On 19/12/2015 13:57, Roland Perry wrote:

It currently has four "single lead" junctions (a, b and c).

Only the Peterborough direction has a full two-track junction.

https://goo.gl/maps/3JziEjRARYF2

So it's like this:

Ely ------------------------------------ Peterborough
\
Ely ---------a-------------------------- Peterborough
\
*
\
b------c--------------- Kings Lynn
\ \
\ -------------- Kings Lynn
\
d------------------ Norwich
\
----------------- Norwich

As is fairly obvious, places like "*" are a monster bottleneck.

That looks a bit cheap and nasty, even to a non-trainspotter. Whose
clever idea was that design then?

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

In message , at 19:47:17 on Sat, 19
Dec 2015, Tim Ward remarked:

So it's like this:

Ely ------------------------------------ Peterborough
\
Ely ---------a-------------------------- Peterborough
\
*
\
b------c--------------- Kings Lynn
\ \
\ -------------- Kings Lynn
\
d------------------ Norwich
\
----------------- Norwich

As is fairly obvious, places like "*" are a monster bottleneck.

That looks a bit cheap and nasty, even to a non-trainspotter. Whose
clever idea was that design then?

British Rail (the nationalised outfit which people still insist could
have done no wrong) in the 70's/80's simplifying lots of junctions to
have fewer moving parts, on the grounds that rail transport was in
managed decline.

At the time there was probably only 1tph in either the Kings Lynn or
Norwich directions.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 20:22:37 on Sat, 19 Dec
2015, Roland Perry remarked:
So it's like this:

Ely ------------------------------------ Peterborough
\
Ely ---------a-------------------------- Peterborough
\
*
\
b------c--------------- Kings Lynn
\ \
\ -------------- Kings Lynn
\
d------------------ Norwich
\
----------------- Norwich

As is fairly obvious, places like "*" are a monster bottleneck.

That looks a bit cheap and nasty, even to a non-trainspotter. Whose
clever idea was that design then?

British Rail (the nationalised outfit which people still insist could
have done no wrong) in the 70's/80's simplifying lots of junctions to
have fewer moving parts, on the grounds that rail transport was in
managed decline.

At the time there was probably only 1tph in either the Kings Lynn or
Norwich directions.

.... but now there's routinely 2.5tph each way to Peterborough, 2tph each
way to Norwich, and 1tph to Kings Lynn proposed to increase to 2tph,
plus freights, they can't get the necessary 11.5tph+freight past the
"a".
--
Roland Perry

On 19/12/2015 20:22, Roland Perry wrote:

British Rail (the nationalised outfit which people still insist could
have done no wrong) in the 70's/80's simplifying lots of junctions to
have fewer moving parts, on the grounds that rail transport was in
managed decline.

At the time there was probably only 1tph in either the Kings Lynn or
Norwich directions.

So the land is still there?

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

In message , at 20:48:28 on Sat, 19
Dec 2015, Tim Ward remarked:

British Rail (the nationalised outfit which people still insist could
have done no wrong) in the 70's/80's simplifying lots of junctions to
have fewer moving parts, on the grounds that rail transport was in
managed decline.

At the time there was probably only 1tph in either the Kings Lynn or
Norwich directions.

So the land is still there?

I'm sure it is, and they have plans to use it. But the project is
slipping.

As someone said in another newsgroup earlier today:

That old joke about "good, quick, cheap, pick any two" is, in
the case of Network Rail, "forget it, you won't get any of
them".
--
Roland Perry

On 19/12/2015 21:11, Roland Perry wrote:

That old joke about "good, quick, cheap, pick any two"

(Changing the subject.)

Just very occasionally someone gets hold of some cash and calls your
bluff, and says "OK, money's no object, now give me the moon on a stick
by tomorrow lunchtime".

--
Tim Ward - 07801 703 600
www.brettward.co.uk

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 19:47:17 on Sat, 19
Dec 2015, Tim Ward remarked:

So it's like this:

Ely ------------------------------------ Peterborough
\
Ely ---------a-------------------------- Peterborough
\
*
\
b------c--------------- Kings Lynn
\ \
\ -------------- Kings Lynn
\
d------------------ Norwich
\
----------------- Norwich

As is fairly obvious, places like "*" are a monster bottleneck.

That looks a bit cheap and nasty, even to a non-trainspotter. Whose
clever idea was that design then?

British Rail (the nationalised outfit which people still insist could
have done no wrong) in the 70's/80's simplifying lots of junctions to
have fewer moving parts, on the grounds that rail transport was in
managed decline.

At the time there was probably only 1tph in either the Kings Lynn or
Norwich directions.

It was later than that, as part of the Cambridge-King's Lynn electrification
which was completed in the early 90s. Single lead junctions saved a lot of
money so were a frequent value engineering element. Indeed there are still
junction arrangements using them which save money compared to conventional
double junctions but don't have the bottlenecks. Shepreth Branch Junction is
an example with no conflicting moves using only 4 simple points:

------------
Foxton \
-------- \
\ \
---------a--b--c---
Shelford \ Cambridge
--------------d----

The stretch between points a and b is both the Up Shepreth Branch and Down
West Anglia line.

When Ely North Junction was rationalised there was no direct
Cambridge-Norwich service (introduced in 2002) and the idea of half-hourly
trains to and from King's Lynn was in the land of the fairies. There was no
Ipswich-Peterborough service either.

People forget how much rail traffic has grown since privatisation.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at 20:22:37 on Sat, 19 Dec
2015, Roland Perry remarked:
So it's like this:

Ely ------------------------------------ Peterborough
\
Ely ---------a-------------------------- Peterborough
\
*
\
b------c--------------- Kings Lynn
\ \
\ -------------- Kings Lynn
\
d------------------ Norwich
\
----------------- Norwich

As is fairly obvious, places like "*" are a monster bottleneck.

That looks a bit cheap and nasty, even to a non-trainspotter. Whose
clever idea was that design then?

British Rail (the nationalised outfit which people still insist
could have done no wrong) in the 70's/80's simplifying lots of
junctions to have fewer moving parts, on the grounds that rail
transport was in managed decline.

At the time there was probably only 1tph in either the Kings Lynn or
Norwich directions.

... but now there's routinely 2.5tph each way to Peterborough, 2tph
each way to Norwich, and 1tph to Kings Lynn proposed to increase to
2tph, plus freights, they can't get the necessary 11.5tph+freight
past the "a".

As Rupert would tell us were he here, the biggest problem is the level
crossings over all three routes north of the junction at Queen Adelaide. The
planned extra trains make them an even bigger headache, hence ideas like for
an Ely North station there.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 10:23:29 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 09:21:40 on
Sat, 19 Dec 2015, Paul Corfield remarked:

Already an important franchise commitment, greater capacity to King's
Lynn, has been sabotaged by Network Rail's inability to deliver Ely
North Junction.

And while not GN's fault Northstowe Parkway station is a year (or more,
depending on which broken promise you count) late, and perhaps
something to do with co-operation from Abellio the franchise commitment
to roll out "Franchise wide" smart ticketing has been re-jigged as
"Royston and further south".

Roger Ford tweeted this week that the South East Flexible Ticketing
project appears to be "binned" by the DfT.

So my calling it vapourware all those years wasn't completely off the
mark?

I still think smart ticketing will be delivered via the TOCs
themselves so it won't be vapourware in the sense I think you mean it.
If you are not trying to create a regional product structure spanning
several TOCs and removing boundary issues why do you need an
overarching project structure / team? I've never been convinced,
given the sparse level of info, that the DfT envisaged a South East
region set of tickets / pricing that was enabled in a consistent
manner across the SE area.

It seems Rail North do have such a scheme in mind and Mr Osborne has
lobbed them £150m to try and implement it. If they manage it I'll be
amazed given it hasn't been done in the South East where there is only
TfL and TOCs and not several PTEs, potential new ITAs, TOCs and
private bus companies to deal with. None of the PTEs have yet managed
a fully integrated smart solution in their areas that can deal with
single, return, day, period and PAYG type ticketing (which seem to be
the minimum expectation these days).

Have they also binned the "part time seasons"?

Don't think so. There are suggestions elsewhere that something is due
for announcement early next year. SWT is one TOC and Greater Anglia
might be the other. Don't know what TSGN are doing.

Presumably any future smart ticketing will be delivered by TOCs
themselves with no attempt at an overarching project.

TSGN and TfL account for 95% of my rail travel in the South East, so
that wouldn't be too much of a problem.

Southern had much of the work done already, so all it needs from Govia
is rolling it out over the old FCC network too.

I thought Govia were doing that but I am not up to date as to how far
things have stretched north of the Thames. As you say they have a lot
of project expertise inherited from Southern. Of course there may be
more difficulties north of the Thames given operator interfaces etc.

The real problem, Paul, is that every TOC doing its own things is a disaster
for any routes, like Cambridge to London, with 2 competing TOCs like Abellio
and GTR.

Will we all have to get two ITSO cards to allow for the different tickets to
London we can buy? Will Liverpool St only accept Abellio cards and King's
Cross only GTR's, even for "any permitted" tickets to London Terminals? I've
already got an ITSO card (my bus pass). Why on earth can't I use that
instead of having to get separate ones from each operator (including, if I
was still paying to use buses, a Stagecoach bus smartcard)? Meanwhile London
buses still can't read my bus pass despite ITSO on Prestige.

GTR are rolling out "The Key" as far north as Huntingdon and Royston only to
start with but are promising availability on the rest of their route later.

Cambridge station has a specific problem off-peak with ludicrous queues at
the oddest times because there is no way for the vast majority of passengers
to get tickets other than from a ticket window or machine. FCC were starting
on m-Tickets but GTR scrapped that and Abellio seem to have some limited
print at home facilities which I've not yet found a way to use for a ticket
from Cambridge. So ability to pick up tickets at the gateline without going
to a machine first is very important and being promised by GTR.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Paul Corfield) wrote:

On Sat, 19 Dec 2015 01:27:07 -0600,
wrote:

Not a promising scenario for Great Northern, something of a distant
cousin anyway, is it?

Well I rarely use TSGN services so am not directly affected. My sense
of things is that TSGN is simply too big to run well. The wider
question is Thameslink will mean a permanent tie in to South London's
services and what on earth would you do with the rump of GN services
if you were to restructure?

I share your sense of foreboding. the current staffing shambles could be an
early symptom.

I can see the residual inner suburban services going to TfL if Herts
were satisfied with their representation in terms of service levels
etc. However what do you do with the longer distance services? The
ECML already has a plethora of operators which brings its own issues.
Do you add another one alongside Thameslink, TfL, Virgin EC, Hull
Trains and whoever else gets long distance paths? It can't make
timetable planning and path allocation easy nor determining investment
needs. Remember the old idea of GN being lumped in wholly with the
East Coast inter city franchise? That didn't last long.

I don't think there are any easy answers as to what you do especially
after Thameslink services do reach the GN route in 2018.

As Roland says, the Cambridge and King's Lynn fast services will remain
separate from Thameslink of course.

--
Colin Rosenstiel