Wisbech-March line reopening cost increase to £200m

[HSTEd]

Spoiler: Old post

I've had a look at the study and its a bit confusing.

At most we are looking at about 7.5 miles of track between March and where the line runs into full development in Wisbech.

Why do they need a passing loop for a 30 minute interval service?

Covering both legs with a turnaround in under 30 minutes seems easily doable even with low performance diesel units.
A tram-train could do it easily.

EDIT:

Apparently they are using a low power parry people mover in the light rail study.

Neither of these two conditions can be met on the March to Wisbech line
as the timetabling study suggests that to achieve 2 tph the vehicle must be capable of maintaining a 45 mph average speed. This is above the published top speed of the People Mover.

In other words, the study has been cooked to give the result they wanted.

EDIT #2:

With regards the diesel option, they assume a Class 170 to run a shuttle service between March and Wisbech... because using a 100mph train on a dedicated 60mph branch shuttle is a reasonable move. Especially a train that isn't even operated by Greater Anglia any more.

Technical running time of 634-678 seconds, which happens with the added 50% to be just too long to operate a shuttle with a single unit.

Convenient that isn't it.

Nevermind that I think of at least one other place on the network where a timetabled running time as high as 12 minutes is acceptable for a half hourly shuttle (St Ives v St Erth).
Oh and the report contains no optioneering about costing for achieving a higher speed limit than 60mph to reduce sectional running times with those 100mph units they are using.,

This post was based on the GRIP 2 study, which is apparently not the current one.
To be honest if this is what £250k of consultancy money buys you, I am not impressed.

 

[A0]

What about regaining the freight flow from the pet food factory. That would help the business case.

I would suspect the pet food factory moved away from railfreight for a reason - probably cost and flexibility. Why would they go back if that were the case?

 

[A0]

EDIT #2:

With regards the diesel option, they assume a Class 170 to run a shuttle service between March and Wisbech... because using a 100mph train on a dedicated 60mph branch shuttle is a reasonable move. Especially a train that isn't even operated by Greater Anglia any more.

Technical running time of 634-678 seconds, which happens with the added 50% to be just too long to operate a shuttle with a single unit.

Convenient that isn't it.

Nevermind that I think of at least one other place on the network where a timetabled running time as high as 12 minutes is acceptable for a half hourly shuttle (St Ives v St Erth).
Oh and the report contains no optioneering about costing for achieving a higher speed limit than 60mph to reduce sectional running times with those 100mph units they are using.,

Well OK - but a study is carried out at a fixed point in time, so using a "representative" DMU is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. The running costs of a 170 are unlikely to be significantly different to any other 90 / 100 mph DMU currently in use on the network. So whilst the final solution may not be a 170 - particularly if they've been reallocated elsewhere, it still provides a reasonable basis on which to cost a proposal.

If they'd costed it using a Pacer everyone would have been up in arms about the fact they've never been used in East Anglia etc.

Too many people here get fixated on the minutiae details of a business case or proposal without actually looking at it practically. All such cases and proposals are looking to get a realistic view of likely costs (within a tolerance). Trying to cost on rolling stock which doesn't exist seems a rather silly idea, costing on the basis of an established 2 car DMU seems eminently sensible.

 

[trebor79]

I would suspect the pet food factory moved away from railfreight for a reason - probably cost and flexibility. Why would they go back if that were the case?

Yes but we might see that tide turning with net zero etc.

 

[Clayton]

If you look for details of the scheme it’s for a direct service to Cambridge and science park, not a little shuttle to March. That would make Wisbech a place that people who wouldn’t now consider it could live in.

 

[Midnight Sun]

And providing a subsidy to run a regular bus service connecting to trains at March would be vastly cheaper than any form of rail reinstatement as well as not impacting the current network which already has places where capacity is challenged i.e. Ely.

You clearly not seeing the main reason for the reopening of the line which is to reduce the number of cars on the roads. While your average car owning commuter will drive to the nearest railway station, You will not get them to use a bus to get to the station how ever posh it is, more so in a rural area. Why do you think that many railway stations have such large carparks?

How ever posh you may make the bus, You will not get the average car owner leave his car behind and take the bus. The only ones that do, don't pay as they have free bus passes or their car is off the road. Give a car owner who has to pay for his ticket a choice of either sitting in slow moving traffic on bus or sitting in their own car. They will pick their car. This old BR ad sums it up

The 56 between March and Wisbech uses ex Stagecoach Gold buses. And it still a rough ride on that road, Which I found out today as I had to go to North Cambs Hospital in Wisbech. I could have gone back home first and got the car after arriving back from Cambridge. So after paying out £7 for a return ticket. I did a head count (19) on the 13.56pm (25 minuites late), The person that got on the bus at the station with was a car owner (car in for repair) who had come up on the train from Ely was very inpressed with the train (GA service) and the journey time from Ely. As for the bus she throught the bus fare was a rip off and the ride was poor. The return was on the 4.30pm which is the last 56 back to March. Head count (47) Board first and sat by the door, Out of the 37 who boarded at the bus station, 3 people used the return part of the ticket, 1 person a single fare, the rest (33) produced bus passes.

 

[Midnight Sun]

Absolutely correct. I can't believe that some people are attempting to waste so many millions on a line in such a relatively remote, low population, area. Crazy !

43000 people live within 3 miles of the centre of Wisbech, this is expect to increase by another 12000 in the next ten years

 

[Midnight Sun]

Looking on Google Earth the trackbed appears to be clear to Weasenham Lane - after that it is clear but ends in the Nestle / Purina factory which used to be rail connected but has since removed the sidings and extended its site car park.

I think Weasenham Lane is probably the realistic limit of the line.

I'm sure I read a couple of years ago that that section of trackbed was incorporated in plans for a new mixed use light industry/ housing estate but don't know if that was just a proposal or if the land was sold to the developer

The planned station is behind the Nestle / Purina factory, the company supports the reopening the line and the site for the station. The station would also be useful for their staff. Note the access path and how much of the town is within 15 minuites walk. The A47 site would require a bus (The bus service to Tesco the otherside of the roundabout from the bus staion costs £3.80 return which is why only bus pass holders use it. There two options for the station, single or two track.

 

[Midnight Sun]

Yes - nothing like making an already marginal proposal that everyone's whinging about the cost of a little more expensive and therefore more marginal along the way. And a tramway from March - Wisbech is a marginal scheme.

Reality check time needed methinks.

And just for the record - Nottingham Express Transit construction cost for 8.7 miles was £ 200m - which is £ 309m in 2019 prices.

Yes, you'd have fewer stations and re-use of an existing track formation - but realistically £ 200m still sounds about right.

This require major new bridge work at Nottingham Station, All services under the road section also had to be relocated which is a major cost in building LRT road sections in the UK.

 

[Midnight Sun]

I'm not sure it is such a bottleneck. 2 tph each way on the line to Norwich, 5 trains every 2 hours each way on the Peterborough and max 3 tph each way on the Kings Lynn route. Add a couple of freights an hour. The single lead into the KL and Norwich line is adequate for the service level. I guess if there was an aspiration to increase Breckland line frequencies it might be different.

They want to double the number of freight trains from Felixstowe running this way to free up space on the GEML by diverting the trains that run via the North London Line to WCML through Ely and Peterborough instead. GA are unable to make the Ipswich-Peterborough service hourly due to lack of paths through Ely North.

 

[Midnight Sun]

The new Grip3b report cost 3.5 million, I have requested a copy from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority

 

[Class 170101]

More people use the bus in this country than use the train. And the £200m doesn’t buy you a through service to Ely or Cambridge. Far from it.

The only way that will be achieved is by having bi-modes that can work with Class 387s services Kings Cross to Kings Lynn with splitting train to save a path on the congested section south of Ely

They want to double the number of freight trains from Felixstowe running this way to free up space on the GEML by diverting the trains that run via the North London Line to WCML through Ely and Peterborough instead. GA are unable to make the Ipswich-Peterborough service hourly due to lack of paths through Ely North.

Has anyone actually tried regarding the Ipswich to Peterborough service and admitted failure or is it just GA and especially NR saying no!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

If we adopt a pragmatic stance and say only the ten "best" reopenings then Wisbech to March is still probably within that ten.

I think that's pretty optimistic.

Off the top of my head: Levenmouth. Grangemouth. St. Andrews. Newcastle-Ashington. Poulton-Fleetwood. Leicester-Burton. Three Bridges-East Grinstead. Wolverhampton-Walsall. Camp Hill Line. Brockenhurst-Wimborne Blackpool South-Central. Rochdale-Bury. Cambridge-Haverhill-Sudbury. Stansted-Braintree.

That's 14 possible reopenings just off the top of my head. Some of those are pretty iffy and have major obstacles in their way. But even so, I'd say everyone of those is potentially better than Wisbech-March (either in the sense of being more useful, or in the sense of probably being cheaper).

 

[trebor79]

They want to double the number of freight trains from Felixstowe running this way to free up space on the GEML by diverting the trains that run via the North London Line to WCML through Ely and Peterborough instead. GA are unable to make the Ipswich-Peterborough service hourly due to lack of paths through Ely North.

Is it actually Ely North that prevents this? I thought it was some nonsense about not being allowed to run more trains over some of the level crossings because it increases the risk of a train/car smash.

 

[Bald Rick]

You clearly not seeing the main reason for the reopening of the line which is to reduce the number of cars on the roads. While your average car owning commuter will drive to the nearest railway station, You will not get them to use a bus to get to the station how ever posh it is, more so in a rural area.

You would if the bus was free, and twice the frequency of a train. Which would still be considerably cheaper than building a new railway. As per my earlier post. Given the choice of s free bus every 15 mins, or a train every half hour that costs, say £8 return, what do you think the good folk of Wisbech would prefer?

I think that's pretty optimistic.

Off the top of my head: Levenmouth. Grangemouth. St. Andrews. Newcastle-Ashington. Poulton-Fleetwood. Leicester-Burton. Three Bridges-East Grinstead. Wolverhampton-Walsall. Camp Hill Line. Brockenhurst-Wimborne Blackpool South-Central. Rochdale-Bury. Cambridge-Haverhill-Sudbury. Stansted-Braintree.

That's 14 possible reopenings just off the top of my head. Some of those are pretty iffy and have major obstacles in their way. But even so, I'd say everyone of those is potentially better than Wisbech-March (either in the sense of being more useful, or in the sense of probably being cheaper).

In no particular order, my view of the most beneficial new conventional lines for passenger services:

EWR Western section
Portishead
Abertillery
Skelmersdale
Ollerton
Bescot - Wolverhampton
Camp Hill
Ashington / Blyth
Okehampton (from Exeter)
Isle of Grain

 

[Bald Rick]

Is it actually Ely North that prevents this? I thought it was some nonsense about not being allowed to run more trains over some of the level crossings because it increases the risk of a train/car smash.

In no particular order (again) it is:

Capacity through Haughley Jn
Capacity on the single line through Soham
Capacity through Ely, from Dock Jn to North Jn inclusive
Headways from Ely North to Peterborough
Headways from Peterborough to Syston Jn
Capacity through the single lead at Syston Jn
Capacity through Leicester
Capacity through Wigston Junction
Level Crossing risk across the whole lot

But apart from those things, there’s nothing to worry about in providing a lot more freight from Felixstowe to the WCML.

Incidentally, this is not to free up space on the GEML. It is to cope with the growth at Felixstowe. There is little to no chance of permanently diverting existing traffic off the GEML to go cross country, not least because a fair proportion of it isn’t actually heading north.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In no particular order, my view of the most beneficial new conventional lines for passenger services:

EWR Western section
Portishead
Abertillery
Skelmersdale
Ollerton
Bescot - Wolverhampton
Camp Hill
Ashington / Blyth
Okehampton (from Exeter)
Isle of Grain

Isle of Grain???? Passenger Services? Have I missed a joke? (Other than that, it looks a pretty sensible list)

 

[eastdyke]

The new Grip3b report cost 3.5 million, I have requested a copy from the Cambridgeshire and Peterborough Combined Authority

You may need to wait a little while.
The documents presented at the Meeting today were the Options Assessment Report (OAR) and
the March to Wisbech Transport Corridor - Interim Report. From the latter:

It is anticipated that the full business case will be submitted to the CPCA Board for approval in July 2020.

I have tired eyes just now, reading through will have to wait until later in the weekend.

The Meeting document pack is here (scrolling needed!):
https://cambridgeshirepeterboroughc...WGewmoAfeNQ16B2MHuCpMRKZMwaG1PaO=ctNJFf55vVA=

 

[Bald Rick]

Isle of Grain???? Passenger Services? Have I missed a joke? (Other than that, it looks a pretty sensible list)

You’ve missed some seriousness. There’s substantial housing development planned there, and it was in the Kent Route Study a couple of years ago. I understand it is being considered very seriously.

Oh and I missed Levenmouth. Let’s call it a Baker’s ten.

 

[yorksrob]

The last few posts illustrate just why the Government needs to put its money where its mouth is and commit that 5 billion fund to reopenings.

You know it makes sense.

 

[ivanhoe]

I think Bald Rick has given some great reasons as to why you can’t look at this reopening in isolation. For a reopening to be a success, it requires direct trains to Ely and Cambridge and the work at Ely has to be done before / at the same time as Wisbech. The Bill gets bigger but it is an investment over x number of years. It would, on reflection, be an investment for an area which would provide much needed regeneration over a number of years. I fear that locals however, may wish to see improvements in the A47 as a priority, which is understandable. Two different budgets, though! Yorksrob makes a strong point!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

You’ve missed some seriousness. There’s substantial housing development planned there, and it was in the Kent Route Study a couple of years ago. I understand it is being considered very seriously.

Oh thanks! I had no idea that was the case. Must be quite a big housing development to justify re-opening a railway line to what - as far as I can tell from the maps - is currently basically a couple of small villages. But if there is lots of housing, I can see the benefits in terms of being right in the London commuter area. Anyway, way off topic for this thread.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The last few posts illustrate just why the Government needs to put its money where its mouth is and commit that 5 billion fund to reopenings.

You know it makes sense.

I think it kinda does... except that doesn't seem much point committing that kind of money until you have something specific to spend it on. That would presumably mean, either have some shovel-ready projects that you can start building now. Or at the very least projects where you've done enough work to know roughly how you are going to build them and ballpark how much they will cost - in which case you could presumably commit to provide the funds once the project becomes shovel-ready. And I'm not sure we do have anything that meets that criteria at the moment, other than projects that are actually already being built? Do we?

I terms of March-Wisbech, I think my perhaps slightly more realistic hope is that the Government might commit in principle to solving the Ely bottleneck as a priority. And once that's done and if as a result there is spare capacity at Ely, then you might look at March-Wisbech again, from a perspective of running Cambridge-Wisbech trains..

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

You may need to wait a little while.
The documents presented at the Meeting today were the Options Assessment Report (OAR) and
the March to Wisbech Transport Corridor - Interim Report. From the latter:

I have tired eyes just now, reading through will have to wait until later in the weekend.

The Meeting document pack is here (scrolling needed!):

Thanks for posting link interesting set of documents in usual consultant speak but nevertheless informative on where the £200m goes. Base infrastructure is £10m/mile but looks like resignalling March is included, station costs look reasonable but the outlier is elimination of level crossings at £51m more than light rail. They quote that there are 21 l/crossings that need eliminating so 2.5m each sounds very cost effective especially given that any bridge will need extensive earthworks on its approaches given the flat terrain an no doubt land acquisition as well. Unless you build Wisbech Stn outside of the town the A47 will need a bridge of the remainder 3 are on secondary B roads, 2-3 country lanes and the rest are user worked farm crossings which could be rationalised. Given that any LX now (even if permitted) would have to be full barriers with obstacle detectors there probably not much in it on costs. However, the fact that light rail can avoid level crossing compliance issues does call into question whether heavy rail standards one size fits all across the network are appropriate? This is an area RDG through RSSB and ORR should be reviewing given the political desire to reopen more lines and the clear environmental imperative to move journeys to least CO2 intensive forms.
The other key point in the report is going beyond Wisbech needs NR to complete the Ely Area capacity enhancement works which is still only at NREP stage 2 so this is 3-4 years off but this does present itself as an opportunity for a combined programme of work.

 

[yorksrob]

I think it kinda does... except that doesn't seem much point committing that kind of money until you have something specific to spend it on. That would presumably mean, either have some shovel-ready projects that you can start building now. Or at the very least projects where you've done enough work to know roughly how you are going to build them and ballpark how much they will cost - in which case you could presumably commit to provide the funds once the project becomes shovel-ready. And I'm not sure we do have anything that meets that criteria at the moment, other than projects that are actually already being built? Do we?

I terms of March-Wisbech, I think my perhaps slightly more realistic hope is that the Government might commit in principle to solving the Ely bottleneck as a priority. And once that's done and if as a result there is spare capacity at Ely, then you might look at March-Wisbech again, from a perspective of running Cambridge-Wisbech trains..

I think that as the above posts show, there are plenty of potential projects in the pipeline, most of which have had numerous studies already (to which I would add Bere Alston - Tavistock. Commit the money and select the best of them.

I suspect that the projects for the five billion on buses and cycleways probably haven't been fully worked up yet. I suspect that some aren't even as advanced as some of the above rail projects.

I agree about sorting out the Ely bottleneck.

 

[70014IronDuke]

If you look for details of the scheme it’s for a direct service to Cambridge and science park, not a little shuttle to March. That would make Wisbech a place that people who wouldn’t now consider it could live in.

Thanks for posting. I don't think this can be stated enough. A simple shuttle all day long will not attract many passengers IMO and could never produce a case. It is a through service to more useful destinations (could be Cambridge, Stansted or Peterborough) that is needed for the expanding population of Wisbech.
Not to say the odd shuttle from Wisbech to March could not run to supplement the main service, just that such a service alone would not be attractive to many.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

However, the fact that light rail can avoid level crossing compliance issues does call into question whether heavy rail standards one size fits all across the network are appropriate?

Genuine question... does light rail avoiding compliance issues depend in part on low speeds? I'm guessing that, for pretty much all the places where you have trams interacting directly with other road traffic and pedestrians, you are in urban areas and the tram speed is 30mph max. 30mph isn't going to work very well if you want to attract people to use a March-Wisbech link.

 

[Bald Rick]

Genuine question... does light rail avoiding compliance issues depend in part on low speeds? I'm guessing that, for pretty much all the places where you have trams interacting directly with other road traffic and pedestrians, you are in urban areas and the tram speed is 30mph max. 30mph isn't going to work very well if you want to attract people to use a March-Wisbech link.

No, it is because light rail in this context is driven on sight. You won’t find many trams in shared areas where linespeed is 30mph, although no doubt someone will prove me wrong. In terms of March - Wisbech, linespeed at the level crossings would have to be dropped to, at a guess, 10 mph.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

No, it is because light rail in this context is driven on sight. You won’t find many trams in shared areas where linespeed is 30mph, although no doubt someone will prove me wrong. In terms of March - Wisbech, linespeed at the level crossings would have to be dropped to, at a guess, 10 mph.

Ah thanks! I think that kinda leads to the same conclusion I was erring towards anyway: That going for light rail in order to avoid having to upgrade/replace level crossings would result in longer journey times because of the need to slow down for every level crossing. (Aside from all the other problems)

 

[Bald Rick]

I think that as the above posts show, there are plenty of potential projects in the pipeline, most of which have had numerous studies already (to which I would add Bere Alston - Tavistock. Commit the money and select the best of them.

I suspect that the projects for the five billion on buses and cycleways probably haven't been fully worked up yet. I suspect that some aren't even as advanced as some of the above rail projects.

I agree about sorting out the Ely bottleneck.

Government will never commit to any scheme until it is clear about the costs. Note that the £5bn for buses and cycleways etc is a budget, not a commitment to deliver. It is also intended to be spread very thinly over the whole country, therefore individual schemes within the budget can’t cause much ‘damage’ to the budget if they go wrong; they are also (usually) much quicker and easier to design and implement than any new railway scheme. Finally because of the thin spread, it means that not proceeding with any one scheme is merely noise in the system; it will affect few voters and not be news.

By contrast, new railways are, as we know, expensive. They are also quite chunky, with big implications for the overall budget if they go wrong (see electrification projects passim). And if one gets someway down the line of development but then cancelled, that is big news for Government, local and national, and a potential election loser (in the constituencies affected, at least).

For that reason, Governement will want to be absolutely sure about individual schemes before progressing through any stage of the development process, and committing further funding. So what the Givenrment has done is actually quite smart - committed half a billion quid of budget, to be used for either development or delivery, if the case is made. But the case must be made.

I’d also suggest that what some people on these pages think is a ‘study’ into a new line really is no more than an initial feasibility. You need a decent level of design to be able to be in a position to commit to construction, and none of the schemes has got that far except Portishead.