Could Ely North Junction be grade separated?

[DynamicSpirit]

Moderator note: Split from

Ely North Junction upgrade proposals

http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Ely/4m-boost-to-rail-network-thanks-to-EU-10072012.htm "Almost £4 million of EU funding will be put towards upgrading the Ely North Junction. The European Parliament agreed to invest £3.8 million in the major scheme today (Tuesday). It comes just a week after the...

www.railforums.co.uk

General observation on the proposals. There are various options for a new road to avoid the Queen Adelaide level crossings. Options 2 and 3 - the Northern and Long Southern by-passes - look like they'll considerably speed up road journeys for all through traffic through Queen Adelaide. And while I appreciate we need to do something to avoid longer waits at the level crossings if there are more trains, that surely is going to encourage more car journeys and some rail-to-road modal shift. Options 1 and 4 less so. For some journeys actually to Queen Adelaide, there'll likely still be longer level crossing waits - which isn't going to be that good for locals (who have no option for rail travel), although balanced by that with some of the options there'll no longer be any through road traffic through the village. I can't help noticing the contrast between the idea to do some significant road-buliding and the lack of any proposal to grade separate any of the rail junctions in the area. That means that lots of road journeys will be sped up, rail journeys less so - and we still end up with a very large number of conflicting moves imposing heavy restrictions on the timetable. Not only that, but it looks to me like both of the Southern by-pass options will make it massively harder to grade-separate the rail junctions, in the event that we need further capacity increases at some point in the future, since with either option, the elevated by-pass would lie directly in the path of where an elevated rail track would need to go.

Further, it seems fairly reasonable to assume that if rail growth continues (Covid-blip aside), growth in Cambridge as a major employment centre continues, and if we want to continue to encourage a higher proportion of journeys to be made by rail. then within the next 10 years or so there'll be a need for 2 trains an hour from Cambridge to each of Peterborough, Kings Lynn and Norwich. And these plans don't actually give the capacity to provide that with the current service patterns (which is why earlier I was speculating about the future of the Norwich-Liverpool route).

Was there really no sensible way to do any rail grade separation at all within a similar budget to the cost of building new roads? And is there not a likelihood that what looks like a huge, expensive, project will just end up needing to be revisited in 10-15 years because it doesn't provide quite enough new capacity for decent Cambridge commuter links?

 

[Bald Rick]

And while I appreciate we need to do something to avoid longer waits at the level crossings if there are more trains, that surely is going to encourage more car journeys and some rail-to-road modal shift.

With a very few exceptions, the people who drive across Queen Adelaide crossings are making journeys that are not in competition with rail journeys across the same crossings. Making road trips easier there will have a negligible effect on rail mode share.

Was there really no sensible way to do any rail grade separation at all within a similar budget to the cost of building new roads?

No. Simple rail flyovers start at around £80m. The new roads won’t cost that (Solving more and different problems).

And is there not a likelihood that what looks like a huge, expensive, project will just end up needing to be revisited in 10-15 years because it doesn't provide quite enough new capacity for decent Cambridge commuter links?

That’s certainly one possibility. Other outcomes are possible, including that passenger growth into Cambridge is a thing of the past, or at the most extreme that the project as presented doesn’t get built at all as there’s no money.

 

[edwin_m]

No. Simple rail flyovers start at around £80m. The new roads won’t cost that (Solving more and different problems).

And this wouldn't be a simple flyover. To go over the crossings the entire junction would have to be elevated along with most or all of the loop. At which point the locals would (rightly) complain about massive concrete structures despoiling the landscape.

 

[trebor79]

And this wouldn't be a simple flyover. To go over the crossings the entire junction would have to be elevated along with most or all of the loop. At which point the locals would (rightly) complain about massive concrete structures despoiling the landscape.

And built on fen. You only have to see some of the TSR's and track displacement which occurs when the land dries out and gets wet again through the seasons. I can remember a few weeks in summer 2019 trains were travelling at walking pace for a section between Ely and Lakenheath, and the train was really canted over from side to side traversing the area.
Big concrete structure like that is going to require some very serious piling indeed, or some other innovate and probably equally expensive approach.

 

[Grumbler]

And built on fen. You only have to see some of the TSR's and track displacement which occurs when the land dries out and gets wet again through the seasons. I can remember a few weeks in summer 2019 trains were travelling at walking pace for a section between Ely and Lakenheath, and the train was really canted over from side to side traversing the area.
Big concrete structure like that is going to require some very serious piling indeed, or some other innovate and probably equally expensive approach.

George Stephenson solved this problem at Chat Moss.

 

[edwin_m]

George Stephenson solved this problem at Chat Moss.

Chat Moss doesn't have viaducts.

 

[trebor79]

George Stephenson solved this problem at Chat Moss.

Chat Moss doesn't have viaducts.

Quite. I don't think tipping loads of bracken and other such material into the fen is going to cut it. And doesn't the Chat Moss route suffer similar TSRs to the lines across the fens due to movement when the land dries out/get's wet?
Point is it's going to be incredibly costly to provide firm foundations for a viaduct. An embankment moving a bit is a costly nuisance. A viaduct moving a bit is catastrophic.

 

[Bald Rick]

Chat Moss doesn't have viaducts.

Nor will it have to deal with 150 freight trains a day.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Point is it's going to be incredibly costly to provide firm foundations for a viaduct. An embankment moving a bit is a costly nuisance. A viaduct moving a bit is catastrophic.

The by-pass options 3 and 4 both appear to be - for all practical purposes - long road viaducts. Does the issue of foundations not apply to them?

 

[InOban]

I believe that underneath the peat is fairly firm clay, but I've no idea of the depth of the transition in this area.

 

[zwk500]

The by-pass options 3 and 4 both appear to be - for all practical purposes - long road viaducts. Does the issue of foundations not apply to them?

It probably does, but scaled to a collection of individual trucks rather than 1800tonne half-mile long freight train.

 

[Grumbler]

Chat Moss doesn't have viaducts.

Sorry, I was responding to the point about the stability of the track.

 

[eastdyke]

I believe that underneath the peat is fairly firm clay, but I've no idea of the depth of the transition in this area.

Geology as ever is complex!

Geology map of the Ely Area from British Geological Survey [scroll to enlarge]:

British Geological Survey (BGS) | large image viewer | IIPMooViewer 2.0

largeimages.bgs.ac.uk

The Kimmeridge Clay is at or close to the surface on the western side, ie. Ely West Curve is on 'firmer ground'.
The adjacent Roswell Pits were dug for clay which was extensively used for repairs to the raised banks of Fenland Drains.

It probably does, but scaled to a collection of individual trucks rather than 1800tonne half-mile long freight train.

There is recent previous in the locale, Ely Southern By-Pass being completed in 2018. Includes bridges over river and rail.

Ely Southern Bypass - Cambridgeshire County Council

Details about the proposed Ely southern bypass, a proposed new road connecting the A142 at Angel Drove to Stuntney Causeway, Cambridgeshire

www.cambridgeshire.gov.uk

The project was funded by Cambridgeshire County Council, East Cambridgeshire District Council, Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (£22 million Growth Deal which includes £16 million from Department of Transport) and Network Rail. An extra £13 million has also been allocated to cover cost increases due to difficulties building on a floodplain and near a national heritage site.

Edited to add:
Sorry!! - it seems that the above was incomplete. The actual out-turn cost approached £49m.

Drone footage shows Ely Southern bypass after official opening

The carriageway has a viaduct crossing the Great Ouse and a bridge over two railway lines

www.cambridge-news.co.uk

The project was funded by Cambridgeshire County Council (£21 million), East Cambridgeshire District Council (£1 million), Network Rail (£5 million), and the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority (£22 million Growth Deal including £16 million from the Department for Transport).

 

[ashkeba]

With a very few exceptions, the people who drive across Queen Adelaide crossings are making journeys that are not in competition with rail journeys across the same crossings. Making road trips easier there will have a negligible effect on rail mode share.

It looks like it is in competition with Lakenheath-Ely and Downham Market/beyond-Ely journeyes but I think Lakenheath does not have much service and I du not know whether Ely North capacity is a reason. Have I overestimated those car journeys?

 

[Bald Rick]

The by-pass options 3 and 4 both appear to be - for all practical purposes - long road viaducts. Does the issue of foundations not apply to them?

Yes, but a) the loads the road viaducts need to take are lower and therefore they can be less substantial, and b) the viaducts needed for a rail flyover here would be rather longer than the road equivalent, simply because of alignment requirements.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Oct 2021 ==

It looks like it is in competition with Lakenheath-Ely and Downham Market/beyond-Ely journeyes but I think Lakenheath does not have much service and I du not know whether Ely North capacity is a reason. Have I overestimated those car journeys?

Lakenheath sees, on average, 4 return journeys a week.

If you’re travelling from Downham Market to anywhere beyond Ely by car, you’ll use the A10, and then the southern by pass if heading SE

 

[dosxuk]

I think Lakenheath does not have much service

Served by 7 trains a week, all on a Sunday (4 from Ely-Norwich, 3 from Norwich-Ely).

The roads through Queen Adelaide don't really lead anywhere except small villages / hamlets, and people from those places wanting to catch a train are likely to be using Ely station anyway. A bypass may even make it easier for those users to catch a train, it would certainly make travelling through Queen Adelaide towards the station more reliable with not having to deal with all the crossings.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, but a) the loads the road viaducts need to take are lower and therefore they can be less substantial, and b) the viaducts needed for a rail flyover here would be rather longer than the road equivalent, simply because of alignment requirements.

Thanks, that makes sense.

On a different note, I've just tried out the facility in the online consultation (at https://phase2b.elyareacapacity.com/how-to-have-your-say/) to chat online with an advisor - it seems pretty good for answering basic not-too-technical questions. One thing that came out of my chat was that the customer support person seemed to suggest that the aim of 10tph through the junction came about because the DfT have specifically asked for that capacity (as opposed to it being something that Network Rail have come up with). Can anyone confirm whether that's correct?

 

[ashkeba]

If you’re travelling from Downham Market to anywhere beyond Ely by car, you’ll use the A10, and then the southern by pass if heading SE

The volume and speed of motor traffic the few times I have dared cycle on the minor road between QA and Littleport makes me strongly suspect a large minority use it to access Ely centre from the north instead of going the long way round the north and west of Littleport using the A10. The old Lynn Road seems quieter.

 

[bspahh]

The volume and speed of motor traffic the few times I have dared cycle on the minor road between QA and Littleport makes me strongly suspect a large minority use it to access Ely centre from the north instead of going the long way round the north and west of Littleport using the A10. The old Lynn Road seems quieter.

Page 14 of the 2017 Queen Adelaide Traffic Survey has a table with the observed traffic in various directions through Queen Adelaide.

The most common route through Queen Adelaide was between Branch Bank (from Littleport) and Queen Adelaide Way (towards the A142). This accounts for 30% of the trips through Queen Adelaide (including both directions). This route doesn't cross any level crossings.

 

[MAV39]

Page 14 of the 2017 Queen Adelaide Traffic Survey has a table with the observed traffic in various directions through Queen Adelaide.

The most common route through Queen Adelaide was between Branch Bank (from Littleport) and Queen Adelaide Way (towards the A142). This accounts for 30% of the trips through Queen Adelaide (including both directions). This route doesn't cross any level crossings.

I would agree the Beech Bank, Queen Adelaide Way, A142 route is a popular route for cars and regularly use it for my journeys from Kent to Kings Lynn.

However, the Ely to Norwich line's bridge over Queen Adelaide Way has a height limit sign of 3.5 metres, so HGVs etc would likely use Bald Rick's suggested route of Ely Southern bypass and A10 to Littleport from the A142.

 

[ashkeba]

Page 14 of the 2017 Queen Adelaide Traffic Survey has a table with the observed traffic in various directions through Queen Adelaide.

The most common route through Queen Adelaide was between Branch Bank (from Littleport) and Queen Adelaide Way (towards the A142). This accounts for 30% of the trips through Queen Adelaide (including both directions). This route doesn't cross any level crossings.

Isn't that from before the bypass and the related changes to the station area? I expect Ely traffic from it will now mostly use the crossings.

 

[Freightmaster]

150 freight trains a day.

MARK

 

[ABB125]

MARK

Assuming 24-hour operation (which is unlikely!) that's over 3tph in each direction...

 

[Bald Rick]

MARK

Assuming 24-hour operation (which is unlikely!) that's over 3tph in each direction...

Well there’s 145 class 4/6 schedules at Ely North Junction in for today. Some are duplicates for differing origin / destinations, and there’s a couple of tampers. Take those out and it’s 119. Of course they don’t all run - typically only half - but in theory they could.

Nevertheless were you to build a flyover, you would want to build it to be capable of reasonably expected growth - you certainly wouldn’t want the flyover to be the next constraint when Leicester is resolved.

It’s not unusual to have 3 freights an hour per direction; it is 24h operation - the busiest hour today is 0400-0500

 

[Steve Harris]

The volume and speed of motor traffic the few times I have dared cycle on the minor road between QA and Littleport makes me strongly suspect a large minority use it to access Ely centre from the north instead of going the long way round the north and west of Littleport using the A10. The old Lynn Road seems quieter.

I suspect some people use that route instead of the A10 Littleport/Ely bypass, as trying to overtake a HGV on the bypass is ni on impossible. It is also a shorter way to get from Littleport to the A142 and Soham/Newmarket compared to the longer bypass route.

 

[Ianno87]

I suspect some people use that route instead of the A10 Littleport/Ely bypass, as trying to overtake a HGV on the bypass is ni on impossible. It is also a shorter way to get from Littleport to the A142 and Soham/Newmarket compared to the longer bypass route.

I've used it as a shortcut between Soham and Littleport - Google Maps's Suggestion!

 

[trebor79]

It’s not unusual to have 3 freights an hour per direction; it is 24h operation - the busiest hour today is 0400-0500

Yep, even during a fairly short wait between trains at Ely you're pretty much guaranteed to see some freight. Very busy bit of railway.

 

[TheBigD]

Well there’s 145 class 4/6 schedules at Ely North Junction in for today. Some are duplicates for differing origin / destinations, and there’s a couple of tampers. Take those out and it’s 119. Of course they don’t all run - typically only half - but in theory they could.

Nevertheless were you to build a flyover, you would want to build it to be capable of reasonably expected growth - you certainly wouldn’t want the flyover to be the next constraint when Leicester is resolved.

It’s not unusual to have 3 freights an hour per direction; it is 24h operation - the busiest hour today is 0400-0500

A couple of years ago (2018?) A couple of weekends saw both ECML diversions and the freight that normally goes via London/WCML diverted via Ely. Whittlesea saw 196 trains in total between 0600 and 2200.

Whilst a one off it does show what the traffic will be like once the infrastructure is upgraded.

 

[Bald Rick]

A couple of years ago (2018?) A couple of weekends saw both ECML diversions and the freight that normally goes via London/WCML diverted via Ely. Whittlesea saw 196 trains in total between 0600 and 2200.

Whilst a one off it does show what the traffic will be like once the infrastructure is upgraded.

I tip my hat to the Whittlesea signallers on duty that day, who would have had fun finding time to make a cuppa.

 

[Taunton]

And built on fen. You only have to see some of the TSR's and track displacement which occurs when the land dries out and gets wet again through the seasons. I can remember a few weeks in summer 2019 trains were travelling at walking pace for a section between Ely and Lakenheath, and the train was really canted over from side to side traversing the area.
Big concrete structure like that is going to require some very serious piling indeed, or some other innovate and probably equally expensive approach.

I don't specifically know the adjacent ground conditions, but I've had long familiarity, ever since university times, with Wicken Fen, "preserved" fenland near Soham (do visit if you are in the locality), and I've also got familiarity with USA railroads built across the swamps etc of the Deep South. Honestly, the ground conditions of East Anglia are nothing in comparison (plus there are no alligators), and the techniques should be well known after the railway has been there for over 150 years.

The Weston to Taunton line, across the Somerset Levels (alias fen), has always held up fine. Just to the south, the much newer Castle Cary to Taunton line across the same territory has been a constant problem. Wisdom at Taunton was always that Brunel, who engineered the original line, knew exactly how to do it, while Grierson, the GWR's chief civil in 1900 when the Castle Cary line was built, didn't.