In message <M$9qOy8N5t1gFARe@perry.uk>, at 08:59:09 on Sat, 26 Jun 2021,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:

>>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?
>
>I don't look at the timetables regularly, but my impression is there
>are maybe up to three or four trains a day.

I saw this one today:

<https://www.realtimetrains.co.uk/service/gb-nr:H13077/2021-07-02/detail
ed#allox_id=0>
--
Roland Perry

In message <sbmpk0$hqj$3@dont-email.me>, at 11:26:08 on Fri, 2 Jul 2021,
martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk remarked:
>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.

Not necessarily, it depends where the signals are which protect the
crossing. Remember that those signals will only be released when the
crossing has been confirmed clear by CCV, and the faster the approaching
trains, the further way they have to be to allow for braking distance
should the crossing be fouled.

Give that all the trains in that area are travelling at most 30mph, and
none of the re-alignments is likely to change that significantly, I
think this is a red herring.

ps. The objective of the larger plan is to increase trains from 6.5tph
[each way] to 10tph. Which unless they manage to cross precisely in
QA, is 20 trains an hour to be woven into the road traffic across
the three crossings (or replacements for crossings) combined.
--
Roland Perry

In message <3cAUWNMyNy3gFA1g@perry.uk>, at 15:32:18 on Fri, 2 Jul 2021,
Roland Perry <roland@perry.co.uk> remarked:

>ps. The objective of the larger plan is to increase trains from 6.5tph
> [each way] to 10tph. Which unless they manage to cross precisely in
> QA, is 20 trains an hour to be woven into the road traffic across
> the three crossings (or replacements for crossings) combined.

Thinking about this some more, the headline tph are an underestimate,
because the Liverpool-Norwich trains, despite being one of those
six-point-five tph at Ely *station*, each create two movements through
Queen Adelaide.

And the Kings Lynn to the Midlands aggregate trains (round the loop,
such as they are) don't feature in the 6.5 either, because that only
includes 1tph Felixstowe-Midlands container train which actually passes
Ely station.

But then there are some freights also not in the 6.5tph which reverse in
the Ely reception siding, rather than going round the loop (maybe Kings
Lynn to Norwich, rather than the Midlands).
--
Roland Perry

On 2 Jul 2021 11:26, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
> 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.
>

No, as the crossings would then need to be full barrier. Which means
down for longer as the section isn't clear until the crossing is clear
so they go down when the train is further away.

In message <ikdeh3Frlg4U1@mid.individual.net>, at 10:49:22 on Sun, 4 Jul
2021, Rupert Moss-Eccardt <nin@moss-eccardt.com> remarked:
>On 2 Jul 2021 11:26, martin.coffee@round-midnight.org.uk wrote:
>> 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.
>
>No, as the crossings would then need to be full barrier. Which means
>down for longer as the section isn't clear until the crossing is clear
>so they go down when the train is further away.

There is ample precedent for this nearby at Chettisham (first road
crossing west of North Ely on the way to Peterborough. What use to be a
fairly innocuous half-barrier crossing was converted to full-barrier a
couple of years ago, and it's now routine to be kept waiting there for
at least two minutes, especially when it's freight trains which take
miles and miles to get up to speed (and have to be prepared to brake to
a halt at the approach signal, in the event the crossing didn't clear
properly).

While it's annoying, it's much better than the old crossing at Ely
Station, which had the sum of the traffic on all five[1] flows, and
would often be closed for fifteen minutes at a time. (I have videos!)

Now it's just got two flows (one of which from Soham is routinely around
2tph, and the other 2tph being 'Stansted to Birmingham' plus 'Norwich to
Liverpool reversing at Ely' - so that was two movements across the
station crossing), if we ignore the avoiding loop which throws a couple
a day almost entirely aggregates trains into the pot.

Of course you also get the engineering tracklaying trains (saw one this
morning) Network Rail measurement train (saw one last week) scrappers
to/from Papworth sidings (saw one of them last week too) plus a handful
of ECS-sheds[2], tampers which are based at Ely sidings, and the very
occasional railtour.

[1] It's complicated, but they are:

London to Kings Lynn (mainly GN but a few GA in the peaks)
Stansted to Birmingham (XC)
Stansted|Cambridge to Norwich (GA)
Norwich to Liverpool {reverses} (EMR)
Ipswich to Peterborough (GA pax), Felixstowe to midlands
(containers); via Soham.

[2] Off the container trains. Sometimes they relocate their surplus by
double-heading a service freight, sometimes by light loco.
--
Roland Perry

On 04/07/2021 12:05, Roland Perry wrote:
> While it's annoying, it's much better than the old crossing at Ely
> Station, which had the sum of the traffic on all five[1] flows, and
> would often be closed for fifteen minutes at a time. (I have videos!)

I timed the level crossing at Mount Pleasant crossing in Southampton at
21 minutes once. That was exceptional but 10-12 minutes was the norm at
one time.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

JGD <news@prodata.co.uk> wrote:
> From:
> https://www.elystandard.co.uk/news/traffic/network-rail-seeks-permission-for-cambridge-south-station-8074686
>
> 'Network Rail has applied for a Transport and Works Act Order to build a
> four-platform station serving southern Cambridge and the biomedical campus.

Interesting comment from Cambridge Smarter Transport:

How did Network Rail respond to feedback on the last Cambridge South station
consultation? In most cases with, “The comments were noted and no changes
have been made to the Scheme as a result.”

Smarter Cambridge Transport’s main objection was that the station’s design
capacity is far too small. But Network Rail just says: “Business cases for
projects funded by central Government must comply with the standard demand
and growth scenarios which the DfT uses for rail industry forecasts.”

Nothing about Cambridge South station is “standard”. How many stations in
the UK are located within walking distance of three, soon to be five,
regional hospitals and a nationally important biomedical research campus?

Network Rail’s forecast is for “c.1.8m passenger entries and exits per annum
… once the station has been open for a small number of years.” That works
out at 2,500 people per day. In comparison, the pre-COVID figure for
Cambridge station is 16,500. A 2018 report forecast the total number of
people working on or visiting the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) in 2031
at 45,600 per day. That didn’t take into account the CBC Vision 2050, which
envisages “an additional workforce of between 14,000 and 20,000 –
approximately double the staff presently working on campus.”

So, by 2040, it is likely 60,000 people will be travelling onto the site
each day to work or visit someone.[1] Yet Network Rail thinks only 4% of
them will use Cambridge South station. That is neither likely nor
acceptable. As the access roads are already at capacity, two thirds of trips
onto the campus will have to be on foot, cycle, bus or rail. Even if cycle
trips double, the number of people arriving by bus and train has to be at
least 25,000. Will ten times as many people arrive by bus as by train?

This is, to quote our Prime Minister, an inverted pyramid of piffle. It is
also irresponsible of Network Rail to be applying for Parliamentary approval
on the basis of modelling that so clearly fails a common-sense test. Please
ask your MP and county councillor to challenge this before it’s too late.

[1] An additional 20,000 daily through-trips are forecast. These include
people being dropped off or collected by car or ambulance, and goods and
packages being collected and delivered by vans and lorries.

This article was first published in the Cambridge Independent on 14 July
2021.

https://www.smartertransport.uk/unchanged-design-for-cambridge-south-station-is-still-not-fit-for-purpose/

In message <APn*Gzcpy@news.chiark.greenend.org.uk>, at 21:24:34 on Thu,
15 Jul 2021, Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> remarked:

>Nothing about Cambridge South station is “standard”. How many stations in
>the UK are located within walking distance of three, soon to be five,
>regional hospitals and a nationally important biomedical research campus?
>
>Network Rail’s forecast is for “c.1.8m passenger entries and exits per annum
>… once the station has been open for a small number of years.” That works
>out at 2,500 people per day. In comparison, the pre-COVID figure for
>Cambridge station is 16,500. A 2018 report forecast the total number of
>people working on or visiting the Cambridge Biomedical Campus (CBC) in 2031
>at 45,600 per day. That didn’t take into account the CBC Vision 2050, which
>envisages “an additional workforce of between 14,000 and 20,000 –
>approximately double the staff presently working on campus.”
>
>So, by 2040, it is likely 60,000 people will be travelling onto the site
>each day to work or visit someone.[1] Yet Network Rail thinks only 4% of
>them will use Cambridge South station. That is neither likely nor
>acceptable. As the access roads are already at capacity, two thirds of trips
>onto the campus will have to be on foot, cycle, bus or rail. Even if cycle
>trips double, the number of people arriving by bus and train has to be at
>least 25,000. Will ten times as many people arrive by bus as by train?

How many trains will you need for 25k people arriving at work between
8:30 and 9am (and going home again later)? And why are these workers
restricted to people living within the rather restricted rail corridor
that will feed into the station?

You appear to have ignored the guided bus, and whatever substitute for
the ill-fated CAM might one day be delivered.
--
Roland Perry