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

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 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

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 message , at 16:26:18
on Sat, 19 Dec 2015, 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.

The level crossings are where the arrows are in the 40th column of my
diagram. It's still not clear to me how they are a bottleneck for the
trains, even if they might be for the very lightly trafficed roads.
--
Roland Perry

In message ,
wrote:
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 level crossings don't affect train operation.

The
planned extra trains make them an even bigger headache, hence ideas like for
an Ely North station there.

How does adding a station alter the (non-)effects of the level
crossings?

--
Clive D.W. Feather | Home:
Mobile: +44 7973 377646 | Web: http://www.davros.org
Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is:

In message , at 22:19:37 on Mon, 21
Dec 2015, Clive D. W. Feather remarked:
The
planned extra trains make them an even bigger headache, hence ideas like for
an Ely North station there.

How does adding a station alter the (non-)effects of the level
crossings?

Rupert probably has more detail, but aiui the station would be part of a
much bigger scheme to create a direct Peterborough-Norwich route in the
open countryside north of Queen Adelaide, including moving the
trifurcation further north and removing what would otherwise have been
the one remaining level crossing.
--
Roland Perry