as the project has taken on more and more aspects over time. Though we'd have to see what that means in practice, as I suppose it could mean eg. closing some of them entirely without replacement.

Though personally I'd say "we're the government, this is really important to get through, so let's acknowledge this is an unusual case, de-couple the level crossing changes from the rest of the works, get on with it at significantly reduced cost, and if we have to pass a small bill to stop people suing over health and safety grounds for not changing the level crossings, then so be it." In a rational world this is what would have been done years ago.

 

[cle]

It's interesting how they can blow so hot on EWR, and fetishize Cambridge and its development as a whole - but don't recognize this scheme as connected, or critical to supporting that growth.

And it absolutely is - Ely is on a three-prong of routes which are in the sphere of Travel to Work for Cambridge - and places where homebuilding might be supported. Yes flat, wet land and not much water supply - but where appropriate. And Ely itself.

 

[Magdalia]

It's interesting how they can blow so hot on EWR, and fetishize Cambridge and its development as a whole - but don't recognize this scheme as connected, or critical to supporting that growth.

That's because the current scheme doesn't do very much for Cambridge, it was designed primarily for freight to and from Felixstowe, and getting Ipswich-Peterborough to 1tph.

And it absolutely is - Ely is on a three-prong of routes which are in the sphere of Travel to Work for Cambridge - and places where homebuilding might be supported. Yes flat, wet land and not much water supply - but where appropriate. And Ely itself.

Land in the Fens is not suitable for housebuilding. Ely itself is effectively full, most of the land suitable for housebuilding has already been built on.

The MP who best made the case for doing something about Ely in the Cambridge growth context was Steve Barclay, the only Conservative who spoke.

Does she agree that if we are to unlock the growth potential of Cambridgeshire as a whole and in particular Fenland, and to connect that to Cambridge’s growth potential, we need Manea, March and Whittlesea stations to be better able to connect to the economy in Cambridgeshire?

The MPs for the constituencies on the Kings Lynn and Norwich lines are notable only for not speaking.

 

[Bald Rick]

Though we'd have to see what that means in practice, as I suppose it could mean eg. closing some of them entirely without replacement.

That’s exactly what it means. And there is plenty of opportunity for that.

Though personally I'd say "we're the government, this is really important to get through, so let's acknowledge this is an unusual case, de-couple the level crossing changes from the rest of the works, get on with it at significantly reduced cost, and if we have to pass a small bill to stop people suing over health and safety grounds for not changing the level crossings, then so be it." In a rational world this is what would have been done years ago.

That’s not how it works. No-one ”sues” over health and safety grounds. The Crown prosecutes. What you seem to be implying is that the Government passes a bill that rolls back the principles of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

 

[MikeWM]

Land in the Fens is not suitable for housebuilding. Ely itself is effectively full, most of the land suitable for housebuilding has already been built on.

Indeed so. You can try to build up to meet Chettisham - which is what is pretty much happening now, gaps are being filled in - but then that's just about it.

--

That’s exactly what it means. And there is plenty of opportunity for that.

Not sure most of them would save much money though. It's Queen Adelaide and Kiln Lane that are the main issues, and in both cases it is the additional infrastructure to mitigate the level crossing changes that is largely responsible for bloating the project - and neither of those can be closed without providing alternatives.

That’s not how it works. No-one ”sues” over health and safety grounds. The Crown prosecutes. What you seem to be implying is that the Government passes a bill that rolls back the principles of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

(Fair point on my poor terminology, too much US TV influence on my brain today it seems :-/ )

I'd say that being required to upgrade level crossings to protect people from doing really stupid things is so far from the original - and perfectly reasonable - intent of section 3 of the 1974 Act, that it is verging on the preposterous. But on the assumption that case law etc. over time has got us to that point, which is probably accurate (see eg. the ludicrous recent Cambridgeshire Guided Busway case), then yes, why shouldn't the Government pass primary legislation to clarify the scope of section 3 of the Act to define a more reasonable position than currently?

 

[Bald Rick]

Not sure most of them would save much money though. It's Queen Adelaide and Kiln Lane that are the main issues, and in both cases it is the additional infrastructure to mitigate the level crossing changes that is largely responsible for bloating the project - and neither of those can be closed without providing alternatives.

It’s not about most, it’s about any. I’m aware of at least 2 locations where multiple crossings could be closed through one highway intervention. But that needs explicit highways support, and there is no incentive for them to do so.

 

[bspahh]

Indeed so. You can try to build up to meet Chettisham - which is what is pretty much happening now, gaps are being filled in - but then that's just about it.

This is the map from the April 2015 Ely local plan

This is a 2025 aerial photograph from Google Maps

It looks to me like about a third of the area around Chetisham has been built on so far.

Moving the golf course would give land within walking distance of the station.

 

[Magdalia]

It looks to me like about a third of the area around Chetisham has been built on so far.

Moving the golf course would give land within walking distance of the station.

Neither of these are big enough to leverage significant amounts of third party funding.

You can try to build up to meet Chettisham - which is what is pretty much happening now, gaps are being filled in - but then that's just about it.

And Chettisham is a long way from Ely station, which is why it has got left until last.

 

[Trainbike46]

That’s exactly what it means. And there is plenty of opportunity for that.

The fact that the last version included works at 44 level crossings does suggest there must be scope to reduce the number - e.g., replace multiple level crossings with a single bridge/tunnel/level crossing with improved safety design, potentially with some footbridges added at key locations.

It’s not about most, it’s about any. I’m aware of at least 2 locations where multiple crossings could be closed through one highway intervention. But that needs explicit highways support, and there is no incentive for them to do so.

I guess the question then becomes, which council(s) are the relevant highway authority, or is it Highways England, and could they be persuaded?

I have always thought Highway authorities are not sufficiently responsible for level crossing safety and costs, which sometimes does lead to severe delays or excessive costs for level crossings removal/replacement with bridges/improvement.

 

[Magdalia]

I guess the question then becomes, which council(s) are the relevant highway authority, or is it Highways England, and could they be persuaded?

We have a very complicated governance structure. In the Ely area the highways authority is currently Cambridgeshire County Council, though not for much longer, and a new unitary structure is not agreed yet. But Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (the latter is already unitary) do have a mayor. The minister said this in the debate:

The Rail Minister has asked the mayor to work with local highways authorities to explore how the required works around level crossings could be simplified or rationalised.