Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> I suspect keeping the Norwich LC would be OK, the road traffic there is
> less, and the rail traffic low as well. On the other hand, it's the one
> most suitable for a new overbridge.

There's already an underbridge:
https://goo.gl/maps/hJLuyLdQEwdrnu6UA
The track to the right could be turned into a road to link up with the other
side of the level crossing.

Although that's a bit tight height-wise, so perhaps the road would need
lowering. Or the level crossing remaining for tall loads (on an 'when
access needed, phone signaller' kind of basis).

In any case, turning the track into a road would allow access from the B1382
to Ely via the southern bypass - a bit of a diversion but not a massive deal
for longer distance traffic.

How much traffic does the B1382 get anyway?

Theo

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> 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:
> >> 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!

Not sure I follow - going north/down from Ely platform 1 towards March you
go A, A1, C, G.

Going from March south/up towards Ely you go L, A2, Z3, O.

If you're going north out of Ely platform 3 you need to get yourself on the down
line by crossing outside the station.

If you're going around the loop you sort yourself onto the right line at L.

Theo

On 30/06/2021 16:34, Theo wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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:
>>>> 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!
>
> Not sure I follow - going north/down from Ely platform 1 towards March you
> go A, A1, C, G.
>
> Going from March south/up towards Ely you go L, A2, Z3, O.
>
> If you're going north out of Ely platform 3 you need to get yourself on the down
> line by crossing outside the station.
>
> If you're going around the loop you sort yourself onto the right line at L.

The junction faces the wrong way for going from A (or O) to U (or Y),
which might be a route from Ely to Peterborough avoiding the LCs if it
didn't involve an impractical reversal.

On 30 Jun 2021 14:51, 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.
>

But that junction is facing the wrong way.
Also old junctions used diamonds which are no longer used so the
junction would have to be longer and there isn't room for that.

On 30 Jun 2021 15:08:04 +0100 (BST), 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.

There is no room to the South for a bypass but there is loads of room
North of the village for a bypass and is, indeed, what we suggested to
the County Council a couple of years ago.

It would come off Highflyer Avenue going East, rise over the EMP line
and then over the BGK and then over the river. It could then drop onto
Branch Bank or keep going to Padnal Sidings to either a full barrier
crossing or another bridge.

That would reduce the through traffic in the village to a level where
full barriers could be used without congestion.

It also reduces the conflict at the Queen Adelaide Way, Branch Bank,
B1382 junction.

On 30 Jun 2021 16:23:19 +0100 (BST), Theo wrote:
> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> I suspect keeping the Norwich LC would be OK, the road traffic there is
>> less, and the rail traffic low as well. On the other hand, it's the one
>> most suitable for a new overbridge.
>
> There's already an underbridge:
> https://goo.gl/maps/hJLuyLdQEwdrnu6UA
> The track to the right could be turned into a road to link up with the other
> side of the level crossing.
>
> Although that's a bit tight height-wise, so perhaps the road would need
> lowering. Or the level crossing remaining for tall loads (on an 'when
> access needed, phone signaller' kind of basis).
>
> In any case, turning the track into a road would allow access from the B1382
> to Ely via the southern bypass - a bit of a diversion but not a massive deal
> for longer distance traffic.
>
> How much traffic does the B1382 get anyway?

Enough for NR to have started this whole discussion.
In other words LACRM has the crossings as all unsuitable for increase
in frequency and/or speed without going full barrier and that would
then cause the BGK crossing to be fouled too often by queuing cars.

On 29 Jun 2021 09:00, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sbdanv$s87$1@dont-email.me>, at 21:17:01 on Mon, 28 Jun
> 2021, tim... <timsnews99@gmail.com> remarked:
>>
>>
>>"Roland Perry" <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote in message
>>news:AT6p1HrWI00gFAqp@perry.uk...
>>> In message <savcko$tbr$2@dont-email.me>, at 13:23:36 on Wed, 23 Jun
>>>2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>> In message <saut8q$lru$1@dont-email.me>, at 09:01:14 on Wed, 23 Jun
>>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> In message <sat34n$30f$1@dont-email.me>, at 16:29:11 on Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>>>> 2021, Sam Wilson <ukr@dummy.wislons.fastmail.co.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In message <wXB*0Ghny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 14:08:34
>>>>>>>>>on Tue,
>>>>>>>>> 22 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>>>>>>>>>> Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In message <sasekj$1j6l$1@gioia.aioe.org>, at 10:39:15 on
>>>>>>>>>>>Tue, 22 Jun
>>>>>>>>>>> 2021, MrSpook_fxdud83r_a@6qy_96gu8a.co.uk remarked:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If it had been reinstated as a railway (only to St Ives,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>remember) it
>>>>>>>>>>>>> was in such a poor state it would have required "ripping up" and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> completely rebuilding, anyway. And heaven knows what they'd
>>>>>>>>>>>>>have done
>>>>>>>>>>>>> about the several level crossings en-route (one of them on
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> road).
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You mean just like Island Line then? They had the wit not to
>>>>>>>>>>>>convert the
>>>>>>>>>>>> trackbed into a busway but are renewing everything instead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> How many level crossings across dual carriageways?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> To which dual carriageway do you refer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This one, obviously: https://goo.gl/maps/JbkyMFajNjuYipxx5
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I see no busway. What am I missing?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's about 100yds behind that view.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ah, right. Where it's not a dual carriageway.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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).
>>>>>
>>>>> Now, would you like to opine about whether that location is at all
>>>>> likely to be somewhere a level crossing would be allowed?
>>>>
>>>>I'm no expert on level crossings.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>That seems like unnecessary overkill given that most of the crossings
>>are on minor roads
>
> Tell that to Network Rail. The banishment of level crossings is a bit of
> a religion as far as the are concerned.

It is because Parliament and HMG both told them that crossing
collisions should be zero, no matter how stupid car drivers are.

And, of course, Vision Zero has that goal, too.

On 30/06/2021 15:11, Roland Perry wrote:
> 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!

That's got nothing to do with it. Reinstating the junction back to the
signalling plan would provide more than adequate capacity for the
existing train service and more. Especially if designed to operate at
line speed to minimise line occupancy.

The avoiding line will go what it was always intended for and allow
services between March and Norwich or Kings Lynn to avoid reversing at
Ely.

I don't see the point of any other changes.

On 30 Jun 2021 14:47:10 +0100 (BST), 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

Diagrams are a form of mapping, of course. But there is historical
mapping which shows it as double, and also shows that the bridge is
still in its original location and alignment:

https://maps.nls.uk/geo/explore/#zoom=16&lat=52.40848&lon=0.28969&layers=168&b=3

In fact, it was still double as recently as the OS Plan of 1975,
although in this case the detail doesn't show double tracks - you can
only tell it's double by the use of a solid rather than dashed line
(compare with the Soham branch just south of Ely):

https://www.old-maps.co.uk/#/Map/559500/282500/10/101322

That accords with my own memory; I'm pretty sure it was singled some
time in the late 70s or early 80s.

Mark

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
> On 30 Jun 2021 14:51, 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.
>>
>
> But that junction is facing the wrong way.
> Also old junctions used diamonds which are no longer used so the
> junction would have to be longer and there isn't room for that.
>
>

They are still used where there's no space for any alternative arrangement,
AIUI.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
> There is no room to the South for a bypass but there is loads of room
> North of the village for a bypass and is, indeed, what we suggested to
> the County Council a couple of years ago.
>
> It would come off Highflyer Avenue going East, rise over the EMP line
> and then over the BGK and then over the river. It could then drop onto
> Branch Bank or keep going to Padnal Sidings to either a full barrier
> crossing or another bridge.
>
> That would reduce the through traffic in the village to a level where
> full barriers could be used without congestion.
>
> It also reduces the conflict at the Queen Adelaide Way, Branch Bank,
> B1382 junction.

Why not close the Norwich line crossing, replacing it with a link from
Prickwillow Road to Queen Adelaide Way using the farm track to the south of
the line? Divert all the B1382 traffic on the southern bypass.

Then you are left with residual traffic from Branch Bank and QA village.
Add a cycle/footbridge so the east of the village isn't cut off from the
west (who can access it by car via the new link and existing QAW
underbridge). Traffic from Branch Bank can also use the underbridge. High
sided vehicles would have to go the long way round.

Then you can full barrier the remaining crossings, if that is sufficient
capacity-wise, or a bypass if not.

Theo

In message <ik3s19F1v5tU1@mid.individual.net>, at 19:38:32 on Wed, 30
Jun 2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>On 30 Jun 2021 15:08:04 +0100 (BST), 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.
>
>
>There is no room to the South for a bypass but there is loads of room
>North of the village for a bypass and is, indeed, what we suggested to
>the County Council a couple of years ago.
>
>It would come off Highflyer Avenue

Not sure I know where that is (despite the eponymous farm nearby,
currently being built over) do you mean the Monarch Way roadabout?

>going East, rise over the EMP line
>and then over the BGK and then over the river. It could then drop onto
>Branch Bank

That's not going to work very well, because Branch Bank is right next to
the river, and substantially below it. And another drop to the adjacent
field (into which the edge of the road is constantly crumbling)

https://goo.gl/maps/r5pn7AaHauQsZbrq5

You'd need a clover-leaf or something

>or keep going to Padnal Sidings to either a full barrier
>crossing or another bridge.
>
>That would reduce the through traffic in the village to a level where
>full barriers could be used without congestion.
>
>It also reduces the conflict at the Queen Adelaide Way, Branch Bank,
>B1382 junction.

That's a dreadful junction, what with the lack of visibility over the
river bridge, the small bridge hole under the Norwich line, most cars
seeming to have non-functional indicators, etc.

It would be far better as a cross-roads with traffic lights, than the
free-for-all dogleg, especially as so much of the traffic in practice
wants the through route Branch Bank <> QA Way.
--
Roland Perry

In message <xXB*mxZny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:42:27 on Wed,
30 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> wrote:
>> There is no room to the South for a bypass but there is loads of room
>> North of the village for a bypass and is, indeed, what we suggested to
>> the County Council a couple of years ago.
>>
>> It would come off Highflyer Avenue going East, rise over the EMP line
>> and then over the BGK and then over the river. It could then drop onto
>> Branch Bank or keep going to Padnal Sidings to either a full barrier
>> crossing or another bridge.
>>
>> That would reduce the through traffic in the village to a level where
>> full barriers could be used without congestion.
>>
>> It also reduces the conflict at the Queen Adelaide Way, Branch Bank,
>> B1382 junction.
>
>Why not close the Norwich line crossing, replacing it with a link from
>Prickwillow Road to Queen Adelaide Way using the farm track to the south of
>the line?

Because the farm track is considerably below street level. Let alone the
railway line. What were you proposing to do about the narrow low bridge
hole under the Norwich line?

>Divert all the B1382 traffic on the southern bypass.

What southern bypass? The river's just over the bank on the left, and
the Kings Lynn line in effect along the opposite bank.

>Then you are left with residual traffic from Branch Bank and QA village.

Branch bank isn't "residual" traffic, it's probably the busiest of the
four roads. Not least because of changed traffic patterns due to the Ely
bypass and the Lynn Road level crossing a little to the Northwest being
converted to full barrier recently, making that a sub-optimal through
road.

QA village itself is very small, and probably the most *local* traffic
generated is by Nework Rail vans whose crews seem to be permanently
tinkering with the crossings. HGVs to the factory almost always come
from the west, because they can't get through the QA Way bridge hole.

>Add a cycle/footbridge so the east of the village isn't cut off from the
>west (who can access it by car via the new link and existing QAW
>underbridge). Traffic from Branch Bank can also use the underbridge. High
>sided vehicles would have to go the long way round.
>
>Then you can full barrier the remaining crossings, if that is sufficient
>capacity-wise, or a bypass if not.
>
>Theo

--
Roland Perry

In message <48hpdgphn79mtf284p86314171npgu08nm@4ax.com>, at 20:39:30 on
Wed, 30 Jun 2021, Mark Goodge <usenet@listmail.good-stuff.co.uk>
remarked:
>On 30 Jun 2021 14:47:10 +0100 (BST), 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
>
>Diagrams are a form of mapping, of course. But there is historical
>mapping which shows it as double, and also shows that the bridge is
>still in its original location and alignment:

It's obvious from a glance at the humpback bridge that the alignment
hasn't changed, and from looking at the maps that the alignment isn't
suitable for the proposed Ely-March through line.
--
Roland Perry

In message <xXB*zmYny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 16:23:19 on Wed,
30 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> I suspect keeping the Norwich LC would be OK, the road traffic there is
>> less, and the rail traffic low as well. On the other hand, it's the one
>> most suitable for a new overbridge.
>
>There's already an underbridge:
>https://goo.gl/maps/hJLuyLdQEwdrnu6UA
>The track to the right could be turned into a road to link up with the other
>side of the level crossing.

See my posting earlier this morning.

>Although that's a bit tight height-wise, so perhaps the road would need
>lowering. Or the level crossing remaining for tall loads (on an 'when
>access needed, phone signaller' kind of basis).

Such accesses seem to be responsible for rather too many level crossing
bashes already.

>In any case, turning the track into a road would allow access from the B1382
>to Ely via the southern bypass - a bit of a diversion but not a massive deal
>for longer distance traffic.

All these "couple of miles detour, what does that matter" stuff adds up.

>How much traffic does the B1382 get anyway?

Maybe Rupert has a traffic count, but I'd guess perhaps a car a minute
on average. But it's not the main source/sink of traffic in QA. Which is
why I've suggested that keeping the Norwich line level crossing might be
feasible.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sbih4n$8hp$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:54 on Wed, 30 Jun
2021, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 30/06/2021 15:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>> 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!
>
>That's got nothing to do with it. Reinstating the junction back to the
>signalling plan would provide more than adequate capacity for the
>existing train service and more. Especially if designed to operate at
>line speed to minimise line occupancy.
>
>The avoiding line will go what it was always intended for and allow
>services between March and Norwich or Kings Lynn to avoid reversing at
>Ely.
>
>I don't see the point of any other changes.

They are to remove the level crossings!!!
--
Roland Perry

In message <uXB*ipYny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 16:34:56 on Wed,
30 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> 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:
>> >> 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!
>
>Not sure I follow - going north/down from Ely platform 1 towards March you
>go A, A1, C, G.

Yes, that's the route over the existing level crossing.

>Going from March south/up towards Ely you go L, A2, Z3, O.

Ditto.

>If you're going north out of Ely platform 3 you need to get yourself on
>the down line by crossing outside the station.

Both lines are bi-directional, and suitable crossovers already exist.

And the down line goes Ely, AB, AA, A. With no route to U, V, March

>If you're going around the loop you sort yourself onto the right line at L.

Going round the loop from L, you end up at Norwich or Kings Lynn.

What's missing (and can't be built because of the terrain) is a chord
from A/AA/AB to U
--
Roland Perry

On 01/07/2021 07:56, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sbih4n$8hp$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:54 on Wed, 30 Jun
> 2021, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 30/06/2021 15:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> 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!
>>
>> That's got nothing to do with it.  Reinstating the junction back to
>> the signalling plan would provide more than adequate capacity for the
>> existing train service and more.  Especially if designed to operate at
>> line speed to minimise line occupancy.
>>
>> The avoiding line will go what it was always intended for and allow
>> services between March and Norwich or Kings Lynn to avoid reversing at
>> Ely.
>>
>> I don't see the point of any other changes.
>
> They are to remove the level crossings!!!

If the line speeds were increased there would be no need to remove the
level crossings.
..

Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
> In message <xXB*mxZny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:42:27 on Wed,
> 30 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
> >Why not close the Norwich line crossing, replacing it with a link from
> >Prickwillow Road to Queen Adelaide Way using the farm track to the south of
> >the line?
>
> Because the farm track is considerably below street level. Let alone the
> railway line.

Really?
https://goo.gl/maps/Pe5sgq3dDPPWNZ5g6

> What were you proposing to do about the narrow low bridge
> hole under the Norwich line?

That track bypasses it. So only traffic for QA village or Branch Bank needs
to use it.

> >Divert all the B1382 traffic on the southern bypass.
>
> What southern bypass? The river's just over the bank on the left, and
> the Kings Lynn line in effect along the opposite bank.

The A142, reached via QA Way.

> >Then you are left with residual traffic from Branch Bank and QA village.
>
> Branch bank isn't "residual" traffic, it's probably the busiest of the
> four roads. Not least because of changed traffic patterns due to the Ely
> bypass and the Lynn Road level crossing a little to the Northwest being
> converted to full barrier recently, making that a sub-optimal through
> road.
>
> QA village itself is very small, and probably the most *local* traffic
> generated is by Nework Rail vans whose crews seem to be permanently
> tinkering with the crossings. HGVs to the factory almost always come
> from the west, because they can't get through the QA Way bridge hole.

Car traffic can still reach Branch Bank via the hole, if the level crossing
is closed. It's just HGVs that can't. How much HGV traffic is there on
Branch Bank?

Are there precedents elsewhere in the UK for full-barriered crossings whose
barriers stay down unless the signaller is contacted? Rather than the
presumption that the barriers are up unless a train is coming.

Theo

Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
> Are there precedents elsewhere in the UK for full-barriered crossings whose
> barriers stay down unless the signaller is contacted? Rather than the
> presumption that the barriers are up unless a train is coming.
>

Appleford; full barrier CCTV crossing controlled by Thames Valley
Signalling Centre (TVSC).

St Mary's crossing between Kemble and Stroud; manual gates worked by
crossing attendant. Bishton LC on the South Wales Main Line; manual gates
controlled by a crossing attendant. Neither has control of the signals at
their location.

I think Minety crossing on the same line used to work like that when it had
a crossing attendant on site; OTTOMH I can't remember whether it was
barriers or gates.

"Back in the day", Deganwy Quay LC used to work like that; again manual
gates with an attendant.

Anna Noyd-Dryver

In message <xXB*DP4ny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:45:43 on Thu,
1 Jul 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> wrote:
>> In message <xXB*mxZny@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:42:27 on Wed,
>> 30 Jun 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:
>> >Why not close the Norwich line crossing, replacing it with a link from
>> >Prickwillow Road to Queen Adelaide Way using the farm track to the south of
>> >the line?
>>
>> Because the farm track is considerably below street level. Let alone the
>> railway line.
>
>Really?
>https://goo.gl/maps/Pe5sgq3dDPPWNZ5g6

I drive past the other end, several times a week. Posted my Streetview
of it yesterday.

>> What were you proposing to do about the narrow low bridge
>> hole under the Norwich line?
>
>That track bypasses it. So only traffic for QA village or Branch Bank needs
>to use it.

But the other end of this quarter-bypass is south of the bridge hole, so
to get to the river bridge and the village you need to double-back
through it.

>> >Divert all the B1382 traffic on the southern bypass.
>>
>> What southern bypass? The river's just over the bank on the left, and
>> the Kings Lynn line in effect along the opposite bank.
>
>The A142, reached via QA Way.

That's an absurdly long diversion.

>> >Then you are left with residual traffic from Branch Bank and QA village.
>>
>> Branch bank isn't "residual" traffic, it's probably the busiest of the
>> four roads. Not least because of changed traffic patterns due to the Ely
>> bypass and the Lynn Road level crossing a little to the Northwest being
>> converted to full barrier recently, making that a sub-optimal through
>> road.
>>
>> QA village itself is very small, and probably the most *local* traffic
>> generated is by Nework Rail vans whose crews seem to be permanently
>> tinkering with the crossings. HGVs to the factory almost always come
>> from the west, because they can't get through the QA Way bridge hole.
>
>Car traffic can still reach Branch Bank via the hole, if the level crossing
>is closed. It's just HGVs that can't. How much HGV traffic is there on
>Branch Bank?

Quite a bit, although to urban eyes some of it looks like tractor/
trailers. But Branch Bank is a busy road used by lots of HGVs as a
shortcut from north of Littleport, even though it's not exactly suitable
due to the width.

>Are there precedents elsewhere in the UK for full-barriered crossings whose
>barriers stay down unless the signaller is contacted? Rather than the
>presumption that the barriers are up unless a train is coming.

I'm not sure that configuration would be acceptable at a new
installation.
--
Roland Perry

In message <sblibq$td9$2@dont-email.me>, at 23:16:10 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021,
Anna Noyd-Dryver <anna@noyd-dryver.com> remarked:
>Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> wrote:
>>
>> Are there precedents elsewhere in the UK for full-barriered crossings whose
>> barriers stay down unless the signaller is contacted? Rather than the
>> presumption that the barriers are up unless a train is coming.
>
>Appleford; full barrier CCTV crossing controlled by Thames Valley
>Signalling Centre (TVSC).
>
>St Mary's crossing between Kemble and Stroud; manual gates worked by
>crossing attendant. Bishton LC on the South Wales Main Line; manual gates
>controlled by a crossing attendant. Neither has control of the signals at
>their location.
>
>I think Minety crossing on the same line used to work like that when it had
>a crossing attendant on site; OTTOMH I can't remember whether it was
>barriers or gates.
>
>"Back in the day", Deganwy Quay LC used to work like that; again manual
>gates with an attendant.

The Littleport Station level crossing is manually worked (literally by a
man who walks the gates) and it's a PITA. Especially since they closed
the "underpass-bypass" (to be a pedestrian-only route) as part of the
station upgrade last year. Yet another reason for drivers to use Branch
Bank as a through route, rather than risk getting stuck at the station
on what was the "old A10".

https://goo.gl/maps/p1vwgcBEzpDufmueA

--
Roland Perry

In message <sbjrhl$88d$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:40:37 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021,
martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>On 01/07/2021 07:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>> In message <sbih4n$8hp$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:54 on Wed, 30 Jun
>>2021, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>> On 30/06/2021 15:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>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!
>>>
>>> That's got nothing to do with it.  Reinstating the junction back to
>>>the signalling plan would provide more than adequate capacity for the
>>>existing train service and more.  Especially if designed to operate
>>>at line speed to minimise line occupancy.
>>>
>>> The avoiding line will go what it was always intended for and allow
>>>services between March and Norwich or Kings Lynn to avoid reversing
>>>at Ely.
>>>
>>> I don't see the point of any other changes.
>> They are to remove the level crossings!!!
>
>If the line speeds were increased there would be no need to remove the
>level crossings.

It's not a problem with line speeds, it's the length of time the road
would be shut, combined with the proximity of at least the eastern two
crossings.
--
Roland Perry

In message <udaC2vrbsq3gFAW5@perry.uk>, at 06:58:51 on Fri, 2 Jul 2021,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:
>In message <sbjrhl$88d$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:40:37 on Thu, 1 Jul
>2021, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>On 01/07/2021 07:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <sbih4n$8hp$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:54 on Wed, 30 Jun
>>>2021, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>> On 30/06/2021 15:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>>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!
>>>>
>>>> That's got nothing to do with it.  Reinstating the junction back
>>>>the signalling plan would provide more than adequate capacity for
>>>>the existing train service and more.  Especially if designed to
>>>>operate at line speed to minimise line occupancy.
>>>>
>>>> The avoiding line will go what it was always intended for and allow
>>>>services between March and Norwich or Kings Lynn to avoid reversing
>>>>at Ely.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see the point of any other changes.
>>> They are to remove the level crossings!!!
>>
>>If the line speeds were increased there would be no need to remove the
>>level crossings.
>
>It's not a problem with line speeds, it's the length of time the road
>would be shut, combined with the proximity of at least the eastern

<cough> western

>two crossings.

--
Roland Perry

On 02/07/2021 06:58, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <sbjrhl$88d$1@dont-email.me>, at 08:40:37 on Thu, 1 Jul 2021,
> martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>> On 01/07/2021 07:56, Roland Perry wrote:
>>> In message <sbih4n$8hp$1@dont-email.me>, at 20:36:54 on Wed, 30 Jun
>>> 2021, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>>>> On 30/06/2021 15:11, Roland Perry wrote:
>>>>> 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
>>>>>>>>> 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!
>>>>
>>>> That's got nothing to do with it.  Reinstating the junction back to
>>>> the signalling plan would provide more than adequate capacity for
>>>> the existing train service and more.  Especially if designed to
>>>> operate at  line speed to minimise line occupancy.
>>>>
>>>> The avoiding line will go what it was always intended for and allow
>>>> services between March and Norwich or Kings Lynn to avoid reversing
>>>> at  Ely.
>>>>
>>>> I don't see the point of any other changes.
>>>  They are to remove the level crossings!!!
>>
>> If the line speeds were increased there would be no need to remove the
>> level crossings.
>
> It's not a problem with line speeds, it's the length of time the road
> would be shut, combined with the proximity of at least the eastern two
> crossings.

If the line speeds are increased the time the barriers will be closed
will be shorter.