On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> [snip]
>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>>>
>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>
>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>
>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>
>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>>> the river too).
>>>
>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>
>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>
>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>>
>
> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
> is possible just costly.
> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>
> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
> so who knows?
>
>

Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
- maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).

There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
and help the habitat there.

JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>
>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>
>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>>>> the river too).
>>>>
>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>
>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>
>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>>>
>>
>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>> is possible just costly.
>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>
>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>> so who knows?
>>
>>
>
> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>
> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
> and help the habitat there.

Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
Peterborough, which would be a drawback.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 29/06/2021 12:09, Sam Wilson wrote:
> JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>
>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>> is possible just costly.
>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>
>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>>> so who knows?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>
>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
>> and help the habitat there.
>
> Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
> alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
> Peterborough, which would be a drawback.
>

Yes, I'm sure you're right, though whether the pros might outweigh the
cons remains to be seen. Really, I was just pointing out that there is a
potential alternative alignment, at least for the P'Boro line, that
avoids the QA village and might be the basis for further development.
Whether it would be viable and cost-effective is for GBR to consider.

In message <sbev0j$7ie$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:08 on Tue, 29 Jun
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>
>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>
>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>
>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>> is possible just costly.
>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>
>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>>> so who knows?
>>
>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>
>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
>> and help the habitat there.
>
>Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
>alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
>Peterborough, which would be a drawback.

I don't think it would be slower, as the trains across the level
crossing at QA are only going at about 40mph. I don't know what the
speed limit is, but I know what I see.

The problem with the "complete realignment" idea above is that it's not
using the existing loop (and road bridge over) at all, and if the
proposition is driving a new high level railway line through the centre
of the village demolishing everything in its path, that's a whole
different kettle of worms.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <wXB*g-ony@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 00:09:14 on Thu,
> 24 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> But probably would be, in the unlikely event of a reinstated level
>>> crossing (to provide space to stack up the northbound queue and not
>>> block the Golden Hind junction).
>>
>> There is already an underpass at that location - it just happens to be a
>> cycle underpass under the line. A reconstruction would flip the ramps 90
>> degrees so the line dives under the road. Obviously that would require
>> rather more civils (you'd have to replace the road and cyclepath with a
>> deck) but it doesn't seem a massive problem. More of a hassle would be
>> diverting the road while you did the work.
>
> You need quite a deep cutting to dive under a road, starting from ground
> level. And of course you need to have a station somewhere around there
> too - would that also be in the cutting?
>

As an example, Acton Diveunder is ~700m long from ground level to ground
level, linespeed "60/MU80".

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <sbfv22$bov$2@dont-email.me>, at 20:16:02 on Tue, 29 Jun
2021, Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <wXB*g-ony@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 00:09:14 on Thu,
>> 24 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> But probably would be, in the unlikely event of a reinstated level
>>>> crossing (to provide space to stack up the northbound queue and not
>>>> block the Golden Hind junction).
>>>
>>> There is already an underpass at that location - it just happens to be a
>>> cycle underpass under the line. A reconstruction would flip the ramps 90
>>> degrees so the line dives under the road. Obviously that would require
>>> rather more civils (you'd have to replace the road and cyclepath with a
>>> deck) but it doesn't seem a massive problem. More of a hassle would be
>>> diverting the road while you did the work.
>>
>> You need quite a deep cutting to dive under a road, starting from ground
>> level. And of course you need to have a station somewhere around there
>> too - would that also be in the cutting?
>
>As an example, Acton Diveunder is ~700m long from ground level to ground
>level, linespeed "60/MU80".

That's quite steep, I was thinking of something a bit more like the
Hitchin flyover (which is apparently regarded as quite a gradient) at
750m from ground level to where it passes over the ECML.
--
Roland Perry

JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
> On 29/06/2021 12:09, Sam Wilson wrote:
>> JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
>>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>>> is possible just costly.
>>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>>>> so who knows?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
>>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
>>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>>
>>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
>>> and help the habitat there.
>>
>> Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
>> alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
>> Peterborough, which would be a drawback.
>>
>
> Yes, I'm sure you're right, though whether the pros might outweigh the
> cons remains to be seen. Really, I was just pointing out that there is a
> potential alternative alignment, at least for the P'Boro line, that
> avoids the QA village and might be the basis for further development.
> Whether it would be viable and cost-effective is for GBR to consider.

I’d guess there would be a fair bit of work to use that alignment sensibly
- you’d have to double it for one, so that would mean a rebuild of the
bridge, and in that case you could change the alignment generally and move
the junction with the existing P’bro line further north to relieve the
curvature a bit. It still doesn’t do anything for the KL and Norwich line
crossings, though.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sbev0j$7ie$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:08 on Tue, 29 Jun
> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
>>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>>> is possible just costly.
>>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>>
>>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>>>> so who knows?
>>>
>>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
>>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
>>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>>
>>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
>>> and help the habitat there.
>>
>> Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
>> alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
>> Peterborough, which would be a drawback.
>
> I don't think it would be slower, as the trains across the level
> crossing at QA are only going at about 40mph. I don't know what the
> speed limit is, but I know what I see.

Yebbut I bet the loop as it stands is much lower than that, and without a
lot of rebuilding (see my reply to JGD) the curvature of the loop line
isn’t going to change much.

> The problem with the "complete realignment" idea above is that it's not
> using the existing loop (and road bridge over) at all, and if the
> proposition is driving a new high level railway line through the centre
> of the village demolishing everything in its path, that's a whole
> different kettle of worms.

The “complete realignment” idea does use the bridge, though it might need
to be rebuilt to fit the new line, especially if you’re planning to both
double the line and change the alignment through the bridge (the formation
seems to be double but the bridge is skewed to fit the existing alignment)?
I read the proposition as using the bridge to *avoid* the centr of the
village, but while that works for the P’bro line it doesn’t do anything for
the other crossings.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

On 30/06/2021 10:10, Sam Wilson wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sbev0j$7ie$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:08 on Tue, 29 Jun
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately dozen level
>>>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm access).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>>>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>>>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
>>>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>>>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>>>> is possible just costly.
>>>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>>>>> so who knows?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>>>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>>>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>>>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
>>>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
>>>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>>>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>>>
>>>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>>>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>>>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
>>>> and help the habitat there.
>>>
>>> Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
>>> alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
>>> Peterborough, which would be a drawback.
>>
>> I don't think it would be slower, as the trains across the level
>> crossing at QA are only going at about 40mph. I don't know what the
>> speed limit is, but I know what I see.
>
> Yebbut I bet the loop as it stands is much lower than that, and without a
> lot of rebuilding (see my reply to JGD) the curvature of the loop line
> isn’t going to change much.
>
>> The problem with the "complete realignment" idea above is that it's not
>> using the existing loop (and road bridge over) at all, and if the
>> proposition is driving a new high level railway line through the centre
>> of the village demolishing everything in its path, that's a whole
>> different kettle of worms.
>
> The “complete realignment” idea does use the bridge, though it might need
> to be rebuilt to fit the new line, especially if you’re planning to both
> double the line and change the alignment through the bridge (the formation
> seems to be double but the bridge is skewed to fit the existing alignment)?
> I read the proposition as using the bridge to *avoid* the centr of the
> village, but while that works for the P’bro line it doesn’t do anything for
> the other crossings.
>

But I'm not sure that there's any credible solution (short of the
splitting the village in two) that doesn't involve keeping at least one
level crossing. My thinking FWIW was that the P'boro line could maybe
use the existing road bridge route and then perhaps the Kings Lynn and
Norwich junction could be moved North of the village, eg perhaps N of
the Norwich or Kings Lynn LC's.

On 30/06/2021 07:26, Roland Perry wrote:
>
> That's quite steep, I was thinking of something a bit more like the
> Hitchin flyover (which is apparently regarded as quite a gradient) at
> 750m from ground level to where it passes over the ECML.

Quite a curve too, if Google Maps is accurate :-)
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9673852,-0.2724329,17z

--
Basil Jet recently enjoyed listening to
2015 - The Show Must Go - The Chap

In message <sbhcdo$u9t$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:16 on Wed, 30 Jun
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sbev0j$7ie$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:08 on Tue, 29 Jun
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately
>>>>>>>>>dozen level
>>>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm
>>>>>>>>>access).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>>>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>>>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
>>>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>>>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>>>> is possible just costly.
>>>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>>>
>>>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>>>>> so who knows?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>>>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>>>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>>>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
>>>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
>>>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>>>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>>>
>>>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>>>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>>>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
>>>> and help the habitat there.
>>>
>>> Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
>>> alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
>>> Peterborough, which would be a drawback.
>>
>> I don't think it would be slower, as the trains across the level
>> crossing at QA are only going at about 40mph. I don't know what the
>> speed limit is, but I know what I see.
>
>Yebbut I bet the loop as it stands is much lower than that, and without a
>lot of rebuilding (see my reply to JGD) the curvature of the loop line
>isn’t going to change much.

The existing loop is a non-starter. I was commenting on a hypothetical
new alignment eg through the middle of the factory.

>> The problem with the "complete realignment" idea above is that it's not
>> using the existing loop (and road bridge over) at all, and if the
>> proposition is driving a new high level railway line through the centre
>> of the village demolishing everything in its path, that's a whole
>> different kettle of worms.
>
>The “complete realignment” idea does use the bridge,

The bridge is too far west, and is about 45-degrees out rotationally.

>though it might need to be rebuilt to fit the new line, especially if
>you’re planning to both double the line and change the alignment
>through the bridge (the formation seems to be double but the bridge is
>skewed to fit the existing alignment)?

Undoubtedly rebuilt, it's a fairly small hump-backed bridge at the
moment.

> I read the proposition as using the bridge to *avoid* the centr of the
>village,

But you can't get from Ely to the existing bridge hole, the Pits are in
the way, so you need to move east, demolish the factory etc.

>but while that works for the P’bro line it doesn’t do anything for
>the other crossings.

While getting to a rebuilt bridge from the south is difficult, from just
north of the bridge to the Fen Line is pretty easy.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sbhj5i$bbb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:05:22 on Wed, 30 Jun
2021, Basil Jet <basil@spamspamspam.com> remarked:
>On 30/06/2021 07:26, Roland Perry wrote:
>> That's quite steep, I was thinking of something a bit more like the
>>Hitchin flyover (which is apparently regarded as quite a gradient) at
>>750m from ground level to where it passes over the ECML.
>
>Quite a curve too, if Google Maps is accurate :-)
>https://www.google.com/maps/@51.9673852,-0.2724329,17z

For some reason they've omitted the part of the flyover west of the
ECML.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sbhcdo$u9t$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:16 on Wed, 30 Jun
> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sbev0j$7ie$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:08 on Tue, 29 Jun
>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March to Wisbech
>>>>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is finding a way
>>>>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately
>>>>>>>>>> dozen level
>>>>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm
>>>>>>>>>> access).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level crossings
>>>>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road] bypass. No-one
>>>>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to fly above
>>>>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich arrangements
>>>>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>>>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously there already
>>>>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if necessary.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>>>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>>>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>>>>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>>>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>>>>> is possible just costly.
>>>>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>>>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>>>>>> so who knows?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>>>>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>>>>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>>>>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
>>>>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
>>>>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>>>>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>>>>
>>>>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>>>>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>>>>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
>>>>> and help the habitat there.
>>>>
>>>> Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
>>>> alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
>>>> Peterborough, which would be a drawback.
>>>
>>> I don't think it would be slower, as the trains across the level
>>> crossing at QA are only going at about 40mph. I don't know what the
>>> speed limit is, but I know what I see.
>>
>> Yebbut I bet the loop as it stands is much lower than that, and without a
>> lot of rebuilding (see my reply to JGD) the curvature of the loop line
>> isn’t going to change much.
>
> The existing loop is a non-starter. I was commenting on a hypothetical
> new alignment eg through the middle of the factory.
>
>>> The problem with the "complete realignment" idea above is that it's not
>>> using the existing loop (and road bridge over) at all, and if the
>>> proposition is driving a new high level railway line through the centre
>>> of the village demolishing everything in its path, that's a whole
>>> different kettle of worms.
>>
>> The “complete realignment” idea does use the bridge,
>
> The bridge is too far west, and is about 45-degrees out rotationally.
>
>> though it might need to be rebuilt to fit the new line, especially if
>> you’re planning to both double the line and change the alignment
>> through the bridge (the formation seems to be double but the bridge is
>> skewed to fit the existing alignment)?
>
> Undoubtedly rebuilt, it's a fairly small hump-backed bridge at the
> moment.

Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
if you use the same alignment, but see below.

>> I read the proposition as using the bridge to *avoid* the centr of the
>> village,
>
> But you can't get from Ely to the existing bridge hole, the Pits are in
> the way, so you need to move east, demolish the factory etc.

It looks like there would be room between the existing line footprint and
the factory to put in an S-bend at around the same curvature as the
existing loop and hit the existing bridge hole. That would have to be slow
because there wouldn’t be much space for transition curves.

>> but while that works for the P’bro line it doesn’t do anything for
>> the other crossings.
>
> While getting to a rebuilt bridge from the south is difficult, from just
> north of the bridge to the Fen Line is pretty easy.

The Fen Line is the the one to P’bro?

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sbhcdo$u9t$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:16 on Wed, 30 Jun
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sbev0j$7ie$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:08 on Tue, 29 Jun
>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>>>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>>>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is
>>>>>>>>>>>finding a way
>>>>>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately
>>>>>>>>>>> dozen level
>>>>>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm
>>>>>>>>>>> access).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level
>>>>>>>>>>>crossings
>>>>>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road]
>>>>>>>>>>>bypass. No-one
>>>>>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to
>>>>>>>>>fly above
>>>>>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>>>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich
>>>>>>>>>arrangements
>>>>>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>>>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>>>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>>>>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously
>>>>>>>>there already
>>>>>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if
>>>>>>>>necessary.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>>>>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>>>>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>>>>>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>>>>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>>>>>> is possible just costly.
>>>>>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>>>>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>>>>>>> so who knows?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>>>>>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>>>>>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>>>>>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
>>>>>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
>>>>>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>>>>>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>>>>>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>>>>>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
>>>>>> and help the habitat there.
>>>>>
>>>>> Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
>>>>> alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
>>>>> Peterborough, which would be a drawback.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think it would be slower, as the trains across the level
>>>> crossing at QA are only going at about 40mph. I don't know what the
>>>> speed limit is, but I know what I see.
>>>
>>> Yebbut I bet the loop as it stands is much lower than that, and without a
>>> lot of rebuilding (see my reply to JGD) the curvature of the loop line
>>> isn’t going to change much.
>>
>> The existing loop is a non-starter. I was commenting on a hypothetical
>> new alignment eg through the middle of the factory.
>>
>>>> The problem with the "complete realignment" idea above is that it's not
>>>> using the existing loop (and road bridge over) at all, and if the
>>>> proposition is driving a new high level railway line through the centre
>>>> of the village demolishing everything in its path, that's a whole
>>>> different kettle of worms.
>>>
>>> The “complete realignment” idea does use the bridge,
>>
>> The bridge is too far west, and is about 45-degrees out rotationally.
>>
>>> though it might need to be rebuilt to fit the new line, especially if
>>> you’re planning to both double the line and change the alignment
>>> through the bridge (the formation seems to be double but the bridge is
>>> skewed to fit the existing alignment)?
>>
>> Undoubtedly rebuilt, it's a fairly small hump-backed bridge at the
>> moment.
>
>Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
>if you use the same alignment, but see below.

I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.

>>> I read the proposition as using the bridge to *avoid* the centr of the
>>> village,
>>
>> But you can't get from Ely to the existing bridge hole, the Pits are in
>> the way, so you need to move east, demolish the factory etc.
>
>It looks like there would be room between the existing line footprint and
>the factory to put in an S-bend at around the same curvature as the
>existing loop and hit the existing bridge hole. That would have to be slow
>because there wouldn’t be much space for transition curves.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
> >Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
> >if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>
> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.

It was previously double - signalbox diagrams are better than mapping:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/7187408660

Theo

On 30/06/2021 14:47, Theo wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
>>> if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>>
>> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.
>
> It was previously double - signalbox diagrams are better than mapping:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/7187408660

And I suspect reinstating the junction back to this would have more than
adequate capacity for the present service.

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sbhcdo$u9t$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:16 on Wed, 30 Jun
>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sbev0j$7ie$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:08 on Tue, 29 Jun
>>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44 on Fri, 25
>>>>>>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is
>>>>>>>>>>>> finding a way
>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately
>>>>>>>>>>>> dozen level
>>>>>>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent thread involve
>>>>>>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm
>>>>>>>>>>>> access).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level
>>>>>>>>>>>> crossings
>>>>>>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing the local
>>>>>>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road]
>>>>>>>>>>>> bypass. No-one
>>>>>>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>>>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to
>>>>>>>>>> fly above
>>>>>>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>>>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the junction
>>>>>>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich
>>>>>>>>>> arrangements
>>>>>>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue - but would
>>>>>>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>>>>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop isn't used
>>>>>>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously
>>>>>>>>> there already
>>>>>>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if
>>>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>>>>>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>>>>>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding the bridge
>>>>>>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>>>>>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>>>>>>> is possible just costly.
>>>>>>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>>>>>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on the B1382
>>>>>>>> so who knows?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>>>>>>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>>>>>>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>>>>>>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused nowadays
>>>>>>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being extended
>>>>>>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>>>>>>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>>>>>>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>>>>>>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate water's edge
>>>>>>> and help the habitat there.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
>>>>>> alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
>>>>>> Peterborough, which would be a drawback.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think it would be slower, as the trains across the level
>>>>> crossing at QA are only going at about 40mph. I don't know what the
>>>>> speed limit is, but I know what I see.
>>>>
>>>> Yebbut I bet the loop as it stands is much lower than that, and without a
>>>> lot of rebuilding (see my reply to JGD) the curvature of the loop line
>>>> isn’t going to change much.
>>>
>>> The existing loop is a non-starter. I was commenting on a hypothetical
>>> new alignment eg through the middle of the factory.
>>>
>>>>> The problem with the "complete realignment" idea above is that it's not
>>>>> using the existing loop (and road bridge over) at all, and if the
>>>>> proposition is driving a new high level railway line through the centre
>>>>> of the village demolishing everything in its path, that's a whole
>>>>> different kettle of worms.
>>>>
>>>> The “complete realignment” idea does use the bridge,
>>>
>>> The bridge is too far west, and is about 45-degrees out rotationally.
>>>
>>>> though it might need to be rebuilt to fit the new line, especially if
>>>> you’re planning to both double the line and change the alignment
>>>> through the bridge (the formation seems to be double but the bridge is
>>>> skewed to fit the existing alignment)?
>>>
>>> Undoubtedly rebuilt, it's a fairly small hump-backed bridge at the
>>> moment.
>>
>> Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
>> if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>
> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.

Link? getmapping.com seems to be a commercial service. Bing maps doesn’t
seem to have StreetSide for that area.

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
>>> if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>>
>> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.
>
> It was previously double - signalbox diagrams are better than mapping:
> https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/7187408660

You can tell that from Street View - the ballast is still there for the
second, inner line, and the bridge parapets are long enough.

Sam

--
The entity formerly known as Sam.Wilson@ed.ac.uk
Spit the dummy to reply

martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> On 30/06/2021 14:47, Theo wrote:
> > Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> >> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
> >> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
> >>> Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
> >>> if you use the same alignment, but see below.
> >>
> >> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.
> >
> > It was previously double - signalbox diagrams are better than mapping:
> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/7187408660
>
> And I suspect reinstating the junction back to this would have more than
> adequate capacity for the present service.

I wonder how much that would get you over the current single leads?

I can't help but think that doing something with the road - for example a
bypass to the south, with a junction onto the trapped bit with the village
hall, and some foot/cycle bridges - would solve the access problems and
allow closing the level crossings. Then the railway is free to do whatever
it wants in terms of grade-separated junctions or whatever to the north.

Theo

On 30/06/2021 15:08, Theo wrote:
> martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 30/06/2021 14:47, Theo wrote:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
>>>>> if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>>>>
>>>> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.
>>>
>>> It was previously double - signalbox diagrams are better than mapping:
>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/7187408660
>>
>> And I suspect reinstating the junction back to this would have more than
>> adequate capacity for the present service.
>
> I wonder how much that would get you over the current single leads?
>
> I can't help but think that doing something with the road - for example a
> bypass to the south, with a junction onto the trapped bit with the village
> hall, and some foot/cycle bridges - would solve the access problems and
> allow closing the level crossings. Then the railway is free to do whatever
> it wants in terms of grade-separated junctions or whatever to the north.

Yes, I think the railway is so ideally placed that the road has to move
in this case. A compromise might be a southern bypass with the LCs
remaining open for the little local traffic which still needs them.
There's a route along the south edge of the factory, but the bridge(s)
over three railways and a river to the east wouldn't be cheap.

In message <wXB*31Xny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:47:10 on Wed,
30 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> >Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
>> >if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>>
>> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.
>
>It was previously double - signalbox diagrams are better than mapping:
>https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/7187408660

I'm surprised it was double track, but that doesn't fix the alignment,
nor the need to be able to accommodate the taller container trains.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sbhste$92e$1@dont-email.me>, at 14:51:41 on Wed, 30 Jun
2021, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 30/06/2021 14:47, Theo wrote:
>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>> Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and
>>>>would work
>>>> if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>>>
>>> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.
>> It was previously double - signalbox diagrams are better than
>>mapping:
>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/7187408660
>
>And I suspect reinstating the junction back to this would have more
>than adequate capacity for the present service.

But not a service from Ely to Peterborough, the junction at A1/Z3 is
pointing in the wrong direction!
--
Roland Perry

In message <sbht3s$chv$1@dont-email.me>, at 13:55:09 on Wed, 30 Jun
2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>> In message <sbhcdo$u9t$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:10:16 on Wed, 30 Jun
>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> In message <sbev0j$7ie$1@dont-email.me>, at 11:09:08 on Tue, 29 Jun
>>>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>> JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 27/06/2021 12:46, Rupert Moss-Eccardt wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 26 Jun 2021 08:50, JGD wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 26/06/2021 08:02, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <ijmotpFgkm6U1@mid.individual.net>, at 20:25:44
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 23 Jun 2021 15:15, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Current practice, for example on proposals to re-open March
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> (also a rather flat landscape) is that a prerequisite is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> finding a way
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it without reinstating any of the former approximately
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dozen level
>>>>>>>>>>>>> crossings.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Ely-Central-Area enhancements raised in a recent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>thread involve
>>>>>>>>>>>>> several level crossing closures (albeit mainly pedestrian/farm
>>>>>>>>>>>>> access).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> The stalemate around the North Ely junction enhancement is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>entirely
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about how to get rid of the three busy (road and rail) level
>>>>>>>>>>>>> crossings
>>>>>>>>>>>>> at Queen Adelaide without either massively inconveniencing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>the local
>>>>>>>>>>>>> residents, or building a prohibitively expensive [road]
>>>>>>>>>>>>> bypass. No-one
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is suggesting either lowering or raising the railway line instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Well Railfuture is and NR have not public said it is ruled out.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> They are still studying options, so have to say that.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I think the Norwich line is the one most susceptible to raising the
>>>>>>>>>>> railway, probably none to lowering (eg the Norwich line has to
>>>>>>>>>>> fly above
>>>>>>>>>>> the river too).
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Thing is, the Norwich line crossing is the one with the least road
>>>>>>>>>>> traffic, and it's the Peterborough line with the most rail traffic.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Nevertheless, if you raised the Peterborough line, moved the
>>>>>>>>>>>junction
>>>>>>>>>>> for the Fen Line to just north of QA, and kept the Norwich
>>>>>>>>>>> arrangements
>>>>>>>>>>> the same, that would probably solve the road traffic issue -
>>>>>>>>>>>but would
>>>>>>>>>>> it deliver the rail capacity required?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Is there any prospect at all of re-engineering the P'Boro loop and
>>>>>>>>>> taking all the P'boro traffic that way? Presumably the loop
>>>>>>>>>>isn't used
>>>>>>>>>> much these days? The road bridge over the loop is obvously
>>>>>>>>>> there already
>>>>>>>>>> and, being just out of the main QA village could be widened if
>>>>>>>>>> necessary.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The loop is facing the wrong way for Northbound trains to get on the
>>>>>>>>> loop. There isn't room before that to gave a gentle curve - Roswell
>>>>>>>>> Pits are in the way. Cutting across directly and rebuilding
>>>>>>>>>the bridge
>>>>>>>>> entirely could be an option and allow for future OHLE space might work
>>>>>>>>> but would need the D&S Smith factory to be removed, which, of course,
>>>>>>>>> is possible just costly.
>>>>>>>>> There is still an SSSI to negotiate but it might be able to thread the
>>>>>>>>> formation between the houses and the marshes.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> OTOH NR have been doing habitat surveys to house frontages on
>>>>>>>>>the B1382
>>>>>>>>> so who knows?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes, I was thinking of a complete realignment of the loop eg across the
>>>>>>>> centre of that chunk of land, maybe including over the DS Smith factory
>>>>>>>> too or at least its adjacent car park. AFAIAA (and judging from how few
>>>>>>>> cars seem to park there) the factory seems relatively underused
>>>>>>>>nowadays
>>>>>>>> - maybe as a result of the nearby Fordham factory opening/being
>>>>>>>>extended
>>>>>>>> so conceivably some deal could be struck for at least part of the land
>>>>>>>> that the factory occupies (and ditto on the Potters site if necessary).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> There wouldn't necessarily be much NET loss of public land relative to
>>>>>>>> the status quo (though it might be double track rather than single) and
>>>>>>>> the track would presumably be moved away from the immediate
>>>>>>>>water's edge
>>>>>>>> and help the habitat there.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Looking at the map I’d guess (not knowing the area at all) that the
>>>>>>> alignment would be much slower than the current route to and from
>>>>>>> Peterborough, which would be a drawback.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think it would be slower, as the trains across the level
>>>>>> crossing at QA are only going at about 40mph. I don't know what the
>>>>>> speed limit is, but I know what I see.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yebbut I bet the loop as it stands is much lower than that, and without a
>>>>> lot of rebuilding (see my reply to JGD) the curvature of the loop line
>>>>> isn’t going to change much.
>>>>
>>>> The existing loop is a non-starter. I was commenting on a hypothetical
>>>> new alignment eg through the middle of the factory.
>>>>
>>>>>> The problem with the "complete realignment" idea above is that it's not
>>>>>> using the existing loop (and road bridge over) at all, and if the
>>>>>> proposition is driving a new high level railway line through the centre
>>>>>> of the village demolishing everything in its path, that's a whole
>>>>>> different kettle of worms.
>>>>>
>>>>> The “complete realignment” idea does use the bridge,
>>>>
>>>> The bridge is too far west, and is about 45-degrees out rotationally.
>>>>
>>>>> though it might need to be rebuilt to fit the new line, especially if
>>>>> you’re planning to both double the line and change the alignment
>>>>> through the bridge (the formation seems to be double but the bridge is
>>>>> skewed to fit the existing alignment)?
>>>>
>>>> Undoubtedly rebuilt, it's a fairly small hump-backed bridge at the
>>>> moment.
>>>
>>> Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and would work
>>> if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>>
>> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.
>
>Link? getmapping.com seems to be a commercial service. Bing maps doesn’t
>seem to have StreetSide for that area.
>
>>>>> I read the proposition as using the bridge to *avoid* the centr of the
>>>>> village,
>>>>
>>>> But you can't get from Ely to the existing bridge hole, the Pits are in
>>>> the way, so you need to move east, demolish the factory etc.
>>>
>>> It looks like there would be room between the existing line footprint and
>>> the factory to put in an S-bend at around the same curvature as the
>>> existing loop and hit the existing bridge hole. That would have to be slow
>>> because there wouldn’t be much space for transition curves.
>>
>> It would be ridiculously tight s-bends.
>
>Roughly the same as the current horseshoe, so yes! Rebuilding the bridge
>on a new alignment, using the factory car park, would ease that somewhat.

In message <sbhu4g$v9p$1@dont-email.me>, at 15:12:31 on Wed, 30 Jun
2021, Certes <none@nowhere.net> remarked:
>On 30/06/2021 15:08, Theo wrote:
>> martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>>> On 30/06/2021 14:47, Theo wrote:
>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
>>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and
>>>>>>would work
>>>>>> if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>>>>>
>>>>> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.
>>>>
>>>> It was previously double - signalbox diagrams are better than mapping:
>>>> https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/7187408660
>>>
>>> And I suspect reinstating the junction back to this would have more than
>>> adequate capacity for the present service.
>> I wonder how much that would get you over the current single leads?
>> I can't help but think that doing something with the road - for
>>example a
>> bypass to the south, with a junction onto the trapped bit with the village
>> hall, and some foot/cycle bridges - would solve the access problems and
>> allow closing the level crossings. Then the railway is free to do whatever
>> it wants in terms of grade-separated junctions or whatever to the north.
>
>Yes, I think the railway is so ideally placed that the road has to move
>in this case. A compromise might be a southern bypass with the LCs
>remaining open for the little local traffic which still needs them.
>There's a route along the south edge of the factory, but the bridge(s)
>over three railways and a river to the east wouldn't be cheap.

And at the eastern end is no use for the biggest traffic flow which
comes from Branch Bank.
--
Roland Perry

In message <uXB*X6Xny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 15:08:04 on Wed,
30 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> On 30/06/2021 14:47, Theo wrote:
>> > Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> >> In message <sbhpf0$fmb$1@dont-email.me>, at 12:52:49 on Wed, 30 Jun
>> >> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>> >>> Street View seems to suggest it’s wide enough for two lines and
>> >>>would work
>> >>> if you use the same alignment, but see below.
>> >>
>> >> I disagree. Mapping is better than streetview in this instance.
>> >
>> > It was previously double - signalbox diagrams are better than mapping:
>> > https://www.flickr.com/photos/pwayowen/7187408660
>>
>> And I suspect reinstating the junction back to this would have more than
>> adequate capacity for the present service.
>
>I wonder how much that would get you over the current single leads?
>
>I can't help but think that doing something with the road - for example a
>bypass to the south, with a junction onto the trapped bit with the village
>hall, and some foot/cycle bridges - would solve the access problems and
>allow closing the level crossings. Then the railway is free to do whatever
>it wants in terms of grade-separated junctions or whatever to the north.

The alternate plan by those paid tens of millions to look into it is a
bypass to the north. (As it happens, there's no plausible route for a
bypass to the south).
--
Roland Perry