Peterborough to get Flyover

[CockneySparrow]

Looking at the trackbed on Google Earth, many of the structures are intact. The bridge over the Nene is missing but supports are present. Very few buildings block the route even in Cowbit and outskirts of Spalding.

The junction at March is intact and signalled together with a mile of track. That leaves 18 miles to restore. I have not included land purchase as I don't know how much remains with the property board. We are only looking at 60-70 acres of poor quality land.

I have taken data from Borders rail 2010 and Ripon-Harrogate 2006reinstatements of which I have intimate involvement.

Borders railway was costed at £8.2M per mile with 16 miles of double track dynamic loops. Ripon-Harrogate was costed at £3.4M per mile for single line with a four mile dynamic loop or £4.3M per mile double track throughout. Signalling is including in these estimates but I have deducted station costs as there would be no stations Spalding-March.

We all know that Borders rail is £70M over budget at £350M due to the false start before Network Rail took over therefore dynamic loops have been shortened by seven miles to save money.

I just averaged the cost of the two schemes per mile, added the cost of say twenty former level crossing replacement bridges at £1.5M each, twenty properties costing £0.5 each ( including disruption compensation) plus 10% inflation from 2010 and it came to £183M.

Can anybody come up with a more accurate figure?

You will have to find a way around the prison at March but it could be possible, bridge over the river at the back of the prison, plus bridges over the road and river at Guyhirn, the viaduct at Guyhirn will need work on it that's providing they act now, if not it will need to be rebuilt as the owner plans to demolish it

At Murrow I believe houses have been built on the trackbed if not very close, small bridge at Cowbit needs replacing, then you come to the problem at Spalding, the connection to the main line has been built on so no access to where it was before, suppose you could link it up elsewhere but this will be more miles of track and cost

 

[Bald Rick]

Looking at the trackbed on Google Earth, many of the structures are intact. The bridge over the Nene is missing but supports are present. Very few buildings block the route even in Cowbit and outskirts of Spalding.

The junction at March is intact and signalled together with a mile of track. That leaves 18 miles to restore. I have not included land purchase as I don't know how much remains with the property board. We are only looking at 60-70 acres of poor quality land.

I have taken data from Borders rail 2010 and Ripon-Harrogate 2006reinstatements of which I have intimate involvement.

Borders railway was costed at £8.2M per mile with 16 miles of double track dynamic loops. Ripon-Harrogate was costed at £3.4M per mile for single line with a four mile dynamic loop or £4.3M per mile double track throughout. Signalling is including in these estimates but I have deducted station costs as there would be no stations Spalding-March.

We all know that Borders rail is £70M over budget at £350M due to the false start before Network Rail took over therefore dynamic loops have been shortened by seven miles to save money.

I just averaged the cost of the two schemes per mile, added the cost of say twenty former level crossing replacement bridges at £1.5M each, twenty properties costing £0.5 each ( including disruption compensation) plus 10% inflation from 2010 and it came to £183M.

Can anybody come up with a more accurate figure?

As many a consultant has learned the hard way, google earth is not your friend when it comes to assessing the condition of bridges and formation. Ripon-Harrogate was not costed correctly. Just the provision of new track - sleepers, ballast, rail, costs well over £1m per single track mile on a prepared formation. That is before any civil engineering, signalling, telecoms (incl radio), fencing, land purchase, vegetation clearance, temporary works, design, consents, consultation, I'll stop now.

Try again at £12m a mile (and that is very cheap), and add road bridges at £5m each minimum.

 

[deltic08]

You will have to find a way around the prison at March but it could be possible, bridge over the river at the back of the prison, plus bridges over the road and river at Guyhirn, the viaduct at Guyhirn will need work on it that's providing they act now, if not it will need to be rebuilt as the owner plans to demolish it

At Murrow I believe houses have been built on the trackbed if not very close, small bridge at Cowbit needs replacing, then you come to the problem at Spalding, the connection to the main line has been built on so no access to where it was before, suppose you could link it up elsewhere but this will be more miles of track and cost

20 road over rail bridges and demolition of 20 houses was allowed for in my calculations. Off-line diversions around the prison is not a problem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As many a consultant has learned the hard way, google earth is not your friend when it comes to assessing the condition of bridges and formation. Ripon-Harrogate was not costed correctly. Just the provision of new track - sleepers, ballast, rail, costs well over £1m per single track mile on a prepared formation. That is before any civil engineering, signalling, telecoms (incl radio), fencing, land purchase, vegetation clearance, temporary works, design, consents, consultation, I'll stop now.

Try again at £12m a mile (and that is very cheap), and add road bridges at £5m each minimum.

Sorry to burst your balloon. I was on the committee that appointed consultants and scrutinised the report. Everything you mention except land purchase was included. The study was conducted and costed correctly. The appointed consultants remit was design and cost a 90mph railway between Ripon and Harrogate including environmental impact assessment. Every structure was extensively surveyed and found to be in remarkably good condition as was the formation. Four former level crossing overbridges and road diversions were costed at £1.0M each and two long underbridges over the A61 in two places costed at £1.5M and £7.0M (at 2006 prices. Double trackwork throughout including signalling and junction in Harrogate, together with a double platform station in Ripon was estimated at £45-£48M. Deduct cost of Ripon station and that results in £4.3M per mile for EVERYTHING except land and property purchase.

 

[Bald Rick]

20 road over rail bridges and demolition of 20 houses was allowed for in my calculations. Off-line diversions around the prison is not a problem.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Sorry to burst your balloon. I was on the committee that appointed consultants and scrutinised the report. Everything you mention except land purchase was included. The study was conducted and costed correctly. The appointed consultants remit was design and cost a 90mph railway between Ripon and Harrogate including environmental impact assessment. Every structure was extensively surveyed and found to be in remarkably good condition as was the formation. Four former level crossing overbridges and road diversions were costed at £1.0M each and two long underbridges over the A61 in two places costed at £1.5M and £7.0M (at 2006 prices. Double trackwork throughout including signalling and junction in Harrogate, together with a double platform station in Ripon was estimated at £45-£48M. Deduct cost of Ripon station and that results in £4.3M per mile for EVERYTHING except land and property purchase.

All very nice. But none of it makes the consultants right I'm afraid.

The Selby diversion was £4m a mile in 1982

Tile Hill bridge (about as simple as you can get) was £6m in 2004

Beddingham bridge - a big one with 1km of approach road, was £28m in 2007.

Elsenham footbridge (steps, no ramps) was £1m in 2006

Perhaps most relevant, in 2010 Airdrie-Bathgate was £15m a mile for a double tracked 90mph route reopening when you strip out the cost of stations, electrification and the works to the existing railway at either end.

As someone who has been involved in all stages of railway projects for 20 years, specifying, developing, delivering, operating them, I can assure everyone that you do not get new railways for £4.3m per mile.

 

[petersi]

I do not understand the obsession with reopening Spalding March line.

A flyover gives much better passenger opportunities like extending the Ipswich Peterborough service so Lincoln so giving the people of Lincolnshire better access to Cambridgeshire.

 

[CockneySparrow]

I do not understand the obsession with reopening Spalding March line.

A flyover gives much better passenger opportunities like extending the Ipswich Peterborough service so Lincoln so giving the people of Lincolnshire better access to Cambridgeshire.

reopening March to Spalding is ideal as it misses out Peterborough completely also the stretch between March and Peterborough

 

[petersi]

reopening March to Spalding is ideal as it misses out Peterborough completely also the stretch between March and Peterborough

I understand that as far as fright goes.

But taken the the lines is no longer, A fly over would seam to have benefits to freight traffic but also passenger traffic as it would be possible to for Lincoln to have direct trains to Ipswich witch would have access to Ely which is a lot better gateway to East Anglia than Peterborough.

The coast of re-establishing the Spalding March line gives no added passenger benefits I believe a flyover with a bit of imagination could.

But Guess I am wrong

 

[ultrabox]

reopening March to Spalding is ideal as it misses out Peterborough completely also the stretch between March and Peterborough

I'm with petersi on this, the reinstatement of the Spalding- March line is pure fantasy and won't ever happen. I live next to the Joint Line and can see the investment taking place and hope that new services come about from the route upgrade.

 

[edwin_m]

The coast of re-establishing the Spalding March line gives no added passenger benefits I believe a flyover with a bit of imagination could.

But Guess I am wrong

I think you're right. It's unlikely that the sort of regional/local passenger trains that run through March and Spalding would want to avoid the largest population centre in the area.

For freight, reopening March to Spalding would give very little capacity benefit because whichever route it takes it would have to share the double track section between March and Ely with the same set of passenger trains that run via Peterborough. On this section the passenger and freight trains run at similar speeds so the problem is sheer number of trains rather than faster trains catching up slower ones, and planned re-signalling will help by reducing the signal spacing.

Peterborough itself is no longer a bottleneck, with the recent remodelling providing extra through tracks and a long freight loop. By contrast the junction at March could become a significant constraint, since a train to/from Spalding will have to pass over it very slowly because of the nearby tight curve towards Whitemoor. Either route still has to get through Ely, which will remain the main bottleneck unless a totally new new avoiding line is built (no prospect of that happening).

Hence the only benefit of the considerable extra cost of reopening March-Spalding over building a flyover at Peterborough is a small reduction in distance and possibly journey time for through freights.

As well as the freight benefit, the flyover probably means the Spalding passenger trains will use the Stamford lines and terminate in the west side of Peterborough station, removing their conflicts with the ECML. It could also be a stepping stone to through London-Spalding trains if the Spalding section is ever electrified.

 

[stanley T]

Isn't a remaining ECML bottleneck the double track section between Fletton and Holme? Was always puzzled why this was only two tracks, built over difficult and sinking fen perhaps?

 

[edwin_m]

Isn't a remaining ECML bottleneck the double track section between Fletton and Holme? Was always puzzled why this was only two tracks, built over difficult and sinking fen perhaps?

That is certainly a bottleneck - some of the route around there used to be 4-track but unfortunately not only was track removed but the OLE supports were put where they would prevent it being reinstated. However it is more of an issue for passenger since very little freight uses the ECML south of Peterborough.

 

[davetheguard]

That is certainly a bottleneck - some of the route around there used to be 4-track but unfortunately not only was track removed but the OLE supports were put where they would prevent it being reinstated. However it is more of an issue for passenger since very little freight uses the ECML south of Peterborough.

Perhaps there's an opportunity on this section then: put the extra two tracks back AND re-do the masts to current standards (less distance between structures, no headspans) at the same time.

 

[Aictos]

Thing is you get the railways saying you cannot four track across Stilton Fen yet I believe you can, look at the work they did a few years ago between Doncaster and Cleethorpes which had a similar issue with it being boggy.

If they can do it there then why not on a busy mainline? Peterborough to Huntingdon needs to be 4 tracks anyway before they consider sending more trains on that section, in any case how would they reinstate the Up Slow considering it will have to be wired up with OHL?

Back to the Flyover, you have to remember the Up Slow is signalled for Bi-Directional running between Peterborough and Werrington Jct so it's not a dead cert for the Lincoln services to use said flyover however if it was possible then I can see Greater Anglia IF resources are available being able to extend the Ipswich services to Lincoln.

 

[ultrabox]

On a related note talking about the Joint Line, both Blotoft signal box and Gosberton with all the manned crossings between Spalding and Sleaford close this Friday I believe.

 

[CockneySparrow]

Back to the Flyover, you have to remember the Up Slow is signalled for Bi-Directional running between Peterborough and Werrington Jct so it's not a dead cert for the Lincoln services to use said flyover however if it was possible then I can see Greater Anglia IF resources are available being able to extend the Ipswich services to Lincoln.

Would that be in addition to the EMT service or instead, there is no more capacity on the line between Peterborough and Ely, in fact all the way through to Ipswich hence why the service is 2 hourly

 

[petersi]

Would that be in addition to the EMT service or instead, there is no more capacity on the line between Peterborough and Ely, in fact all the way through to Ipswich hence why the service is 2 hourly

Combining of existing services. But remember this is just an idea. In reality I do no expect it to happen

 

[ac6000cw]

Would that be in addition to the EMT service or instead, there is no more capacity on the line between Peterborough and Ely, in fact all the way through to Ipswich hence why the service is 2 hourly

Don't forget that Peterborough - Ely is due to be re-signalled (to increase capacity) around/by the time the proposed flyover is operational.

 

[edwin_m]

Would that be in addition to the EMT service or instead, there is no more capacity on the line between Peterborough and Ely, in fact all the way through to Ipswich hence why the service is 2 hourly

There would be no major problems making it hourly because all the other trains it might conflict with are also hourly so there is an empty path for it, subject only to moving a few peak extras. The reason it isn't increased is likely to be either lack of DMUs or not enough demand. Since the whole route is duplicated by other services except Bury to Ely, it's probably difficult to make a case for increasing it to hourly.

As to extending them to or through Spalding I think it's a solution looking for a problem. The service has about an ideal turnaround time at Peterbrorough so there would be no major saving in rolling stock utilisation, and I think the existing Spalding trains are one or two cars so a 3-car 170 would be an overkill. Through services to London might load a bit better, or if there was a service to extend between Peterborough and somewhere like Cambridge which is a destination in its own right. But how many people want to travel between Spalding or Lincoln and Ely or Ipswich?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Perhaps there's an opportunity on this section then: put the extra two tracks back AND re-do the masts to current standards (less distance between structures, no headspans) at the same time.

That's the logical thing to do, but no doubt subject to the usual problem of ££££ or the lack of.

 

[petersi]

I agree Cambridge would be a better destination than Ipswich. But requires extra resources. I still think Ely is a better gateway to East Anglia than Peterborough

 

[CockneySparrow]

There would be no major problems making it hourly because all the other trains it might conflict with are also hourly so there is an empty path for it, subject only to moving a few peak extras. The reason it isn't increased is likely to be either lack of DMUs or not enough demand. Since the whole route is duplicated by other services except Bury to Ely, it's probably difficult to make a case for increasing it to hourly.

There is an hourly path I believe, but when the passenger service doesn't run containers do, so in reality its passenger freight passenger freight

Agreed though that there isn't an hourly demand between Ely and Bury but think there should be a direct service earlier in the morning though, first train from Ely is 8:30 far too late

 

[edwin_m]

There is an hourly path I believe, but when the passenger service doesn't run containers do, so in reality its passenger freight passenger freight

That wasn't the case when I looked at the WTTs a couple of years ago, though it may have changed since then. However I seem to remember the hourly service wouldn't be possible without the Ely-Soham doubling, which I think is planned to happen in a few years.

Agreed though that there isn't an hourly demand between Ely and Bury but think there should be a direct service earlier in the morning though, first train from Ely is 8:30 far too late

Is there an earlier option via Cambridge? Part of the problem I think is that GA don't base any trains or crews at Ely or Peterborough and the Ely starter has to come from Norwich.

 

[CockneySparrow]

That wasn't the case when I looked at the WTTs a couple of years ago, though it may have changed since then. However I seem to remember the hourly service wouldn't be possible without the Ely-Soham doubling, which I think is planned to happen in a few years.

Is there an earlier option via Cambridge? Part of the problem I think is that GA don't base any trains or crews at Ely or Peterborough and the Ely starter has to come from Norwich.

I will admit that I haven't studied real time trains to the exact paths and times of the freight but being a regular visitor at Ely there always seems to be a freight train when the passenger service isn't running, like 30 minutes past each odd hour towards Ipswich is a freight mostly while 30 minutes past an even hour is passenger

There is an earlier service via Cambridge, caught one at 6:40 a few times from Cambridge must admit not busy its usually a 153 and gets in Bury around 7:20, the first service starts at a reasonable time from Ipswich like 6am but by the time it gets to Peterborough and back to Ely make first train 8:30 towards Suffolk

The single line can't be any much further than the section between Littleport and Downham and that works hourly

 

[Class 170101]

An hourly service with the existing infrastructure would be possible (ignore the freight trains for the sake of the point). The trains on the two hourly service cross between Soham and Chippenham Jn so the same would happen with the hourly service.

As noted there is no depot for Greater Anglia at Peterborough or Ely. A unit coming from Norwich is unlikely as crew would need to get to Ely to take it forward to Ipswich so it may as well come from there.

 

[edwin_m]

We mustn't forget that this is part of the Felixstowe-Nuneaton corridor and within a few years is expected to be carrying about two freights per hour in each direction throughout the day. This is why it isn't really comparable with the Kings Lynn branch and the Ely-Soham redoubling is essential (though at one time Network Rail thought they could do without it). With this doubling I believe an hourly passenger service would be compatible with this amount of freight.

 

[Senex]

Is Ely-Soham doubling definitely back on?

 

[CockneySparrow]

Is Ely-Soham doubling definitely back on?

Its gone quiet in recent months, about a year ago there used to be buses every weekend well at least on Sundays so assumed NR were working towards Ely from Ipswich but in recent months trains have been running and the line is still single

It was in the paper last week that Soham station won't open until at least 2019 as government funds aren't available, but this project won't go ahead until the line is doubled, still think NR should have installed a temporary platform at Soham when the bridge collapsed it would have saved all this aggro

NR did have a site near the new bridge at Ely with cabins and machinery but after months using the site next to the start of the single line they have moved out and appeared to have done nothing to the visible eye

 

[Crun]

Does anyone know when the Great Northern/Great Eastern line will start to take goods/freight trains from the ECML? Will this be before the flyover is built?

 

[Freightmaster]

Does anyone know when the Great Northern/Great Eastern line will start to take goods/freight trains from the ECML?

It has already happened! (in mid-December).

MARK

 

[Doctor Fegg]

I did propose a new line from Kings Dyke to Peakirk - largely brownfield and peripheral Peterborough which would have solved this rebuilding of PBO and neatly bypass East Anglia freight via the GN/GE Joint line. A very senior NR manager quite liked it - but he has recently retired. It ought to be looked at again. It was walked , mapped and costed.

Very interesting.

There's a (serious) plan to build a new navigable waterway between Kings Dyke and Peakirk - http://www.fenswaterways.com/ . Building a railway and waterway at the same time, on a parallel alignment, would mean serious cost savings...

 

[Crun]

It has already happened! (in mid-December).

MARK

How many freight trains per day are there supposed to be? I went to have a look at this line when the Bittern ran up to Lincoln. It was the only train I saw. Other days I have only seen Spalding to Peterborough DMUs since the Bittern run.