040711 Soham Station - eastcambs.gov.uk€¦ · D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 1 . 1...

Agenda Item 7 - page 1

AGENDA ITEM NO. 7TITLE: SOHAM STATION

Committee: Development and Transport Sub-Committee

Date: 4th July 2011

Author: Darren Hill, Team Leader Business Development[L47]

1.0 ISSUE

1.1 Consideration of two reports on the viability of re-instating the former railwaystation in Soham.

2.0 RECOMMENDATIONS

2.1 Members are requested to;

a) Note the content of the engineering feasibility study and demandmodelling report.

b) Instruct officers to liaise with project partners on;the potential to introduce an hourly service on the Peterborough to

Ipswich Lineassess interchange times at Ely stationassess commercial viability for a rail operator based on the levels

of demand projectedc) Instruct officers to develop a funding strategy for the development and

delivery of the project.

3.0 BACKGROUND/OPTIONS

3.1 Members have previously instructed officers to investigate the process forreinstatement of a railway station at Soham. Initial discussions with NetworkRail, National Express East Anglia and the Department for Transport haveconfirmed that the following separate elements will have to be progressed inparallel, if the project is to be successfully delivered:

1) Assessment of the engineering feasibility of constructing a station onthe suggested site, to meet all industry requirements2) Assessment of the operational feasibility of stopping passenger trainsat the station, within the existing pattern of passenger and freight services3) Assessment of whether that feasibility can be maintained throughprogrammed or expected enhancements to those services4) Assessment of what the likely demand for a rail service from Soham willbe


5) Assessment of the business case for operating the passenger serviceand the station, within the parameters set for the train operator in itsfranchise (by the Department for Transport).

3.2 As part of the package of funding received by Cambridgeshire Horizons forgrowth delivery within East Cambridgeshire two separate studies werecommissioned to assess the viability of re-instating the former railway stationin Soham. A feasibility study was undertaken by Network Rail which looked atwhether it was possible in engineering terms to reconstruct the station andthe various options for delivery (element 1 above). This study also included acapacity analysis to determine the feasibility of including an additional call atSoham in the existing two-hourly Ipswich – Peterborough service (element 2above), and to assess the impact of a new station on future enhancements topassenger and freight services on this corridor (element 3 above).

3.3 The results of the feasibility study and capacity study are included in Annexe1 and take the development of the station up to GRIP (Network Rail’s ‘Guideto Railway Investment Projects’) Level 2. This equates to the identification ofoutline options. An overview of both reports was presented to the Council’sScrutiny Committee on the 20th June. The next stages, GRIP Level 3 and 4,focus on option selection and outline design, with Level 5 on detailed designand Level 6 on construction. Although a complex process, GRIP is designedto ensure that each project is thoroughly investigated and vetted beforemoving on to the next stage of development.

3.4 The engineering feasibility study for Soham Station presented three possibleoptions for location and layout. The single platform option for Soham Station(Option 1) would not appear to be the most suitable as this places theplatform on a transition track curve which is undesirable for the maintenanceof platform stepping distances and clearances. Option 2 places a singleplatform on single track and requires the crossover to move towards Bury StEdmunds. This option also allows the provision of a double track at a laterstage on the original formation. Double tracking is due to be completed byNetwork Rail in this area over the next 5 to 7 years. Option 3 is the mostexpensive option and provides a double platform with the DDA compliantfootbridge necessary to provide full access to the Ely-bound platform. Thisoption has the same track alignment as option 2 and provides a crossovertowards Ely. It is also fully compatible with double tracking.

3.5 The costings for each option are included under section 4.

3.6 The capacity analysis included as part of the engineering feasibility studyconcluded that;

The introduction of a stop at the reinstated Soham station for the Ipswich –Peterborough service is possible without significant alterations to the existingtimetable.


It would also be possible on an improved hourly service running at the sameminutes past each hour as present.

However, the existing timetable provides less than optimum connections intoCambridge services at Ely (27 minutes towards Cambridge and 15 minutesfrom Cambridge), which will have an adverse impact on demand for rail travelbetween Soham and Cambridge. This is judged to be the most significantdestination in demand terms.

The analysis in this report suggests that the programmed requirement of 32freight train paths per day in each direction is achievable, with either a 2-hourly or hourly service for Soham.

3.7 A separate study was undertaken by Atkins via Cambridgeshire CountyCouncil and looked at the level of passenger demand that a new station atSoham could generate (element 4 above). The conclusions of this report areincluded in Annex 2. If an hourly service were to be introduced on thePeterborough to Ipswich Railway Line and a 15 minute interchange could beachieved for onward travel to Cambridge via Ely, Soham could be expectedto achieve approximately 400 passenger trips per day (i.e 200 returnjourneys.) To put this into context, Littleport station currently has 414 andWaterbeach 700 and both stations are unstaffed. The level of demand isreduced significantly however, with the current two hourly service and aninterchange time of 27 minutes for onward travel to Cambridge via Ely.Further work is required on this to establish whether this level of demandwould generate an adequate return for a rail operator, to cover theoperational costs of the additional calls and the station itself. Further wouldalso be required to determine whether a change in the timetable would bepossible to improve connection times and thereby increase demand for theservice.

4.0 ARGUMENTS/CONCLUSIONS

4.1 The two reports that have been produced have established that it is feasibleto reinstate Soham Station in engineering and operational terms. Theconclusions on demand are however much more tentative, but suggest thatthere is merit in further investigation of the business case, to take intoaccount the impacts of:

The hourly service as opposed to the current train every two hoursThe feasibility of amending the timetable to improve the connections at

ElyThe provision of a staffed or unstaffed station

4.2 It is therefore recommended that discussions now take place with projectpartners to discuss these issues in greater detail and also start to give somethought on how the project may be funded in the future. It is important to notehowever, that it is highly unlikely that a station at Soham would be deliveredin the short-term and a time frame of between 5 to 7 years would seem theshortest realistic estimate. It would appear sensible to wait for Network Rail to


progress the planned work on double tracking and then look to fit the deliveryof the station project around this.


5.0 FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS/ EQUALITY IMPACT ASSESSMENT

5.1 The following table gives an overview of the estimated costs for all 3engineering options for Soham station including the subsequent costs forcompleting the remaining GRIP stages 3 to 6.

Staffed Un-staffedOption 1 £2.5m £2.3mOption 2 £3.6m £3.4mOption 3 £5.0m £4.8m

5.2 Equality Impact Assessment not yet required.

6.0 APPENDICES

Appendix A - Feasibility ReportAppendix B - Network Planning: Capability AnalysisAppendix C - Report on Forecast Patronage

Background Documents

Soham Station EngineeringFeasibility Report &Capacity AnalysisDemand Modelling

Location

Room FF102,The Grange,Ely

Contact Officer

Darren HillTeam Leader, Business Development(01353) 665555E-mail: [email protected]

Prepared for

Network Rail – Investment Projects

122261 Soham Proposed Station

Feasibility Report (GRIP Stage 2)

Document No. D137026-SW-CV-REP-001

Revision P02

April 2011

as278

Text Box

APPENDIX A

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


URS/Scott Wilson Tricentre 3 Newbridge Square Swindon SN1 1BY Tel 01793 508500 Fax 01793 508501 www.urs-scottwilson.com

Document No. D137026-SW-CV-REP-001

Revision Schedule GRIP Stage 2 Feasibility Report April 2011

Rev Date Details Prepared by Reviewed by Approved by

P01 26/3/11 Draft Rob Lewis Principal Engineer

Rob Lees Principal Engineer

Mike Summerfield CSE Unit Manager

P02 5/4/11 Final Rob Lewis Principal Engineer

Rob Lees Principal Engineer

Eugene Smethurst Engineering Manager

This document has been prepared in accordance with the scope of Scott Wilson's appointment with its client and is subject to the terms of that appointment. It is addressed to and for the sole and confidential use and reliance of Scott Wilson's client. Scott Wilson accepts no liability for any use of this document other than by its client and only for the purposes for which it was prepared and provided. No person other than the client may copy (in whole or in part) use or rely on the contents of this document, without the prior written permission of the Company Secretary of Scott Wilson Group plc. Any advice, opinions, or recommendations within this document should be read and relied upon only in the context of the document as a whole. The contents of this document do not provide legal or tax advice or opinion.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


Table of Contents

1 Executive Summary ........................................................................ 1

2 Introduction ..................................................................................... 2

2.1 Remit .............................................................................................................................. 2

3 Existing Layout................................................................................ 3

3.1 General........................................................................................................................... 3

4 Proposed Layout ............................................................................. 6

4.1 General........................................................................................................................... 6

4.2 Station Location and Layout ........................................................................................... 6

4.3 Station Facilities ............................................................................................................. 8

4.4 Permanent Way............................................................................................................ 11

4.5 Points Heating .............................................................................................................. 12

4.6 Signalling and Telecommunication ............................................................................... 13

4.7 Construction ................................................................................................................. 13

5 Risk ................................................................................................ 15

5.1 Health and Safety ......................................................................................................... 15

5.2 Project (Cost and Programme) ..................................................................................... 15

6 Cost Estimates .............................................................................. 16

7 Conclusions................................................................................... 17

Appendix 1: Drawings Appendix 2: Decision Analysis Table Appendix 3: Environmental Appraisal and Action Plan Appendix 4: Cost Estimates Appendix 5: IDC Certificate

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 1

1 Executive Summary It is feasible to provide a station at the location of the original Soham station, with either staffed

or un-staffed modular facilities, a platform length of 105m, parking spaces for up to 67 cars

(plus 4 disabled spaces), motorcycle and bicycle parking, and a bus turning-circle.

The current track alignment is on undesirable track geometry for a platform and on the centre

of the original two-track formation. Consequently, it would be beneficial to realign the track to

its original alignment, thus accommodating the second track (if and when required) on the

original formation, and enabling the provision of a straight track alignment for the station.

Option 1 assesses the minimum-work option of a single platform on the existing track layout;

Options 2 and 3 examine a single and double platform on the realigned track.

Option 1 is to provide a platform on the existing single line. The platform would be on a thin

strip of land on the Ely side of the original station, in order to be clear of the junction. Whilst

leaving free the maximum area of the original station yard (next to the junction) for car-parking,

the platform would be on undesirable track geometry (a transition curve), and subsequent

doubling of the single line would require earthworks outside the track formation. This option

does not affect signals or associated equipment. The estimated cost of this option is £2.5m

(staffed station) or £2.3m (un-staffed station), though it incurs higher costs, and an undesirable

design, for subsequent track doubling.

Option 2 avoids the earthworks required to accommodate subsequent track doubling, by

realigning the single line to its original alignment. This realignment would necessitate the

renewal of the junction with revised geometry, and its relocation towards Bury St Edmunds in

order to locate it on uniform geometry, which would enable the platform to be placed on a

straight section of track: this would shorten the double-track section by 250m. The platform

would be located at the original station location, would have passive provision for the future

provision of a footbridge and second platform, and provides 10 fewer car-parking spaces than

Option 1. No signal positions would be affected; modifications would be required to signalling

control infrastructure, such as track circuits and interlocking. This option would cost £3.6m

(staffed station) or £3.4m (un-staffed station), but avoids the earthworks costs associated with

subsequent track doubling and accommodate a good design.

Option 3 locates the station on double track, with two platforms and a connecting footbridge,

by moving the junction towards Ely. This would be best achieved by realigning the single track

to its original alignment (as in Option 2), thus avoiding the earthworks required to

accommodate the second track (and for subsequent doubling towards Ely). The junction would

be moved 200m towards Ely, thus lengthening the double-track section. The Up-side

geometry, layout and facilities would be as in Option 2. No signal positions would be affected,

though controls on one signal would require modification to accommodate the relocated

junction within the signal overlap; modifications would be required to signalling control

infrastructure, such as track circuits and interlocking, and the Down-side cable route realigned.

This option would cost £5.0m (staffed) or £4.8m (un-staffed), avoids the earthworks in Option 1

and provides a good track-doubling design.

The option to provide the two-platform station without realigning the single track to its original

alignment has not been assessed, because the provision of the double track and the

associated relocation of the junction is relatively unaffected by its installation on the revised

alignment, the station is not placed on straight track, and the earthworks to support the second

track are required. Thus, there is only one sensible way to provide the two-platform station.

All the options accommodate the proposed hourly passenger service and required freight

paths.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 2

2 Introduction

2.1 Remit

A passenger station is proposed at Soham, between Bury St Edmunds (Chippenham Junction)

and Ely (SOB2), at the location of the original station, which closed in 1965.

The remit required the following station layout options to be assessed:

• Existing track layout with a single platform;

• Double track layout with two platforms.

The remit required the following station accommodation options to be assessed:

• Modular station building for a staffed station;

• Shelter containing ticket machines for an un-staffed station.

The remit contained the following general requirements:

• 105m x 3.5m platforms to accommodate a three-car class 170 diesel multiple unit (N.B. this

length is more than adequate to accommodate a three-car DMU);

• DDA-compliant footbridge for double-platform option;

• Platforms to be NR standard cross-wall and plank design;

• Parking for 50 - 75 cars;

• An aspiration to double the track from Soham to Ely.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 3

3 Existing Layout

3.1 General

The site lies on a north-south orientation, with double track heading south (Up direction) to Bury

St Edmunds and single track heading north (Down direction) to Ely; line speed is 50mph in the

Up direction and 60mph in the Down direction. The junction between the single- and double-

track sections is at the former station site at 7m 61c.

Road vehicle access from the town centre, some half a mile distant, is provided via Station

Road and the former station approach road, the latter being a private unmetalled track.

The Up-side area next to the junction (the former station building site) is used by Network Rail’s

maintainer for materials storage; this facility would be relocated prior to any station works.

Soham Station in 1944, on a straight track alignment, looking north

3.1.1 Civil Engineering

There are no notable structures in the proposed station area.

Under-line structures are present to the south of the site, where track modifications are

proposed, thus:

Soham Lode underbridge 7m 51c

Cattle creep underbridge 7m 48c

3.1.2 Permanent Way

The track is on a long reverse curve, with a short length of straight track accommodating the

50mph single-to-double junction turnout: the Down Line is on a straight alignment, the Up Line

being the (left-hand) turnout.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 4

Between the turnout and Spencer Drove level crossing to the north, the single track is located

in the centre of the original two-track formation, having been realigned to provide the junction

on straight track.

Soham Junction, looking towards Bury St. Edmunds,

with the maintenance storage container on the left.

The track is on a nominally a gradient of 1 in 1750, falling towards Ely.

The track is continuous welded rail, though the junction turnout appears to be jointed and is

protected by an adjustment switch.

There appears to be no track drainage present.

There are no structures that would require special attention with regard to dynamic clearances.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 5

Soham Junction (turnout out of view on the left) looking towards Ely.

3.1.3 Signalling and Telecommunication

The route is signalled by a mixture of two- and three- multiple aspect signals and track circuits.

The closest signals to the site are those controlling trains in each direction through the site:

Down-direction moves through the proposed station site are controlled by signal CA491, 700m

from the junction, and Up-direction moves by signal CA494, which is 280m from the junction.

Both these signals are on the left-hand side of the track and are three-aspect.

The signalling and telecommunication concrete trough cable route is located in the Down cess,

2m from the Down and Single Lines.

Several level crossings are present in the area, those in close vicinity (within 400m) of the

junction being user-worked.

3.1.4 Electrification

There is no electric traction infrastructure present.

3.1.5 Points Heating

The turnout has electric points heating, served by transformers in the Up cess.

3.1.6 Utilities

There are no known major utility services in the area. A 6” intermediate pressure gas pipe is located along the eastern boundary with housing, crossing the approach road. Various services (live or redundant) are likely to be present in the area of the former station.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 6

4 Proposed Layout

4.1 General

The proposed station would be located at the site of the original station, because of the extent of Network Rail’s land ownership, access from the public highway and proximity to the town centre.

The longitudinal track profile would enable the station to be located on a gradient flatter than

1:500.

The two track layout remit options (see 2.1) have been assessed as the following three report

options:

Option 1: Single-platform station on the existing single-track alignment.

Option 2: Single-platform station on a modified single-track alignment.

Option 3: Double-platform station on a double track alignment, based upon the modified single-

track alignment in Option 2.

A fourth option, to provide a double-platform station without modifying the existing track

alignment, has not been assessed because of a combination of the following reasons:

• The platforms would be on transition curves (undesirable);

• The second track would require earthworks to widen the track formation;

• The removal of the junction turnout would necessitate realignment of the resultant Up

Bury Line to compliant plain line geometry: there would be relatively little additional

work involved in realigning it as described in Option 3;

• If the single-line platform had already been installed on the existing track layout, the

provision of the second platform and removal of the junction turnout would necessitate

realignment of the single-line platform (in association with the realignment of the plain

line as a result of removal the junction turnout, as described in the previous bullet

point).

A platform width of 3m has been allowed for, following confirmation from Network Rail (via a

technical query) that 3.5m is not required.

Ground conditions at the site are not known, but areas which supported the platforms of the

previous station would probably be adequate to support pad foundations. Elsewhere, it may be

necessary to support the cross-walls on piles. Screw-piles have been found to be economical

for this type of structure, and were used on the extension to the Up platform at Roydon Station.

4.2 Station Location and Layout

4.2.1 Option 1: Single Platform on Existing Single Track

This proposed layout is illustrated on drawing D137026-SW-CV-DRG-001 and a section and

elevation on drawing D137026-SW-CV-DRG-002.

The platform would be on the Up side, on the Ely side of the junction, and consequently on a

very narrow strip of land, constraining construction activities. The location of the platform clear

of the wider area of land at the former station site and access provides the maximum area for

car-parking, accommodating 67 (plus 4 disabled) spaces. However, the platform would be on a

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 7

transition track curve, which is undesirable for the maintenance of platform stepping distances

and clearances.

In addition, subsequent doubling of the track between Soham and Ely would require the second

track to be located partly outside the original track formation for a length of 300m, requiring

earthworks to widen the formation (with potential ecological disruption), or the single track

realigned, and the platform and facilities demolished and reconstructed, to accommodate the

second track on the original formation.

4.2.2 Option 2: Single Platform on Realigned Single Track

This option is illustrated on drawing D137026-SW-CV-DRG-003 and a section and elevation on

drawing D137026-SW-CV-DRG-004.

In order to accommodate future doubling of the track from Soham to Ely without the

requirement for the earthworks described in 4.2.1, and to put the platform on straight track (as

required - where reasonably feasible - in accordance with Group Standards), the single track

would be realigned to its original Up-side alignment. The junction would be moved towards

Bury St Edmunds, south of the platform.

The placing of the platform at this location would provide 50 (plus four disabled) car-parking

spaces, 17 fewer than in Option 1. (The track realignment would also reduce the width of the

narrow strip of land that would accommodate the platform in Option 1, but this is irrelevant if the

platform is located on the preferable straight section of track).

This option would allow the provision of a second platform, and the extension of the double

track to serve it on the original track formation, without modifications to the single-track

platform. Passive provision would be made for a footbridge to serve a second platform (i.e. as

Option 3), thus limiting the number of car-parking spaces that could be provided.

4.2.3 Option 3: Double Platform

This option is illustrated on drawing D137026-SW-CV-DRG-003.

The existing track would be realigned and the Up-side platform located as described in 4.2.2,

this being further justified under this option by the need to realign the single line to relocate the

junction towards Ely in order to provide double track through the station.

A footbridge would be provided for access to the Down platform, the ramps for which would

take up a significant amount of potential car-parking space (see 4.2.2). A standard Network

Rail station footbridge, with stairs and ramps, would be provided. The bridge soffit would be

4780mm above rail level, in order to accommodate overhead line electrification and W12 freight

gauge. A construction depth of 215mm and a platform height above rail level of 915mm gives

a total rise of 4080mm, which would require two flights of 12 stairs, each stair having a rise of

170mm.

An 80m length of ramp would be required, at 1 in 19.6, i.e. 9 flights of 8.89m.

Lighting to the ramps and the footbridge would be in accordance with DDA access

requirements.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 8

4.3 Station Facilities

4.3.1 Station Building

Two options have been considered:

1. A modular station building, 12m x 6m, incorporating a ticket office, a public WC and

staff facilities. It is suggested a canopy is provided over the ticket window, as shown in

the Smitham photograph below, to protect passengers queuing to buy tickets.

2. A canopy housing the ticket machines, based on the Macemain Paragon AV Shelter,

as shown in the illustration below.

Example of modular station building at Smitham, with canopy over ticket window

Macemain Paragon AV shelter

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 9

4.3.2 Canopies

The brief contains a requirement for a 50m long canopy. On the single platform this could be

provided by 11 units of the Macemain Paragon AV3 cantilever shelter (see below).

Alternatively, it would be more economical to provide a series of discrete shelters along the

length of the platform. This type of canopy is a lightweight structure, whose foundations could

be accommodated within the space available.

More width is available on the two platform station, and it would be possible to provide more

substantial canopies, albeit at higher cost.

Macemain Paragon AV3 cantilever shelter

4.3.3 Car Parking

Individual car spaces should be 2.4m x 4.8m, with 6m circulation between rows.

A kerb and a barrier would be provided to protect the railway fence and track.

The DfT document Accessible Train and Station Design for Disabled People, and BS8300:

2009, require that disabled spaces shall form 5% of the total capacity, and be 2.4m x 4.8m,

with a 1.2m margin at one side and the back for transfer to a wheelchair. Spaces can share a

margin, as shown on the drawings. Four spaces have been provided both options.

Lighting would take due cognisance of the DDA access requirements. The access road would

have lighting for both pedestrian and vehicle access, provided by raise-and-lower columns to

allow ease of maintenance. Lighting levels on the access road, bus stop and parking areas

would be in accordance with CIBSE standards and controlled by photocells and time switches.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 10

4.3.4 Motorcycle Parking

An area would be provided for motorcycle parking to the north of the car park.

4.3.5 Cycle Parking

It is proposed to provide a Paragon AV cycle store with Sheffield stands at 1m centres (see

illustration below). This would accommodate 18 cycles, assuming that each stand takes two

cycles. Cycles are assumed to be 1.8m long.

Cycle Store

4.3.6 Planting Areas

Areas for planting have been identified and shown on the drawings, and it is suggested that

these should be filled with low-growing shrubs, which would need very little maintenance.

Alternatively they could be surfaced with deterrent paving and/or used for sculptures, which

would need no maintenance.

4.3.7 Bus Stop

A bus stop and turning circle is provided at the station entrance. Dimensions and geometry are

taken from the Bus Stop Design Guide, produced by Translink.

4.3.8 Station Services

Services for the un-staffed station option would include:

• Electricity, via a three-phase DNO (distribution network operator) supply that would be provided at a metering and distribution cubicle on the Network Rail boundary. The low voltage electrical distribution would provide feeds to the station and car park lighting, CIS monitors, CCTV, help points, ticket machines and pay and display machines;

• Drainage (surface water), connected to the existing infrastructure at Mere Side and Station Road;

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 11

• A public address system (PA), customer information system (CIS), help points and ticket machines, served by operational telecommunication and data links;

• CCTV for passenger security and to reduce vandalism;

• A public pay-telephone under the canopy near the pick-up/set-down area;

• Car park pay-and-display machines.

Platform lighting would utilise raise-and-lower columns. The luminaire type and orientation would be selected to avoid glare affecting train drivers and to minimise light pollution, particularly towards the residential area to the east of the station. In addition to the above the staffed station option would include:

• Water via a metered water supply;

• Foul drainage connection to the public sewer system;

• Gas, in addition to electricity, via a metered supply, depending upon the availability of mains gas in the area.

4.4 Permanent Way



No major work would be required to the track, though a design tamp would be required to

regularise the horizontal and vertical alignment, thus aiding the provision of uniform platform

stepping distances.

The location of the platform on a transition curve would make maintenance of the track

alignment, and the platform stepping distances and clearances, more difficult than a platform

placed on uniformly curved or straight track.


The track would be in the same location as that shown for the Up platform illustrated on

drawing D137026-SW-CV-DRG-003.

The single line would be realigned by nearly 3m at the junction toe, in order to create a straight

section of track 150m in length.

Relocation of the junction turnout towards Bury St Edmunds would require its placement

between the cattle creep at 7m 48c and Clarks & Butchers level crossing, in order to keep it

clear of Soham Lode and the cattle creep underbridge structures, a move of 250m. The

relocated junction turnout would be formed of a 50mph right-hand turnout on the existing 840m-

radius curve. It is not feasible - because of the track curvature - to provide a 60mph turnout in

this location (a turnout of this speed would have to be located a further 400m towards Bury St

Edmunds, where the track geometry is conducive, indeed straight); thus, the Down Line would

be limited to 50mph through the junction (whereas currently the Up Line is so limited).

As part of the track realignment work, the longitudinal track profile would be regularised to

provide a constant gradient (and flatter than 1:500) through the extent of the platform.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 12



The horizontal and vertical realignment of the single track, described in 4.4.2, would form the

basis of the provision of double track, with the junction turnout being relocated to the north of

the station, by the provision of a 60mph turnout on a 1000m-radius curve between the

proposed station and Soham Station Level Crossing (7m 78c). In order to place this turnout on

more desirable geometry, it would need to move a further half-mile towards Ely (this option has

not been assessed).

As part of the track realignment work, the longitudinal track profile would be regularised to

provide a constant gradient (and flatter than 1:500) through the extent of the platform.

4.4.4 Track Drainage

None of the options affects any track drainage or catchment areas; consequently, no track drainage work is proposed.

4.4.5 Double Track To Ely

The work described in 4.4.2 and 4.4.3 could form the basis of the provision of double track from

Soham to Ely. Indeed, doubling of the track to Ely before provision of the station would save

the potentially abortive provision of S&C and signalling for the double-platform station.

4.4.6 Track Category

Currently, all lines in the area are track category 4. Further development of this project is to be based upon the following track categories (as advised by Network Rail): Up Bury Line 3 Down Bury Line 3 Up & Down Bury Line 2

4.5 Points Heating


The points heating would not be affected.


The relocated junction turnout would be provided with new points heating, supplied by a 250m-

long cable from the DNO supply to the proposed control cubicle. An equipment platform, of the

order of 1m high, would be required to support the cubicle on the low embankment.


The relocated junction turnout would be provided with new points heating, supplied by a 200m-

long cable from the DNO supply to the proposed control cubicle.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 13

4.6 Signalling and Telecommunication


The signals, including sighting, and cable route would be unaffected by the proposed station.


The signals, including sighting, and cable route would be unaffected by the proposed station

and track modifications.

The distance between the facing junction turnout and Up-direction signal CA494 would be

increased from 200m to 450m, thus shortening the double-track section by 250m, requiring

operational capacity assessment (see 5.2). The S&C relocation would require alterations to

track circuits, TPWS, alterations to the interlocking and panel presentation modifications.

4.6.3 Option 3: Double Track Option

The proposed station, footbridge and track modifications would not introduce any signal

sighting difficulties.

The junction turnout would move to within approximately 80m of Up-direction signal CA494,

placing it in the signal over-run. The interlocking would be modified to lock the turnout in the

‘normal’ position for Up-direction moves, in order to route the overlap on the Up Bury Line.

This option would require alterations to track circuits, TPWS, alterations to the interlocking and

panel presentation modifications.

The relocation of the junction turnout would lengthen the double-track section by 200m.

4.7 Construction


Construction would be straightforward, simply consisting of the construction of the station

alongside the existing track. Much of the work could be undertaken during normal operational

periods, with work requiring line blocks being done in Rules of the Route periods.


The realignment of the track, and relocation of the junction turnout, would require abnormal line

blocks. The work would be undertaken in the following order:

1. Relocate junction turnout, connect to single line via temporary alignment and commission the new layout.

2. Prepare formation and realign single track (this could be done by preparing the formation in

short line blocks, realigning the track on completion).

3. Build station as in Option 1.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 14

4.7.3 Option 3: Double Track Option

Construction would be of a similar complexity to Option 2, though would take longer. The work

would be undertaken in the following order:

1. Relocate the cable route. 2. Install junction turnout (secured out-of-use). 3. Prepare formation for both proposed track alignments (a section at a time, reinstating

existing track). 4. Remove redundant junction turnout, install both tracks and commission the revised layout

(this would require a four-day line block). 5. Build station.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 15

5 Risk

5.1 Health and Safety

At this stage, no installation, maintenance or demolition health and safety risks have been

identified that could not be foreseen by a competent contractor or maintainer, are unusual or

would be difficult to manage.

5.2 Project (Cost and Programme)

Options 2 and 3 relocate the single-to-double track junction; Option 2 shortens the double track

section by 250m, thus theoretically reducing the capacity of the route. All three options affect

the route capacity by introducing stopping trains. A draft operational modelling report,

CA122261 Network Planning: Capability Report, Soham New Station (version 0.2), states that

a proposed hourly stopping passenger service in both directions and the required number of

freight train paths can be accommodated by the provision of a station on the existing track

layout (i.e. Option 1). Logically, this applies equally to Option 3; however, a small risk exists

that the reduction of double track length in Option 2 would compromise the route capacity

requirement. Should Option 2 be adopted, operational modelling would be required to verify

the resultant capacity is adequate.

At this stage, no other abnormal project risks have been identified that would increase the cost

estimates beyond the GRIP Stage 2 tolerance. Normal risks would apply, such as unforeseen

ground conditions, buried services, etc.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 16

6 Cost Estimates The +/-30% capital cost estimates for implementation of the options are as follows:

Staffed station Un-staffed station

Option 1 £2.5m £2.3m Option 2 £3.6m £3.4m Option 3 £5.0m £4.8m

The cost estimates’ calculation sheets are in Appendix 4.

as278

Text Box


Network Rail


D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 17

7 Conclusions Option 1 is the lowest cost option, but places the platform on undesirable track geometry and

incurs significant additional work to subsequently provide a second platform and/or double

track from Soham to Ely. Option 2 places the platform on straight track and allows for minimum

cost subsequent track doubling, but incurs significant additional cost to relocate the junction

(and places the S&C on a curve). Option 3 is the most expensive option, with the advantages

and disadvantages presented by Option 2, plus increased route capacity by allowing trains to

pass at the station.

It would be economical, if deemed appropriate, to provide an unstaffed station initially,

enhancing to staffed status if and when this is proven desirable.

All the options accommodate the proposed hourly stopping service in both directions and the

required freight paths, as detailed in 5.2. However, a further increase in service frequency

could render the single-line options incapable of providing sufficient capacity.

as278

Text Box


<Insert Project No.> - <Insert Project Title>

Agenda Item 7 – page 25

Document Control

Scheme Name: 122261 - Soham New StationDocument Ref. No.: CA122261

Location: V:\SAP-Project\CA122261 - Soham NewStation\004 Report\CA122261 Soham NewStation_0.3.doc

Version No:Status:

0.3Draft

Author:Version Date:

Security Level: Unrestricted

Authorisation Control

Network Planning: Capability Analysis

Soham New Station

Report

APPENDIX B



DOCUMENT CONTROL & ADMINISTRATION

Change Record

Version Date Author(s) Comments0.1 01/03/11

0.2 10/03/11

0.3 13/04/11

Reviewers

Version Date Name Review notes0.1 10/03/11

0.2 13/04/11

References

Ref. Document Name Doc. Ref. No. Date Rev.1. <e.g. Signalling diagrams>

2.

3.

Stakeholders

Name of stakeholder Company / Business



TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................................ 28

2. INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................... 29

2.1 BACKGROUND................................................................................................ ................... 292.2 AIM & OBJECTIVES................................................................ ............................................ 292.3 GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE......................................................................................................... 302.4 OUTPUTS ......................................................................................................................... 30

3. PROJECT FINDINGS................................ ............................................................................. 31

3.1 STANDARD HOUR TIMETABLE ................................ ............................................................. 313.2 TIMETABLE OPTION 1 ........................................................................................................ 313.3 TIMETABLE OPTION 2 ........................................................................................................ 32

4. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS ................................ ............................................ 33

APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS ................................................................ 34

APPENDIX B. ASSUMED SECTIONAL RUNNING TIMES (SRTS).......................................... 35

APPENDIX C. STANDARD HOUR TIMETABLE....................................................................... 36



1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

This project has twin objectives. The first objective is to examine the feasibility ofrunning 32 freight trains per day between Chippenham Junction and Ely Dock Junctionin combination with an hourly passenger service. The second objective is to examine thefeasibility of providing a station and associated infrastructure at Soham, on the railwayline between Ely and Bury St Edmunds and the interrelationship with the first objective.

Conclusions:

Introduction of a stop at the reinstated Soham station for the Ipswich –Peterborough service is possible without significant alterations to the timetable.

The following number of freight paths in a standard hour timetable are possiblebetween Ely North Junction and Bury St Edmunds:

o 2 freight paths per hour in each direction in an hour in which the Ipswich –Peterborough service operates

o 3 freight paths per hour in each direction in an hour in which the Ipswich –Peterborough service does not operate

It is expected that the following number of freight paths in a day are possiblebetween Ely North Junction and Bury St Edmunds:

o 45 freight paths per day if the Ipswich – Peterborough service continues inits two – hourly pattern

o 36 freight paths per day if the Ipswich – Peterborough service is increasedto an hourly pattern

The analysis in this report suggests that the required 32 train paths per day ineach direction are achievable under both Option 1 and Option 2 timetablescenarios.

This report has not considered the impact of doubling the single line betweenSoham and Ely.

It is important to note that this work has not considered the impact of timetablingconstraints beyond Bury St Edmunds and Ely that may impact on the ability offreight services to use the paths available

o The flexibility provided by the freight loops at Bury St Edmunds and Ely isexpected to account for this issue however, timetabling will be extremelyconstrained due to the high utilisation of the single line between Sohamand Ely



2. INTRODUCTION & OBJECTIVESThis project has twin objectives. The first objective is to examine the feasibility ofrunning 32 freight trains per day between Chippenham Junction and Ely Dock Junctionin combination with an hourly passenger service. The second objective is to examine thefeasibility of providing a station and associated infrastructure at Soham, on the railwayline between Ely and Bury St Edmunds and the interrelationship with the first objective.

2.1 Background

Soham is one of the largest settlements in the East of England to lie on a railway linewithout station. With current and foreseen population and employment growth in thearea, it is felt that Soham could now support a viable station and train service. Thepopulation of the town is currently 10,000. However, the recently adopted SohamMasterplan Vision suggests that the town could grow to approximately 18,000 in thelonger-term. During the public consultation for the Masterplan 80% of the local residentssurveyed, stated that the re-opening of the rail station was crucial to the futuredevelopment of the town and would strongly support its reinstatement.

East Cambridgeshire District Council, as local planning authority, has expressed apreference that the station be located on the site of the previous station, closed in 1965.

The railway line through Soham is covered by a two hourly service betweenPeterborough and London Liverpool Street. From December 2010, this service wastruncated at Ipswich. It is an aspiration in the Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategyand of the franchise holder, that this service becomes hourly in the future.

In addition to an enhanced passenger service, it is predicted that freight services willincrease to 32 trains per day per direction, giving two freight paths per hour in eachdirection, in addition to the aspiration for an hourly passenger service in each direction.The increasing train frequency has led to a Control Period 4 (CP4) scheme to create afreight loop at Ely Dock Junction by doubling just over a mile of the single line section.The report will inform the CP5 scheme that is examining the complete doubling of theEly – Soham line.

2.2 Aim & Objectives

Analysis of the theoretical impact of a new station at Soham in three timetable Options;

The existing two-hourly Ipswich to Peterborough service calls at Soham in bothdirections; and

The service is increased to hourly service in both directions (all calling atSoham)



The capacity available for freight in each timetable option has been identified andquantified in terms of trains per hour. This has been multiplied out by 18 (instead of 24)to provide a predicted figure for the number of possible freight paths per day using thefollowing assumptions:

Freight services do not run during the two hour period of the morning peak andthe two hour period of the evening peak

Freight services do not run during a two hour period over night

Although there will be instances where these assumptions are proven incorrect, theyensure that a robust & achievable figure for number of freight paths per day is used, thataccounts for timetabling constraints that may occur outside the timetable area.

The work has taken into account the proposals to upgrade the Felixstowe to Nuneatonfreight route but has not considered the CP5 enhancement scheme to double track theexisting single track section of railway between Ely Dock Junction and Soham Junction.

2.3 Geographic Scope

The timetable study has covered the following area:

Table 1 Boundary points of model

Location Is an activeTRUSTreportingpoint?

Is amandatorytiming point?

Is this ajunction ormajorstation?

Anydisadvantages of thislocation?

Ely North Junction Yes Yes Yes

Cambridge Yes Yes Yes Largenumber oftrains aroundCambridgestation

Bury St. Edmunds Yes Yes No

2.4 Outputs

A standard hour Working Timetable (WTT) has been produced for the above area foreach option.



3. PROJECT FINDINGS

3.1 Standard Hour Timetable

Appendix D shows the standard hour timetable for the route between Bury St Edmundsand Ely North Junction.

With operation of the Ipswich – Peterborough service, two freight paths per hour in eachdirection are possible. Without operation of the Ipswich – Peterborough service, threefreight paths per hour in each direction are possible.

The standard hour timetable varies slightly throughout the day in particular, due to smallvariations in the paths of train services. Analysis of the impact this has on potentialfreight paths shows that outside the peak hours, these variations to the standard hourtimetable do not impact on the number of freight paths available.

3.2 Timetable Option 1

3.2.1 Additional Stop at Soham station

This section analyses the required changes to the timetable to accommodate a stop atSoham station for the Ipswich - Peterborough service.

See Appendix C for Sectional Running Time (SRT) information with a call at Sohamstation.

Towards Ipswich:

Peterborough – Ipswich services currently have an extended dwell time at Ely, departingat around 31 minutes past the hour. A departure from Ely no later than 29 minutes pastthe hour allows the service to arrive at Bury St Edmunds in its normal path. To allow theearlier departure from Ely small flex of timings to the Liverpool – Norwich services andthe Kings Lynn – Kings Cross services are required. These changes take advantage ofpathing time and extended dwell time at Ely and timing points close to Ely and do notsignificantly change the timetable.

Towards Peterborough:



Ipswich – Peterborough services currently have 2 minutes pathing time on approach toEly Dock Junction. This pathing time can instead be used to accommodate theadditional stop at Soham station.

3.2.2 Freight Capacity

The Peterborough – Ipswich service operates in a two – hourly pattern. In the hour theIpswich – Peterborough service operates; two freight paths per hour in each directionare possible. In the hour the Ipswich – Peterborough service does not operate; threefreight paths per hour in each direction are possible. Therefore, 2.5 freight paths arepossible per hour in each direction in the standard hour timetable.

Using the methodology described in section 2.2, there are 45 freight paths possible perday in each direction. Note that this does not assume doubling of the single line betweenSoham and Ely Dock Junction.

3.3 Timetable Option 2

Increasing the frequency of the Peterborough – Ipswich service to an hourly patternmeans that two freight trains per hour are possible in each direction in the standard hourtimetable.

Using the methodology described in section 2.2, there are 36 freight paths possible perday in each direction. Note that this does not assume doubling of the single line betweenSoham and Ely Dock Junction.



4. CONCLUSIONS & RECOMMENDATIONS

Introduction of a stop at the reinstated Soham station for the Ipswich –Peterborough service is possible without significant alterations to the timetable.

The following number of freight paths in a standard hour timetable are possiblebetween Ely North Junction and Bury St Edmunds:

o 2 freight paths per hour in each direction in an hour in which the Ipswich –Peterborough service operates

o 3 freight paths per hour in each direction in an hour in which the Ipswich –Peterborough service does not operate

It is expected that the following number of freight paths in a day are possiblebetween Ely North Junction and Bury St Edmunds:

o 45 freight paths per day if the Ipswich – Peterborough service continues inits two – hourly pattern

o 36 freight paths per day if the Ipswich – Peterborough service is increasedto an hourly pattern

This report has not considered the impact of doubling the single line betweenSoham and Ely.

The analysis in this report suggests that the required 32 train paths per day ineach direction are achievable under both Option 1 and Option 2 timetablescenarios.

It is important to note that this work has not considered the impact of timetablingconstraints beyond Bury St Edmunds and Ely that may impact on the ability offreight services to use the paths available

o The flexibility provided by the freight loops at Bury St Edmunds and Ely isexpected to account for this issue however, timetabling will be extremelyconstrained due to the high utilisation of the single line between Sohamand Ely



APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY & ASSUMPTIONS

A timetable has been produced for the area defined in 2.3. This timetable has used thefollowing assumptions:

Timetable Option Assumptions

1 (Soham station only) Two-hourly existing Ipswich –Peterborough service calls at Sohamstation, which has been reinstated withone platform at 7m 61ch

CP4 Ely Freight Loops

Class 4 freight with 1235t trailing load

2 (Soham station + hourlypassenger service)

Two-hourly existing Ipswich –Peterborough service calls at Sohamstation, which has been reinstated withone platform at 7m 61ch

Existing Ipswich – Peterborough serviceis replicated to run in every hour at thesame minutes past the hour

CP4 Ely Freight Loops

Class 4 freight with 1235t trailing load

Timetable Scope

Two timetable Options have been produced for the area specified in section 2.3. Alltrains operating within the area have been included, except at Cambridge, where onlytrains operating North/East of Coldham Lane Junction have been included.

The two timetable Options produced are;

Option 1

Passenger services as December 2010, with all Ipswich – Peterborough services callingadditionally at Soham.

The number of class 4 1235t freight paths will be identified with an aspiration for 1.5 ftphwhich equates to 24 trains per day per direction.

Option 2

As Option 1 but with 1 tph Ipswich – Peterborough passenger service, all calling at Soham.



APPENDIX B. ASSUMED SECTIONAL RUNNING TIMES (SRTS)

The table below shows Theoretical Running Times (TRTs) and Sectional Running Times(SRTs). The TRTs have been generated in RailSys using 170 rolling stock data, thestandard rolling stock to operate the Ipswich - Peterborough service.

Current SRT inminutes (noSoham Stop)

RailSys TRT inSeconds (noSoham Stop)

RailSys TRT inSeconds

(Soham Stop)

Rounded SRTin minutes

(Soham Stop)Ely Dock Jnto Soham 5½ 310 325 6Soham to

ChippenhamJn 6½ 378 419 7

Chippenhamto Soham 6½ 384 400 7

Soham to ElyDock Jn 5½ 302 330 5½

APPENDIX C. STANDARD HOUR TIMETABLEThis standard hour timetable for the route between Bury St Edmunds and Ely North Junction shows current passenger services andpotential freight paths. The two services highlighted in yellow run in alternate hours (if the Peterborough – Ipswich service continuesin its current two – hourly pattern).

Bury St Edmunds to Ely North Junction

Ely North Junction toBury St Edmunds

Signal ID 1Nxx 1Lxx 1Kxx 1Txx 1Rxx 4Xxx 1Exx Or 4Xxx 4Xxx 2Wxx

Train Opoerating Company CC EM NXEA FCC EM - NXEA - - NXEA

Timing Load 170 158 170 365 158 170 170

Bury St Edmunds .. .. .. .. .. xx:13:30 xx:29 xx:26:30 xx:35:30 xx:56Kennet Arr .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. xx:06

Dep .. .. .. .. .. xx:29 xx:38:30 xx:39 xx:48 xx:06:30

Chippenham Junction .. .. .. .. .. xx:32:30 xx:41:30 xx:41:30 xx:50:30 xx:11:30Soham Arr .. .. .. .. .. .. xx:48:30 .. .. ..

Dep .. .. .. .. .. xx:40 xx:49 xx:49 xx:58 ..Ely Dock Junction xx:13 .. xx:25 xx:46:30 .. xx:47 xx:57:30 xx:55 xx:04 ..

Ely Arr xx:14 xx:16 xx:26 xx:47:30 xx:44:30 xx:49 xx:58:30 .. .. ..Pl 1 3 1 1 3 DGL 1 1 1 ..

Dep xx:15 xx:20 xx:27 xx:48:30 xx:52:30 xx:19:30 xx:59:30 xx:58 xx:07 ..Ely North Junction xx:17:30 xx:22:30 xx:29:30 xx:52 xx:55 xx:24 xx:02 xx:03:30 xx:12:30 ..

Signal ID 2Wxx 4Xxx 4Xxx 1Lxx 1Txx 1Lxx Or 4Xxx 1Kxx 1Rxx 1Lxx

Train Opoerating Company NXEA - - EM FCC NXEA - NXEA EM CC

Timing Load 170 158 365 170 170 158 170

Ely North Junction .. xx:00 xx:03:30 xx:10 xx:23 xx:26 xx:26 xx:35:30 xx:42 xx:49Ely Arr .. .. xx:07:30 xx:12:30 xx:25:30 xx:28:30 .. xx:38:00 xx:44:30 xx:52:00

Pl .. 3 UGL 3 2 3 UGL 2 3 2

Dep .. xx:04 xx:15:00 xx:16:30 xx:26 xx:29:00 xx:29 xx:39:00 xx:52:30 xx:53:00Ely Dock Junction .. xx:07 xx:16:00 .. xx:27 xx:30:00 xx:31 xx:40:00 .. xx:54:00

Soham Arr .. .. .. .. .. xx:36:00 .. .. .. ..Dep .. xx:13 xx:23 .. .. xx:36:30 xx:36:30 .. .. ..

Chippenham Junction xx:07 xx:22 xx:31 .. .. xx:44:00 xx:46 .. .. ..Kennet Arr xx:10:30 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..

Dep xx:11 xx:25:30 xx:34:30 .. .. xx:47:00 xx:49:30 .. .. ..Bury St Edmunds xx:22:30 xx:37:30 xx:46:30 .. .. xx:56:30 xx:58:30 .. .. ..


37

Soham StationReport on Forecast Patronage

Cambridgeshire County CouncilMay 2011

APPENDIX C


Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for Cambridgeshire CountyCouncil’s information and use in relation to proposals for Soham Station.

Atkins Ltd. assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection withthis document and/or its contents.

Document History

JOB NUMBER: 5102696 DOCUMENT REF: Soham Patronage Report

Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date

Rev 1.0 Draft for Client Review HB/JML RB CC RB 11/5/11


Table of Contents

Chapter pages

1. Introduction 411.1. Background 421.2. Structure 42

2. Modelling Methodology 432.1. Introduction 442.2. Overview 442.3. Source of Base Demand 442.4. Zoning System 442.5. Existing Rail Movements 442.6. Key Model Inputs 462.7. Model Framework 46

3. Model Assumptions 473.1. Introduction 483.2. General Assumptions 483.3. Station Specific Assumptions 483.4. Model Confidence 50

4. Model Results 514.1. Introduction 524.2. Central Forecasts 524.2.1. 120 Minute Frequency Service 524.2.2. 60 Minute Frequency Service 534.3. Sensitivity Tests 534.3.1. Ely Station Interchange 534.3.2. Patronage Sensitivity to Scaling Factor 54

5. Summary of Findings 565.1. Overview 575.2. Patronage Comparison with Local Stations 57


Executive Summary

This Report provides a brief review of the rail demand forecasting undertaken to assess potential patronagefor a proposed new station at Soham.

The modelling has used recorded demand patterns and the most up to date information regarding existingpopulation to present a current patronage forecast and fitted a bespoke model to observed data for bus, railand car travel patterns.

In total four scenarios have been investigated:

120 minute frequency service – to illustrate patronage at a new proposed station at Soham based onthe current rail service frequency;

60 minute frequency service – to illustrate patronage at a new proposed station at Soham if afrequency upgrade on the Peterborough to Ipswich line were to take place;

Sensitivity Test 1 – looking at the impact of replacing an assumed 15 minute interchange betweentrains at Ely with the existing poorer interchange times; and.

Sensitivity Test 2 – investigating the impact on the assessment of the scaling factor used to determinethe relative attractiveness of competing modes to car.

Assuming that any service stopping at Soham can be fitted within the existing schedule, the opening of anew station at Soham has the potential to attract a daily patronage of about 250 boarders and alighters (i.e.125 return journeys) if a 15 minute interchange is possible at Ely Station.

Doubling the frequency of the service from 2 hourly to hourly could increase the number of boarders andalighters to 400 passengers, assuming a viable 15 minute interchange is possible at Ely Station.

If the existing train service pattern is maintained, then an interchange time of 27 minutes at Ely Station wouldbe required for trips into Cambridge, and the patronage levels would fall to about 190 boarders and alighters(i.e. 95 return trips). This is the most likely level of patronage that can be expected with wider revisions tothe train timetables.

A fair proportion of those boarding and alighting at Soham would be sourced from the existing bus servicesand also abstracted from other rail stations, although a reasonable proportion (approximately 40%) would beabstracted from existing car journeys.

Whichever service pattern is employed, the majority of passengers would be Soham residents. However, it isclear the unattractive interchange at Ely when travelling from Soham to Cambridge fails to create a modeshift of the car users who currently drive to Ely to access the rail network.


1. Introduction


Introduction

1.1. BackgroundAtkins has been commissioned by Cambridgeshire County Council to provide patronageforecasts for a potential new rail station reopening on the Peterborough to Ipswich Line to serveSoham. The station would be located on the western side of the village as shown in Figure 1.1.

Figure 1.1 – Proposed Soham Station Location

Soham village has a population of just over 10,000 residents, making it the second largesturban area in East Cambridgeshire after Ely (population 18,750). It is noted that the proposedstation location will serve the local village population comparatively well, although because therail line lies on the western edge of the village walk distances from the fringes of the villagewould be up to 1.5 kilometres. The A142 bypass lies to the east of the village, hence car basedtraffic accessing the station would pass through the village centre which has been traffic calmedfollowing the construction of the bypass.

The basis of the patronage assessment is a quantitative estimate based on known present daytravel demand patterns.

1.2. StructureFollowing this short introduction, the report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2 provides a description of the methodology employed to undertake theassessment, including an overview of the model framework and source of base demands;

Chapter 3 describes the general and station specific assumptions made in deriving the initialforecasts;

Chapter 4 examines the results from the model, including sensitivity tests; and,

Chapter 5 provides a summary of the findings.


2. Modelling Methodology


Modelling Methodology

2.1. IntroductionThis chapter outlines the methodology employed to estimate demand in order to undertake theassessment of a potential new rail station on the Peterborough to Ipswich Line to serve Soham.

2.2. OverviewThe estimation of the patronage for the proposed new rail station at Soham is based on amathematically derived modal split model based on relative generalised costs betweencompeting modes. The models use probability based estimates reflecting the key componentsof individual journeys, comparing journey time and fuel/running costs for car trips and journeytime and fares for public transport trips.

For this study a logit based mode choice model was developed to give an indication of themode choice changes commensurate with the opening of a rail station at Soham. The logitmodel was based on the A142 Ely to Newmarket Corridor Model previously developed in 2005which itself used the parameters that were sourced from the Cambridge to Huntingdon MultiModal Study (CHUMMS) mode choice model.

The model differentiates those people within the station catchment with a car available andthose with no car available.

2.3. Source of Base DemandThe demand for the model was obtained from the 2001 Census Journey to Work (JtW) data.The modes of travel considered were car driver, car passenger, bus and train. The Census JtWdemand data was then growthed to present day levels using ward based population figures for2009 obtained from the Cambridgeshire County Council website.

2.4. Zoning SystemThe initial step of model build was to create a zoning system compatible with Census outputareas so that the 2001 Census data could easily be translated for use within the Soham model.By looking at the 2001 Census Journey to Work (JtW) data, the catchment areas for each of thekey rail stations were determined and origin / destination zones developed accordingly. Moredetailed zones were created for Soham itself as the impacts of opening a station at Sohamwould have the greatest influence to these residents. Outside of Soham, the key towns andcities within the local area had a less detailed “railway station” zone and “rest of the urban area”zone.

2.5. Existing Rail MovementsThe National Rail Travel Survey (NRTS) is a Department for Transport (DfT) owned survey ofpassenger trips on the national rail system in Britain on weekdays outside of school holidays.For this study, NRTS data was obtained for key stations in the study area, namely: Cambridge,Ely, Kennett and Newmarket. The data detailed the origin and destination of each journey,which stations were used to access the rail network, access and egress modes, and time oftravel, together with other information such as ticket type. Each origin and destination postcoderecord was assigned a corresponding Soham Model zone in order to anonymise the personalinformation. The local zoning for Soham is shown in Figure 2.1.


Figure 2.1 – Local Zoning close to Soham Station

From this data set it was possible to determine the station access of choice for Soham residentsand their mode of travel to their nearest station. This is reported in Tables 2.1 and 2.2. Ely wasthe main access station for those passengers that lived in urban and rural Soham1 and 92%used a car as their access mode.

Table 2.1 – Rail Station Usage of existing Soham residents

Station Proportion

Ely (Camb) Rail 76%

Other Stations 5%

Cambridge Rail 20%

Table 2.2 – Soham Residents Mode of Access to Rail Stations

Mode Proportion

Car-driver 63%

Car-passenger 29%

Bicycle 4%

Walk 2%

Taxi 2%

1‘Urban’ and ‘Rural’ Soham based on TEMPRO definitions


2.6. Key Model InputsAnalysis of the rail trip length (i.e. origin station to destination station) of the rail passengersfrom the four stations for which NRTS data was obtained, illustrated in Figure 2.2, showed theaverage peak journey length was 60-80km (reflecting the high number of trips to London), witha large number of trips falling into the 20-40km band (which is the distance between Ely andCambridge). This affirms that the key attracting stations for a potential Soham station wouldlikely be Cambridge and London.

Figure 2.2 – Existing Rail Trip Length Distribution by Purpose

This analysis shows similarity between trip length distribution by purpose (Home-Based Work(HBW), Employers Business (EB and Other) and therefore provides confidence that expandingthe rail patronage from commuting to all other purposes will not distort the likely fare and tripdistribution assumptions adversely.

Other inputs into the model include: the proportion of households with no car available (obtainedfrom the 2001 Census); current bus and rail journey fare costs; and times between Soham andkey destinations. Car distance and travel times were obtained from the existing CambridgeSub-Regional Model whilst rail and bus walking times were calculated based on the centre ofgravity of population for each zone to the closest station or bus stop. Boarding and waitingtimes were derived from bus and rail timetables.

The model was developed in 2 phases, firstly detailed consideration of the Home-Based Work(HBW) travel purpose and then the expansion of that patronage to encompass the remainingpurposes. The patronage is estimated as 12 hour daily movements. The number of tripsquoted is for single leg movements (i.e. an outward or return movement).

2.7. Model FrameworkAll input demand data was collated in a spreadsheet. The basis of the model relied upon modespecific constants and scaling parameters which represent the propensity to change betweencompeting modes taken from the Cambridge to Huntingdon Multi-Modal Study (CHUMMS)model, with a local calibration process performed to obtain a better fit with the local Sohamdata. During model calibration, the proportion of households with no car available was adjustedwhere it was considered the HBW motorised demand segment might already be catered for inthe non-motorised modes that were not explicitly modelled. The JtW Census matrices do notrecord car availability for individual movements, only as household totals across the ward. Itwas therefore assumed the remaining population “work from home” or use of other modes(walk, cycle,) to get to work and therefore are not considered within the demand assumed in themodel.


3. Model Assumptions


Model Assumptions

3.1. IntroductionThis chapter provides details of the assumptions that have been adopted in developing themodel and which underpin the forecasts of demand for a potential new station at Soham.

3.2. General AssumptionsThe following general assumptions were made:

Trips generated from the ‘no car available’ household market segment are assigned tothe bus and rail modes only;

The percentage of households with no car available remains unchanged between theyear of data collection (2001) and the base year of the model (2009);

The bus and rail travel times and fares of the current day are the same as the base year;

At present, the majority of Soham residents that access the rail network do so from Elystation, and of these the majority travel to the station by car, therefore the cost to accessthe rail network from the Soham area has considered the time taken to drive, cost ofparking at the station, and an interchange ‘penalty’ between car and rail;

When considering the distances and times for car trips, the rail times and fares, and thebus in-vehicle time, the peak hour travel data has been used for Home-Based Work(HBW) trips as the majority of such trips occur during the peak hours;

To get from HBW to all other journey purposes, a factor was derived from the NRTS databy examining the ratio of observed HBW trips to all other purposes. The data presentedin Table 3.1 shows that, according to the NRTS, HBW demand accounts for 50% of railtravel for Ely and Newmarket (towns considered to be similar to Soham). Given thehigher commercial activity in Cambridge, the proportion of HBW trips was considered tobe unrepresentative of the likely usage at Soham. The existing rail sample size of Sohamrail users were considered to be too low to be statistically robust.

Table 3.1 – Basic Purpose at existing competing stations

Ely Newmarket Cambridge

Home BasedWork

353 50% 74 51% 2214 38%

EmployersBusiness

74 11% 15 10% 1020 17%

Other 277 39% 56 39% 2615 45%

Total 704 144 5849

3.3. Station Specific AssumptionsIn addition to the above general assumptions, the following station specific assumptions apply:

The proposed station is a comparable time and distance as Newmarket is from Bury StEdmunds, so the existing rail journey times from these two stations has been assumed torepresent the rail journey times of services from Soham;

The cost of train fare is a function of the distance travelled by train. Based on theconsideration of the existing rail fares and network distances determined for


Cambridgeshire this was approximately 30p per km. Therefore the rail fares from Sohamhave been calculated with a 30p per km charge. On the basis of the 30p/km charge thefare between Ely and Bury St Edmunds is calculated to be £11.70 compared to the actualaverage fare of £12.20. There are no further changes to the bus or rail fares in responseto the new station opening; and,

Train frequency remains 2-hourly in each direction and all other services would remainunchanged.

3.3.1. Train Headway and Wait TimeThe relationship between train headway and observed average wait time (i.e. the time betweenarriving at the station and boarding the train) is critical to accurately reflect the potentialpatronage that will result. If arrivals were entirely random, for a 2 hour service the average waittime would be 1 hour. However, people using services with such long headway generally timetheir arrival to more accurately coincide with the train departures.

Academic research (Osuna and Newell(1972)2) takes the most objective view of wait time as:

Where:

W----- expected passenger waiting times;

µ ----- mean headways;

s2 ----- variances of headways between services

Hence if the variance is 0 because the service is regular and reliable then:

This would yield average times of 60 minutes for the 2 hour service (and 30 minutes if theservice provision was improved to an hourly frequency).

But with lengthening headway, as is the case for the 2 hourly service for Soham, the wait time /headway relationship developed by Salek and Machemehl (2000)3 would have the form:

This would give an average wait time of 38 mins for a 2 hour service (reducing to 20 minutes fora 60 minute headway). Standard modelling practice is to weight the value of waiting time higherthan in-vehicle time, which in the case of CHUMMS was assumed to be by a factor of 2.0. Thiswould equate to the 20 minute wait time being perceived by travellers as 40 minutes ingeneralised costs.

The Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook (PDFH)4 is the rail industry standard method ofappraising rail patronage with changing service provision. The relevant table relating to waittime from PDFH is shown below:

2Osuna, E. and Newell, G. (1972) 밅ontrol Strategies for An Idealized Public Transportation

System.” Transportation Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, pp. 52-72.3

Salek M. D. and Machemehl R. B. (1999) .Characterizing Bus Transit Passenger Wait Times., SouthernRegion University Transportation Center, 167211-1.4

Passenger Demand Forecasting Handbook: PDFH v5– August 2009, ATOC


Table 3.2 – Table B4.8 from PDFH v5: Average Service Interval Penalties (in minutes) for Different Flow Types

The actual form of model employed by PDFH is not the same structure as the one adopted forthis Soham assessment hence the service interval penalties require some interpretation. TheTable B4.8 indicates that for a non-London SE area, 60 minute headway has a service intervalpenalty of 33 minutes, compared to 2 hour service with a service penalty interval of 52 minutes.These penalties have already included an element of weighting to the times which need to beaccounted for.

The benefit of the PDFH approach is that it provides a defined way of dealing with the longerheadway times associated with Soham Station. On this basis the Soham Station patronagemodel has assumed the maximum wait time for a 60 minute service to be 33 minutes and 52minutes for the existing 2 hour frequency. The base observed service provision has beenmodelled on this basis.

3.4. Model ConfidenceIn validating the Soham model, Ely has been used as the main area for comparison. Table 3.3provides a comparison of the modelled and observed mode splits for Soham (as it stands,without a station) and Ely. The figures in Table 3.3 demonstrate there is a good fit giving areasonable level of confidence in the model used for this patronage assessment.

Table 3.3 – Model Calibration - Comparison of Mode Splits

Modelled Observed

Car Bus Train Car Bus Train

Soham 94.6% 4.2% 1.2% 95% 4.1% 1.3%

Ely 91.7% 3.0% 5.4% 91.6% 3.3% 5.1%


4. Model Results


Model Results

4.1. IntroductionThis chapter presents the results of the model tests. In total four scenarios have beeninvestigated:

120 minute frequency service – to illustrate patronage at a new proposed station atSoham based on current service frequency;

60 minute frequency service – to illustrate patronage at a new proposed station at Sohamif a frequency upgrade on the Peterborough to Ipswich line were to take place;

Sensitivity Test 1 – looking at the impact of replacing the assumed 15 minute interchangeat Ely with the existing interchange times; and.

Sensitivity Test 2 – investigating the impact on the assessment of the scaling factor usedto determine the relative attractiveness of competing modes to car.

4.2. Central Forecasts

4.2.1. 120 Minute Frequency ServiceAssuming the service frequency provision is maintained, the current day (2009) patronage forSoham station is forecast to be approximately 245 passengers per day. Whilst there is anelement of abstraction from the bus market, a reasonable proportion of the patronage hastransferred from existing car, as shown in Table 4.1. These results are based on theassumption that rail travel to Cambridge requires an interchange at Ely and that a typicalinterchange penalty of 15 minutes thus applies on such journeys.

Table 4.1 – Daily Central Case Forecast with 120 minute frequency service

Mode Soham Urban Soham Rural Rest of theModel

Total

Car -73 -29 -4 -106

Bus -116 -20 -3 -140

Train 190 50 6 245

Figure 4.1 shows the resulting origins close to Soham of the rail users if the station at Soham isopened. This demonstrates that the majority of Soham station users would originate from withinthe urban area, with a large proportion from the residential area adjacent to the rail station itself.


Figure 4.1 – Spatial distribution of Potential Soham Station users

4.2.2. 60 Minute Frequency ServiceA frequency upgrade on the Peterborough to Ipswich service has been suggested as beingworthy of investigation. Clearly such an upgrade would have wider patronage benefits than justSoham, with each station on the line potentially receiving a boost in patronage. Table 4.2shows the likely patronage effects for Soham Station in isolation with the service provisionupgraded to an hourly service. This assumes, once more, that an average interchange time of15 minutes is possible at Ely station for onward connecting services.

The data in Table 4.2 suggests that the improved service provision could increase patronagefrom 245 to 400 passengers, with the attractiveness to existing local urban Soham car usersswitching to rail proportionally more than any other user.

Table 4.2 – Daily Central Case Forecast with 60 minute frequency service


Total

Car -139 -50 -7 -197

Bus -159 -39 -5 -202

Train 298 89 12 399

4.3. Sensitivity Tests

4.3.1. Ely Station InterchangeInitially a standard interchange time of 15 minutes was applied to all train journeys thatinterchanged at Ely. However, in discussions with the Train Operating Company (NationalExpress) it became clear that some investigation using the existing poorer interchange timingsat Ely would be worthwhile since the current times are not advantageous for certainmovements, particularly to Cambridge. On this basis journeys from Soham to Cambridge would


have an interchange of 27 minutes, whilst the reverse trip would have an interchange of 14minutes. The effect of replacing the 15 minute interchange with the existing interchange times atEly Station can be seen in the Table 4.3 (this is for a two hourly frequency service).

The results from the model indicate that a larger proportion of Soham residents would nottolerate the extended interchange and would continue to drive to Ely Station (around 16% ofpotential users), which would be a return to the situation that currently exists without a station atSoham where users drive to Ely for rail journeys to Cambridge and beyond.

Table 4.3 –Sensitivity Test with extended (current) interchange at Ely Station


Total

Car -54 -24 -2 -79

Bus -92 -15 -2 -109

Train 146 39 3 188

4.3.2. Patronage Sensitivity to Scaling FactorThe model is sensitive to the scaling factor used to determine the relative attractiveness ofcompeting modes to car. For CHUMMS the value used was 0.4026. For this patronageassessment the CHUMMS scaling parameter was used as a starting point, however, the scalingparameter itself was used in the calibration of the model which led to this value being revised to0.5467 to achieve the observed mode share between car bus and rail.

Table 4.4 below shows the effect of varying this coefficient between the value used forCHUMMS and moving to a more conservative scaling parameter which has been used inprevious studies. The service frequency is assumed to be once every 2 hours and theinterchange is assumed to be aligned to the existing service pattern.

Given the level of base model validation achieved, it is reasonable that the central scalingparameter (0.55) is a robust figure to choose. A higher propensity to move between modes,tends to lead to a higher transfer from bus to rail than from car to rail.


Table 4.4 – Patronage Sensitivity Tests relative to Scaling Factor Parameter

Variance in Scaling Factor

0.7 0.5467 0.4026

Mode SohamUrban

SohamRural

Rest ofthe Model

Total SohamUrban

SohamRural

Rest ofthe Model

Total SohamUrban

SohamRural

Rest ofthe Model

Total

Car -24 -11 0 -36 -54 -24 -2 -79 -63 -29 -4 -97

Bus -77 -12 -2 -91 -92 -15 -2 -109 -155 -31 -2 -188

Train 101 23 2 126 146 39 3 188 218 60 7 285


5. Summary of Findings


Summary of Findings

5.1. OverviewThis report provides a brief review of the rail demand forecasting undertaken to assess potentialpatronage at a proposed new station at Soham.

The modelling has used recorded demand patterns and the most up to date informationregarding existing population to present a current patronage forecast and fitted a model toobserved data for bus, rail and car travel patterns.

Assuming that any service stopping at Soham fits into the existing timetable, the opening of anew station at Soham has the potential to attract a daily patronage of about 250 boarders andalighters (i.e. 125 return journeys) if a 15 minute interchange is possible at Ely Station for tripsto and from Cambridge. This report has not looked at the train planning feasibility to achievesuch interchange timings.

However, if the existing service pattern is maintained, which would suggest an interchange timeof 27 minutes at Ely Station for trips into Cambridge, the patronage levels would fall to about190 boarders and alighters (i.e. 95 return trips). This is the most likely level of patronage thatcan be expected in the absence of any train timetable enhancements.

A fair proportion of those boarding and alighting at Soham would be abstracted from the existingbus services and also from other existing rail stations, although a reasonable proportion wouldbe new rail journeys previously made by car.

Doubling the frequency of the service from 2 hourly to hourly could increase the number ofboarders and alighters to 400 passengers, assuming a viable 15 minute interchange is possibleat Ely Station.

Whichever service pattern is employed, the majority of passengers would be Soham residents.However, it is clear the unattractive interchange at Ely when travelling from Soham toCambridge fails to create a mode shift from present car users who currently drive to Ely toaccess the rail network.

5.2. Patronage Comparison with Local StationsThe boarders and alighters forecast in the model for Soham provide a level of demand whichwould seem appropriate when compared to those at Littleport and Waterbeach, as shown inTable 5.1 below. These smaller communities have direct and frequent services to London KingsCross and hence attract higher levels of daily demand.

Table 5.1 –Station Boarders at comparable local Stations5

Station Daily Boarders based on 2007 Surveys

Waterbeach 700

Littleport 414

March 901

Whittlesea 50

Manea 23

5Greater Anglia Route Utilisation Strategy, December 2007, Network Rail


James LindsayAtkins Ltd2 Wellbrook CourtGirton RoadCambridgeCB3 0NA

Email: [email protected]: 01223 814400Direct telephone: 01223 814083Fax: 01223 814520

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise.

The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

040711 Soham Station - eastcambs.gov.uk€¦ · D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 1 . 1...

Documents

Transcript of 040711 Soham Station - eastcambs.gov.uk€¦ · D137026-SW-CV-REP-001 (P02) April 2011 1 . 1...