How could Ely station be improved for service disruption?

[saismee]

Split from: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tr-great-northern.283224/page-44#post-7929906

While I agree Ely station could use more capacity, I'm not sure what can be realistically done - another platform is presumably never going to happen and they already make good use of the platforms they have. Maybe more use could be made of the down goods loop, though it is already irregularly used for out-of-place stock.

I had the thought that the goods lines that run parallel to the station could be turned into a fourth platform to accommodate more terminating services, thereby allowing some (or all) of the King's Lynn services to terminate at Ely instead of Cambridge when the Fen Line falls apart. It seems that the bridge next to the station might be in the way.

 

[MikeWM]

I had the thought that the goods lines that run parallel to the station could be turned into a fourth platform to accommodate more terminating services, thereby allowing some (or all) of the King's Lynn services to terminate at Ely instead of Cambridge when the Fen Line falls apart. It seems that the bridge next to the station might be in the way.

I don't think there is space even if you ignore the bridge issue, without taking some land (and raising it) from the Kings School playing fields opposite, which presumably is a non-starter.

The station site is rather constrained in all directions, unfortunately. Even a south-facing island platform doesn't seem possible to fit in given the length of train it would have to accommodate to be of any use.

 

[Magdalia]

I had the thought that the goods lines that run parallel to the station could be turned into a fourth platform to accommodate more terminating services, thereby allowing some (or all) of the King's Lynn services to terminate at Ely instead of Cambridge when the Fen Line falls apart. It seems that the bridge next to the station might be in the way.

There is only one goods line crossing the road at the north end of the station, and it is on a separate bridge from the other lines.

How would passengers get to and from this platform? I doubt that it would be possible to extend the subway that links platforms 2 and 3 to platform 1.

 

[saismee]

I don't think there is space even if you ignore the bridge issue, without taking some land (and raising it) from the Kings School playing fields opposite, which presumably is a non-starter.

It certainly would eat up some of their land, there's no way around it.

How would passengers get to and from this platform? I doubt that it would be possible to extend the subway that links platforms 2 and 3 to platform 1.

Because of how the subway curves I also don't think it would be possible to extend it. I hate the subway's ramps and I think a new footbridge with lifts would be just about the only way.

Is there any other way to allow trains to terminate at Ely? Or is it just a case of GN not doing it because they don't want to, rather than it being impossible...

 

[HamworthyGoods]

Split from: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...tr-great-northern.283224/page-44#post-7929906



I had the thought that the goods lines that run parallel to the station could be turned into a fourth platform to accommodate more terminating services, thereby allowing some (or all) of the King's Lynn services to terminate at Ely instead of Cambridge when the Fen Line falls apart. It seems that the bridge next to the station might be in the way.

So where do you put the freight trains being impacted by the same service disruption as passenger services if you take away the good loop?

 

[saismee]

So where do you put the freight trains being impacted by the same service disruption as passenger services if you take away the good loop?

I don't completely understand the layout, but there looks to be two loops. I'm sure you could get away with just one. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Another option would be another loop. Maybe an up loop north of the station between the two bridges? I don't see how the existing loop isn't enough.

 

[dosxuk]

From Google Maps there appears to be a large amount of land between the existing tracks and the boundary adjacent to the fields. There is loads of room to the south side of the station for an additional platform and two tracks without encroaching on the fields.

This would never be a zero-cost project. Extending the subway would be cheap compared to building a new platform and providing new lines. Small bits of land are cheap compared to signals and points.

I don't completely understand the layout, but there looks to be two loops. I'm sure you could get away with just one. Please correct me if I am wrong.

Another option would be another loop. Maybe an up loop north of the station between the two bridges? I don't see how the existing loop isn't enough.

You can't run around a train if you've only got one track available.

 

[saismee]

From Google Maps there appears to be a large amount of land between the existing tracks and the boundary adjacent to the fields. There is loads of room to the south side of the station for an additional platform and two tracks without encroaching on the fields.

This would never be a zero-cost project. Extending the subway would be cheap compared to building a new platform and providing new lines. Small bits of land are cheap compared to signals and points.


You can't run around a train if you've only got one track available.

I see. The loop doesn't need to be ripped up, just given a platform face. It could be cheaped out on by giving it a shorter platform (does Ely currently fit 12-coach trains?) to support the EMR, XC, and GA services. The existing long platforms can be used for the terminating trains.

 

[Magdalia]

I don't completely understand the layout, but there looks to be two loops. I'm sure you could get away with just one. Please correct me if I am wrong.

You are wrong!

The main use for the loops is to fit the Felixstowe Intermodals between the passenger trains, especially over the single line between Ely Dock and Soham.

Another option would be another loop. Maybe an up loop north of the station between the two bridges? I don't see how the existing loop isn't enough.

It would not be long enough. The Intermodals are very long trains.

It could be cheaped out on by giving it a shorter platform (does Ely currently fit 12-coach trains?) to support the EMR, XC, and GA services. The existing long platforms can be used for the terminating trains.

The Ely platforms are all long enough for 12 cars. Furthermore, I think that they all have permissive working so that they can be shared by an 8 car train and a 2/3 car train. Platform 3 is booked to be used this way every weekday.

 

[dk1]

I have always found that Ely copes fairly well with service disruption. Platforms are all permissive and staff soon empty a train if it’s required out of the way into the down sidings to make space.

 

[saismee]

It would not be long enough. The Intermodals are very long trains.

I should clarify that I meant a loop for shunting the passenger trains in/out.

I have always found that Ely copes fairly well with service disruption. Platforms are all permissive and staff soon empty a train if it’s required out of the way into the down sidings to make space.

It is probably GN who need to perform better during disruption then. Make a bit more use of the platforms for terminating trains, even at a reduced service.

 

[dk1]

I should clarify that I meant a loop for shunting the passenger trains in/out.


It is probably GN who need to perform better during disruption then. Make a bit more use of the platforms for terminating trains, even at a reduced service.

To be fair their trains are the longest and have involvement in longer single line sections. They also have more complex traincrew issues.

 

[zwk500]

I should clarify that I meant a loop for shunting the passenger trains in/out.

A unit can shunt out of 2 and 3 to the existing Up Through Siding while an intermodal is held on the Up Goods Loop already. Trains can shunt out of Platform 1 to the Down Goods Loop or Through Siding on that side.

One thing you might do is put a reversing siding on the Up Side south of Ely dock junction to allow trains in 2/3 to get out of the platform and then have all 3 available for their next working. However that shunt can already be done on the Up Main or Up & Down (Bury?) single line. So it'd be difficult to justify the £10s of millions it'd cost.

Long term the best thing would be to take freight around 1 side of Ely or the other to remove the long intermodals from the station area completely, but that will require a change in political-economic climate of miraculous proportions given how slow progress on the Ely Area Capacity Enhancement is going.

 

[rmHawk765]

Perhaps the major issue we should be looking at rather than Ely specifically is why the Cambridge & Fen lines as one whole unit are so unreliable? There are a multitude of issues, and I wouldn't rank Ely relatively highly:

• Cambridge-Brighton and to some extent even captive GN crew diagrams are very complex and completely unsustainable in disruption
• The single-line sections past Ely are a constraint in themselves
• Splitting and joining of 12-coach GN trains at Cambridge still takes ages which has knock-on effects
• Ironically, the new Cambridge South using 3 physically separate platforms instead of 2 islands means more advanced notice of platform alterations must be made (and it having 4 platforms is a bit useless until Shepreth Branch Junction-Cambridge is 4-tracked anyway, it only adds so much resilience given its proximity to Cambridge main station)
• Potentially the level crossing at Cambridge North limits capacity beyond Cambridge, to an extent where GN cannot run many services to Ely in disruption?
• While there are glaring issues to be fixed, disruption can and will happen even with improvements, and with the Cambridge line becoming almost a metro-style service (thanks to Cambridge South and growing demand) some sort of, you know, basic resilience makes sense, i.e in the form of loops roughly halfway between Letchworth and Cambridge

The best argument I can see for a fourth platform at Ely is that Ely-Cambridge is a very busy commuter flow, and that reliably running services to Ely will only become more important thanks to Cambridge South. But this is entirely futile without the above issues considered beforehand.

but that will require a change in political-economic climate of miraculous proportions given how slow progress on the Ely Area Capacity Enhancement is going.

The Cambridge & Fen lines will be stuck in their current dreadful state until we get an actually competent government. Literally every single one of these issues is glaringly obvious, there is nothing to prove here as to why improvements objectively must be made, but what can't be said is that any of this is 'cost-effective' in Westminster's eyes.

 

[zwk500]

• Ironically, the new Cambridge South using 3 physically separate platforms instead of 2 islands means more advanced notice of platform alterations must be made (and it having 4 platforms is a bit useless until Shepreth Branch Junction-Cambridge is 4-tracked anyway, it only adds so much resilience given its proximity to Cambridge main station)

If Cambridge South did not have 4 platforms, the timetable could not have been made to stop anything at it (at the current level of service).

 

[rmHawk765]

If Cambridge South did not have 4 platforms, the timetable could not have been made to stop anything at it.

2 physical platforms in an island configuration are equivalent to 4... unless you mean the grouping of the tracks in this area.

 

[zwk500]

2 physical platforms in an island configuration are equivalent to 4... unless you mean the grouping of the tracks in this area.

I was referring to the section in parentheses, which I understood to be referring to active platform faces. This bit:

(and it having 4 platforms is a bit useless until Shepreth Branch Junction-Cambridge is 4-tracked anyway, it only adds so much resilience given its proximity to Cambridge main station)

The timetable would not have been impacted if the station had been 2 islands rather than side-island-side. However the Park would have needed more land take, and it would have impacted the passenger flow around the station.

 

[William3000]

Would it be possible to build a bay to the west of platform 1 - it would obviously stretch some way south of the existing station.

 

[rmHawk765]

I was referring to the section in parentheses, which I understood to be referring to active platform faces. This bit:

I don't really see how having 4 tracks does anything given these are reduced to 2 or 3 on either side, and given every train stops at the station? The pinch points remain the Cambridge throat and Shepreth Branch Jn. Though I'd be happy to see any genuine reasons visible in the timetable why having this arrangement makes a difference.

 

[zwk500]

I don't really see how having 4 tracks does anything given these are reduced to 2 or 3 on either side, and given every train stops at the station? The pinch points remain the Cambridge throat and Shepreth Branch Jn. Though I'd be happy to see any genuine reasons visible in the timetable why having this arrangement makes a difference.

Headway through Cambridge South is 3 minutes, the minimum dwell time there is 1 minute and platform reoccupation there is 2.5 minutes. Therefore with only 2 platforms you'd be needing to space departures out to every 3.5 minutes, which would disrupt the timetables that must hit very specific slots into London on both the West Anglia and Thameslink routes. At busy periods that extra 30 seconds would cause a ripple effect at Cambridge on consecutive minimum headway arrivals and departures, given how close the station is.
With 2 platforms, trains can depart alternate platforms every 3 minutes, preserving the current slots at both the London and Cambridge ends.

To look at next wednesday's timetable, the xx.18 and xx.48 departures to Liverpool street (which start north of Cambridge so much hit slots through the station) are followed 3 minutes later by Brighton services. Every half hour, all day. Some of those brighton services are on minimum dwells and allowances all the way from Cambridge to Preston Park.

Do you think NR didn't look at whether they really needed 4 platforms?

 

[rmHawk765]

Do you think NR didn't look at whether they really needed 4 platforms?

No, I'm just saying I personally couldn't see a reason but was interested in finding out why.

With 2 platforms, trains can depart alternate platforms every 3 minutes, preserving the current slots at both the London and Cambridge ends.

So essentially the reason is entirely down to platform reoccupation and pathing? That makes sense in all fairness, thanks for the explanation.

 

[InTheEastMids]

<deleted>