Document Control and Version Information

Transcription

1 Soham Station Capacity Assessment Registered in England No Document Control and Version Information Project Title Author Soham Station Ed Jeffery Version number 1.0 Status Final Date 1 st July 2016 pg. 1 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

2 2 Soham Station 0 Executive Summary This study has considered the provision of a new station at Soham (funded by Cambridgeshire County Council) following the deferral of the planned doubling scheme between Ely and Soham. Different infrastructure options have been tested for Soham station against several potential future service increments on the route. The key finding is that the provision of a station at Soham has a minimal impact on available capacity (a 2% increase in capacity use of the single line with an hourly passenger service). Using a single platform station on the existing single track, a call can be provided in all of today s Ipswich Peterborough (and return) trains with only minimal impact to other services. Additional infrastructure is required in the Soham area and other parts of the network to accommodate 1 tph Ipswich to Peterborough and if the levels of freight increase from today s approximate one train per hour each way. This is true whether Soham station is provided or not. Although two freight trains per hour each way can be accommodated with the single platform station (and therefore the existing length of single track), the capacity use is very high and poses a high performance risk. The operation of three freight trains per hour each way would trigger a longer section of partial doubling. The high capacity use also results in a lack of timetable flexibility. This reduced flexibility combines with other constraints elsewhere, such as: Headways south of Kennett Single lead at Haughley Junction Single track sections between Cambridge and Chippenham Junction If the freight service is to be increased (particularly in conjunction with an increase to the Ipswich Cambridge/Peterborough passenger services), consideration should also be given to overcoming the highlighted constraints (the primary constraint being the signalling headways south of Kennett). This study has also considered the doubling of the service between Cambridge and Ipswich to two trains per hour. This is not possible on the current infrastructure due to the length of single track between Dullingham and Coldham Lane Junction, and the associated signalling. An intervention on this section is required to double the service, regardless of what happens on the route between Ely and Soham. pg. 2 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

3 3 Soham Station 1 Document Control 1.1 Version History VERSION UPDATED SECTION(S) REASON FOR UPDATE UPDATED BY DATE 0.1 All First Draft Ed Jeffery 27/05/ All Incorporating comments Ed Jeffery 01/07/2016 Contents 0 Executive Summary Document Control Version History Introduction Objective Service Specification Other assumptions Findings Test 1 (current service levels) Test Test Test 4a Test 4b Soham Station Design Conclusions and Recommendations Summary of conclusions for each service level Soham station infrastructure Recommendations Appendix A: Test 3 sample timetable Appendix B: Test 4a sample timetable pg. 3 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

4 4 Soham Station 2 Introduction The main route between Ipswich and Cambridge and Ely leaves the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) at Haughley Junction, running via Bury St. Edmunds before splitting towards Cambridge and Ely at Chippenham Junction (Figure 1). Figure 1: Location map Passenger services on the route comprise an hourly service between Ipswich and Cambridge (calling at most stations) and a two-hourly service between Ipswich and Peterborough via Ely calling at main stations, which would potentially call additionally at Soham. There are currently no intermediate stations between Chippenham Junction and Ely. The route between Haughley Junction and Ely is also a vital part of the Felixstowe to Nuneaton (F2N) cross-country freight route. This provides an alternative route (as opposed to running via London) for intermodal freight traffic between Felixstowe and destinations in the midlands and north of Britain (via Ely, Peterborough, Leicester and Nuneaton). A large freight scheme (the F2N project) is currently involved in providing a significant upgrade to this whole route. The F2N project has identified that a key constraint to increasing freight traffic on the route is the section of single line between Soham and Ely Dock Junction. Early analysis proposed full doubling of this section to accommodate future freight growth, but engineering feasibility studies indicated that this would be very expensive. Since then, a series of capacity studies have been undertaken by Network Rail looking at various options for partial doubling (e.g. Ely Soham Doubling Report, November 2013). However, the Ely - Soham doubling scheme was deferred to CP6 in late 2015 as part of the Enhancement Delivery Plan (formed through the Hendy Review). pg. 4 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

5 5 Soham Station A linked scheme is the provision of a new station at Soham between Ely and Chippenham Junction. This scheme is being promoted by Cambridgeshire County Council and is currently in GRIP 3. However, the deferral of the Ely Soham doubling scheme has meant additional analysis is required to understand the feasibility of the new station with and without the associated doubling scheme. 2.1 Objective The objective of this report is to summarise analysis undertaken into the feasibility of providing a station at Soham in several different scenarios (the existing layout is shown in Figure 2): A single platform on the existing railway (on the single line) before Ely - Soham doubling occurs A double platform station with either a shorter or a longer section of new double track in the Soham area (either before or in conjunction with a partial Ely Soham doubling) A double platform station in conjunction with or after the full Ely Soham doubling is delivered Figure 2: Current layout between Chippenham Junction and Ely (simplified) 2.2 Service Specification As well as the feasibility of trains calling at the station with the current service levels, there is a requirement to demonstrate that the station itself does not preclude the operation of a future service increase in the area. As such, a number of different service levels have been defined to be tested here (Table 1). Service Group Test 1 Test 2 Test 3 Test 4a Test 4b pg. 5 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

6 6 Soham Station (today) Peterborough Ipswich Cambridge Ipswich Freight As today As today As today 2 2 Table 1: Numbers of trains per hour (tph) for defined service levels 2.3 Other assumptions The December 2015 timetable has been used as the base for this work All technical values in this report have been calculated using RailSys o All work is compliant with Version 3.0 of the RailSys Standards issued by Network Rail Passenger trains have been modelled as Class Freight trains have been modelled as Class t 1 It is worth noting that there may be changes to rolling stock subject to the East Anglia franchise announcement pg. 6 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

7 3 Findings This section summarises the analysis undertaken as part of this project. Sections marked in bold represent key conclusions and recommendations. 3.1 Test 1 (current service levels) The starting point to test the current service levels is to see if the calls can be accommodated on a single platform station on the existing infrastructure. The station platform was assumed to be on the single line section just beyond the existing crossover at Soham (Figure 2). RailSys was used to calculate Technical Running Times (TRT) which was used to suggest new Indicative Running Times (IRT) (Table 2). In the future, these will need to be approved for use as new Sectional Running Times (SRT). Section Current SRT (passing) (min) Calculated TRT (stopping) (sec) Proposed IRT (stopping) (min) Chippenham - Soham Soham Ely Dock Jn Ely Dock Jn - Soham Soham - Chippenham Table 2: Current and proposed running times The running time penalty for calling at the station is therefore 30 seconds. This is because the linespeed is relatively low (50mph) and there is some excess time in the current SRTs. Combined with the Timetable Planning Rules (TPR) value of 30 seconds for a multiple unit dwell time, the total journey time penalty of a station call is therefore 1 minute. Table 3 shows how this can be accommodated in all of the current Ipswich Peterborough trains. In the off-peak, trains have up to 2 minutes pathing time approaching Ely in order to find a slot through the highly-used infrastructure at Ely and Ely North Junction. This can be reduced to accommodate the station call and therefore there is no overall journey time penalty. Only two amendments to other services are required and both require redistribution of additional allowance (for 1T17 King s Lynn Kings Cross and 1L48 Birmingham New Street Stansted Airport). pg. 7 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

8 8 Soham Station For two trains (2E70 and 2E72) there is a 1 minute journey time extension as these do not have allowance to be reduced. Train ID Departure from Soham Station Comments Ipswich 2E Runs 1 minute later Ely - Peterborough 2E Runs 1 minute later Ely Peterborough. Allowances moved in 1T17 (from approaching Cambridge to approaching Ely) 2E Pathing time reduced 2E Pathing time reduced 2E Pathing time reduced 2E Pathing time reduced 2E Dwell reduced at Ely. Allowance moved in 1L48 (from approaching Cambridge to approaching Ely) 2E Pathing time reduced Table 3: Northbound services calling at Soham and amendments required to other services Table 4 shows how the station call can be accommodated in all of the current Peterborough Ipswich services. All trains have an additional 30 seconds dwell time at Ely which can be used to recover half of the time required. For the remainder of trains, they either have pathing time approaching Ipswich which can be reduced or an adjustment at Ipswich (to allow arrival on a whole number of minutes) which can be removed. Therefore, the call can be accommodated without journey time extension or amendment to other services. pg. 8 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

9 9 Soham Station Train ID Departure from Soham Station Comments Peterborough 2L Ely dwell reduced by 30s. Pathing at Ipswich reduced by 30s 2L Ely dwell reduced by 30s. Pathing at Ipswich reduced by 30s 2L Ely dwell reduced by 30s. Pathing at Ipswich reduced by 30s 2L Ely dwell reduced by 30s. 30s adjustment removed at Ipswich 2L Ely dwell reduced by 30s. 30s adjustment removed at Ipswich 2L Ely dwell reduced by 30s. 30s adjustment removed at Ipswich 2L Ely dwell reduced by 30s. 30s adjustment removed at Ipswich. 6M44 requires adjustment (runs later between Soham and Peterborough, no overall impact) Table 4: Southbound services calling at Soham and amendments required to other services A stop at Soham (on a single platform station) can be accommodated in all current Peterborough Ipswich (and return) services. Minimal amendments to other services are required and the majority of trains have no overall journey time increase despite the station call. The call at Soham will increase the occupation of the single line by marginally more than 30 seconds (the remainder of the penalty for calling is on the double-track section between Soham and Chippenham Junction). Even with two trains per hour calling, the overall impact on the capacity of this section is therefore low. The total 1 minute calling penalty has been accommodated by reducing excess allowances and dwell times elsewhere. This could potentially have a performance impact as the amount of buffer is reduced. However, given the relatively low reduction in buffer and relatively few trains impacted, the performance impact is likely to be low. pg. 9 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

10 10 Soham Station 3.2 Test 2 The increment for Test 2 over Test 1 is an increase in the Ipswich Peterborough service to 1 tph instead of one train every two hours. The impact of Soham station on this increment is negligible. Currently, although the service is two hourly, the length of route means that trains cross just north of Chippenham Junction on the double track section. This would continue with an hourly service, and the findings for Soham station will be the same as for Test 1. The barrier to increasing the service to hourly will be the impact on other trains. Most other passenger services in the region operate on an hourly (or half-hourly) basis. Therefore, as the Peterborough - Ipswich trains can be accommodated within this pattern when they currently run two-hourly, they can also be accommodated when they run hourly. It is likely that non-standard paths may be required in the peak hours (as is done today) in order to fit around other peak service increases. Any significant potential conflicts will therefore occur with freight services, which use the released capacity when not currently used by passenger services. This is likely to occur in two ways: At Ely North Junction and through March/Whitemoor to Peterborough (outside the scope of this study) On the F2N route between Ipswich/Haughley Junction to Ely. The solution to the second point is likely to be the standardisation of freight paths. Currently, due to the lower occupancy of the route, trains operate in a non-standard way with different timings in most hours. This means that some freight trains use the spare passenger paths when they do not run today; therefore, most freight in these opposite hours are likely to conflict with an hourly passenger service. The F2N philosophy (driven by the increase in freight traffic) is to move to a standard hourly timetable with defined freight paths, however due to the complexity of freight schedules and the number of interacting geographical areas standardising freight paths is difficult. The ability to run more trains through Ely North Junction is also limited due to the number of trains that run over the Queen Adelaide and Kiln Lane level crossings throughout a 24 hour period, and thus an intervention would still be required here to allow any increase of service, be it freight or passenger. F2N projected the end of CP4 (2015) freight levels as 24 trains per day per direction (in practice this is lower as less growth has materialised). This equates to roughly 1 standard train per hour each direction (with 2 tph in some hours if an 18 hour traffic day is assumed). pg. 10 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

11 11 Soham Station The current level of freight in the Working Timetable (WTT) is between 0 and 2 tph each direction during the day, although this averages to 1 tph. In some hours, a freight train runs in each direction through Soham as well as the passenger service (i.e. 4 tph total). Therefore, the current level of freight can be accommodated in an hourly path through Soham, however the constraints at Ely North would still need resolving alongside the adjustment of some current freight paths into a standardised path. The capacity to operate this level of service in a nonstandardised pattern is proven by the fact that it operates in some hours today. As an example of how this would work: Train 4M09 (Felixstowe Hams Hall) currently passes Haughley Jn at 1315 ½ in an hour when the passenger train does not run today This path would be used by the hourly Ipswich Peterborough train The previous hour, the Ipswich Peterborough train runs and an intermodal path passes Haughley Jn at 1230 ½. 4M09 could therefore use this path in the next hour, passing Haughley Jn at 1330 ½. With reduced pathing time and dwell time at Soham, there would only be a 5 minute difference at Ely The provision of a Soham station call has no impact on the ability to increase the Ipswich Peterborough (and return) service to hourly. This can be accommodated on a single platform station. However, the issues with level crossings at Ely North Junction would prevent any increase in freight and passenger services. Increasing the Ipswich Peterborough (and return) service to hourly will likely require the retiming of current freight paths into a standardised hourly path (although all current paths could be accommodated). This would require further feasibility analysis outside the current scope (e.g. at Ely North Junction). 3.3 Test 3 The increase from Test 2 is the increment for the Cambridge Ipswich service to 2 tph. Between Chippenham Junction and Coldham Lane Junction (outside Cambridge), the line is single track with a passing loop at Dullingham (Figure 3). pg. 11 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

12 12 Soham Station Figure 3: Current layout (simplified) Chippenham Jn - Coldham Lane Jn The journey time between Coldham Lane Junction and Chippenham Junction is approximately 23 minutes (including dwell time). This means to operate a 2 tph service each way (4 tph total), trains must pass once on this section; the only opportunity to do this is at Dullingham. The Timetable Planning Rules (TPR) are specific for how passing at Dullingham occurs (due to a mixture of signalling and level crossing constraints): Down train arrives and departs 2.5 minutes later Up train arrives 2 minutes after Down train arrives; departs 1 minute later The running time between Coldham Lane Jn and Dullingham is 13 minutes (in both directions). Combined with the TPR values above, this means that the following events sequence represents the optimal situation: xx.00: Down train passes Coldham Lane xx:13: Down train arrives Dullingham xx:15: Up train arrives Dullingham xx.15 ½: Down train departs Dullingham xx:16: Up train departs Dullingham xx:29: Up train passes Coldham Lane However, the next Down train must pass Coldham Lane at xx.30 and therefore, as the junction margin is 3 minutes, this is not possible. In fact, to operate a 2 tph service each way would take 64 minutes every hour. Potential solutions to overcome this involve reducing the junction margins at Dullingham or reducing the time taken to transit the single line sections, such as: A signalling solution to allow simultaneous arrivals and departures at Dullingham pg. 12 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

13 13 Soham Station Line Speed Improvements (LSI) to reduce the journey time between Dullingham and Coldham Lane Extension of Dullingham Loop towards Cambridge Doubling of Coldham Lane Junction and a section of the Dullingham line A new loop somewhere between Dullingham and Coldham Lane In order to provide 2 tph in each direction between Ipswich and Cambridge, an infrastructure intervention is required between Dullingham and Coldham Lane Junction. It is recommended that this is investigated further if the service increase is required. To assess the potential impact of Soham station on the 2 tph service, for the remainder of this section (and also Test 4b), it is assumed that some form of infrastructure intervention has been implemented between Coldham Lane and Dullingham. The journey time between Dullingham and Chippenham Junction (with an intermediate stop at Newmarket) is in the order of 10 minutes. Therefore, this means that the gap between a southbound train exiting the single line at Chippenham Junction and reoccupation of the single line by a northbound train needs to be around 10 minutes as well. This means the paths need to be changed from today s timetable (as they current cross at Chippenham Junction). The impact at Cambridge is beyond the scope of this work. A sample standard hour timetable is shown in section 5 (Appendix A) for Test 3. An approximate half-hourly service is provided between Ipswich and Cambridge in each direction (the exact timings will depend on the stopping patterns of the two trains). An hourly Ipswich Peterborough train (stopping at the single platform at Soham) and hourly freight service is also shown. The key constraints to improving this service are: Long signalling headways between Kennett and Haughley Junction The single lead junction at Haughley Junction Interaction with the Liverpool St Norwich trains The key constraint is actually the headway between Kennett and Haughley Junction (Table 5). Section Down Up Chippenham Junction - Kennett One train in section One train in section Kennett Bury St. Edmunds 7 8 pg. 13 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

14 14 Soham Station Bury St. Edmunds Haughley Jn 6 6 Table 5: Planning headways Chippenham Junction - Haughley Junction Although there are only four trains in each direction (and the headway is at worst 8 minutes), this acts as a constraint because of: The need to link a path over the single line sections at Dullingham or Soham to a path on the GEML The desire the have a reasonably spaced passenger service along the route (e.g. at Bury St. Edmunds) As can be seen from the sample timetable, the impact of the Soham call on these constraints are minimal due to the requirement to space paths out appropriately and the relatively low occupation of the route between Soham and Ely Dock Jn. Test 3 can be delivered south of Chippenham Junction (assuming infrastructure is provided between Dullingham and Coldham Lane Junction. The key constraint is the long signalling headway south of Kennett. Soham station has a minimal impact on these constraints. 3.4 Test 4a Test 4a includes an hourly Peterborough Ipswich service (although the Cambridge Ipswich service remains as today) and an increased 2 tph each way freight service on the F2N route. This represents the maximum level of service tested between Soham and Ely Dock Junction. On the option with a single platform at Soham station, the reoccupation of the single line when trains call at Soham was tested using RailSys and found to have a technical value of 2m44s. This therefore just fits within the standard value of 3 minutes (which is also applied at Ely Dock Junction). As both passenger and freight have a 6 minute transit time between Soham and Ely Dock Junction (including the dwell time for the passenger service), the theoretical capacity of the section can be calculated: Transit time of each train + reoccupation time = 9 mins Number of paths = 60 mins / 9 mins = 6.7 paths (rounded down to 6 paths per hour) This equates to 54 minutes every hour used (and hence 6 minutes spare). It is possible to increase the total number of paths to 8 per hour but this requires maximum flighting of trains (i.e. all trains in pg. 14 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

15 15 Soham Station one direction in the first half hour, and the opposite direction in the second half hour). This is not realistic in terms of desired train service or the available capacity and service pattern south of Chippenham. The practical maximum number of trains on the single line between Soham and Ely Dock Junction (with calls at a single platform station) is 6 tph. This is also the service level required for Tests 4a and 4b. Therefore, these can be accommodated in theory on the single platform layout, albeit with 54 out of every 60 mins used. The impact of this is that there is relatively little flexibility in trains using the Ely-Soham section to be moved to meet constraints elsewhere. The high occupation represents a performance risk as well. It should also be noted that the current Timetabling Planning Rules require 1 minute of engineering allowance approaching Ely Dock Junction. This artificially increases the occupation of the single line. Although this would still allow 6 tph to operate, the hourly capacity usage would increase to 57 minutes and the amount of flexibility would be reduced further (and performance risk increased). It is essential that the location of engineering allowance on the single line section approaching Ely Dock Junction is reassessed and moved to a more practical location if possible (e.g. approaching Soham). A sample timetable is given in section 6 (Appendix B). The majority of the spare capacity each hour has been used to keep the Peterborough Ipswich paths in approximately their current slots (the southbound path runs slightly later south of Ely). This means the remainder of the hour mostly uses minimum margin reoccupations of the single line. This could be reduced if the passenger paths were moved, but this is outside the scope of this study (e.g. finding new paths over Ely North Junction). This lack of flexibility is shown in the single line occupation diagram (Figure 4) which shows trains occupying the single line for a standard hour. pg. 15 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

16 16 Soham Station Northbound Southbound Freight Freight Freight Freight Freight Freight Freight Passenger Passenger Passenger Passenger Freight Physical occupation by train Required headway / reoccupation time Spare' capacity providing performance buffer Figure 4: Occupation of single line section between Soham and Ely Dock Junction. pg. 16 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

17 17 Soham Station 3.5 Test 4b Test 4b overlays the 2 tph Cambridge Ipswich service onto Test 4a. As can be seen by comparison between the sample timetables in sections 5 and 6), the additional freight paths use some of the passenger paths south of Chippenham Junction. It is not possible to move either set of paths north of Chippenham Junction due to the constraints of the respective single line sections. It may be possible to find a solution, but this would require unfeasibly high amounts of pathing time. This is due to the same constraints identified for Test 3 in section 3.3. The key constraint is again the long block sections south of Kennett. Due to the constraints on the routes via Dullingham and Soham, there is not a suitable solution to deliver Test 4b. The key constraint is the long headways south of Kennett and this should be considered in more detail if increases in both freight and passenger (Ipswich Cambridge) are to be implemented. 3.6 Soham Station Design Sections 3.1 to 3.5 show that it is generally possible to deliver the required service levels using the single platform station at Soham (where it is not possible, the station layout is not a key constraint). However, when the levels of freight increase, the occupation of the single line between Soham and Ely Dock Junction increases and (as well as reducing timetabling flexibility) increases the performance risk. This is not driven by the need to call at Soham station (i.e. it would still potentially be an issue if Soham still were not provided), but modifications to Soham station and the single line station may help reduce performance risk. Four designs are considered here: A single platform station on the existing single track A double platform station with a short section of extra double track (assumed to be as far as the Soham side of Middlemere Level Crossing, about 700m from the station location) A double platform station with a longer section of extra double track (assumed to be as far as the Ely side of Middlemere Level Crossing, about 1100m from the station location) A double platform station with full double tracking between Soham and Ely RailSys has been used to calculate indicative margins for the reoccupation of the single line at Soham: Single platform: 3 minute reoccupation of the single line (2m 44s technical value) pg. 17 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

18 18 Soham Station Short double track: 2.5 minute reoccupation of the single line (timed at Soham station, 2m00s technical value). Down passenger trains can depart 1 minute after Up train arrives (to allow time for route resetting due to lack of intermediate signals) Long double track: 2 minute reoccupation of the single line (timed at Soham station, 1m20s technical value). Down passenger trains can depart simultaneously with arrival of Up train (intermediate signal assumed to be provided) Double track: assumed to be timed as a single block (i.e. 6 minute headway). Likely to be pessimistic if a reduced headway is achievable (e.g. 3 minutes) These assumed values can then be used to calculate theoretical capacity use for a range of timetable specification / infrastructure combinations (Table 6 ). It should be noted that this is an indicative value and does not represent a full Capacity Utilisation Index (CUI) value. Infrastructure Service specification Minutes per hour used Capacity use (%) Today (no station) Today (no station) Single platform Single platform Short double track Long double track 1 freight, 1 passenger (no call at Soham) 2 freight, 1 passenger (no call at Soham) 1 freight, 1 passenger (call Soham) 2 freight, 1 passenger (call Soham) 2 freight, 1 passenger (call Soham) 2 freight, 1 passenger (call Soham) Full doubling 2 freight, 1 passenger (call Soham) Table 6: Calculated capacity usage of the single line section Soham - Ely Dock Junction pg. 18 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

19 19 Soham Station Calling at Soham on a single platform station increases capacity use by approximately 2%. Adding an extra freight train in each direction increases capacity use by approximately 30%. Therefore, it is freight growth that is the primary driver for capacity use. Providing extra infrastructure at Soham does decrease capacity use (by approximately 10% for a short double track and 17% for a longer double track). This provides more timetabling flexibility and performance buffer. This applies whether Soham station is provided or not. Infrastructure Option Total paths for freight (sum of both directions) Today (no station) 4 Single platform station 4 Short double track 5 Long double track 6 Full double track 5 (in each direction) Table 7: Maximum freight capacity for each option (all options include 1 passenger each way and are rounded down to the nearest whole number). This represents the maximum capacity and therefore represents a performance risk in operating this level of service. In order to increase the number of freight paths to 3 tph each way (as may occur in the medium term), a minimum of the long double track option is required. pg. 19 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

20 4 Conclusions and Recommendations The key conclusion from this analysis is that the provision of calls at Soham has a minimal impact on available capacity. The need for additional infrastructure at Soham is due to other factors (primarily freight growth) and would be required (in lieu of full doubling) even if Soham station were not provided. Calls can be provided at Soham in today s timetable with minimal impact on other services through reduction of existing excess allowance and dwell times. There is also minimal impact if an hourly Ipswich Peterborough service is provided, although this has other timetable impacts independent of Soham station (such as the need to standardise freight paths). Additional infrastructure only needs to be considered if the freight levels increase above today s approximate 1 path per hour in each direction. Even then the service can be provided, albeit at a high level of capacity use (and therefore performance risk). This is summarised in Table 8. Freight Service Level 1 tph each way (today) 2 tph each way 3 tph each way 1 platform station (before Ely-Soham doubling) 2 platform station & short double track (before Ely-Soham doubling) 2 platform station & long double track (before Ely-Soham doubling) 2 platform station (with/after Ely-Soham doubling) Table 8: Summary of impact of different infrastructure options on freight service level. Green = sufficient capacity and relatively low risk, Orange = potential performance risk, Red = not enough capacity pg. 20 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

21 21 Soham Station 4.1 Summary of conclusions for each service level Test 1 (today s timetable) o A stop at Soham (on a single platform station) can be accommodated in all current Peterborough Ipswich (and return) services. Minimal amendments to other services are required and the majority of trains have no overall journey time increase despite the station call. Test 2 (hourly Ipswich Peterborough) o The provision of a Soham station call has no impact on the ability to increase the Ipswich Peterborough (and return) service to hourly. This can be accommodated on a single platform station. However, the issues with level crossings at Ely North Junction would prevent any increase in freight and passenger services. o Increasing the Ipswich Peterborough (and return) service to hourly will likely require the retiming of current freight paths into a standardised hourly path (although all current paths could be accommodated). This would require further feasibility analysis outside the current scope (e.g. at Ely North Junction). Test 3 (doubling of Cambridge Ipswich service) o In order to provide 2 tph in each direction between Ipswich and Cambridge, an infrastructure intervention is required between Dullingham and Coldham Lane Junction. It is recommended that this is investigated further if the service increase is required (as well as the impact on Cambridge station). o Test 3 can be delivered south of Chippenham Junction (assuming infrastructure is provided between Dullingham and Coldham Lane Junction. The key constraint is the long signalling headway south of Kennett. Soham station has a minimal impact on these constraints. Test 4a (2tph freight each way between Soham and Ely) o The practical maximum number of trains on the single line between Soham and Ely Dock Junction (with calls at a single platform station) is 6 tph. This is also the service level required for Tests 4a and 4b. Therefore, these can be accommodated in theory on the single platform layout, albeit with 54 out of every 60 mins used. o The impact of this is that there is relatively little flexibility in trains using the Ely-Soham section to be moved to meet constraints elsewhere. The high occupation represents a performance risk as well. pg. 21 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

22 22 Soham Station o It is essential that the location of engineering allowance on the single line section approaching Ely Dock Junction is reassessed, and moved to a more practical location if possible (e.g. approaching Soham). Test 4b (2 tph freight each way and doubling of Cambridge Ipswich service) o Due to the constraints on the routes via Dullingham and Soham, there is not a suitable solution to deliver Test 4b. The key constraint is the long headways south of Kennett and this should be considered in more detail if increases in both freight and passenger (Ipswich Cambridge) are to be implemented. 4.2 Soham station infrastructure Calling at Soham on a single platform station increases capacity use by approximately 2%. Adding an extra freight train in each direction increases capacity use by approximately 30%. Therefore, it is freight growth that is the primary driver for capacity use. Providing extra infrastructure at Soham does decrease capacity use (by approximately 10% for a short double track and 17% for a longer double track). This provides more timetabling flexibility and performance buffer. This applies whether Soham station is provided or not. In order to increase the number of freight paths to 3 tph each way (as may occur in the medium term), a minimum of the long double track option is required. 4.3 Recommendations The provision of Soham station does not significantly impact on the capacity between Soham and Ely. However, if an intermediate intervention is to be made (prior to full doubling), the two schemes should be considered together to maximise the delivered capacity. As the key driver for infrastructure is freight growth, the future forecasts should be reviewed against the growth that has materialised in order to determine the required infrastructure. The move to an hourly Peterborough Ipswich service will require amendment to existing freight paths (moving towards a standard hourly path) which would require further investigation outside this study area. If the service between Cambridge and Ipswich is to be doubled, infrastructure interventions need to be developed between Dullingham and Coldham Lane Junction, irrespective of the Soham station and Ely Soham doubling projects. pg. 22 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

23 23 Soham Station In the medium- and long-term, should freight growth and passenger growth both materialise, the the following infrastructure would need to be considered: Headway reduction south of Kennett (highest priority) Doubling of Haughley Junction pg. 23 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

24 5 Appendix A: Test 3 sample timetable From Cambridge Cambridge Norwich Freight P'boro Norwich From Ipswich Ipswich Liv St Ipswich Freight Liv St To Ipswich Ipswich Liv St Ipswich Liv St To Cambridge P'boro Norwich Cambridge Norwich T/load E350 75C66S E350 T/load E C66S16 E350 Ely Dock Jn p 13/17 H 13/35 H Europa Jn p 12/54 H 13/01 13/11 13/16 H 13/33 13/47 a 13:41 Needham Market d 13:23 Soham d 13/23 H 13:41 H Stowmarket a 13:02 H 13:09 13:27 H 13:54 H d 13:03 H 13:10 13/17 H 13:28 H 13:55 H Chippenham Jn p 12/53 13/22 13/31 H 13/48 H Haughley Jn p 13/07 13/13 H 13/19 H 13/32 13/45 13/58 H Elmswell d 13:37 Kennett a 12:56 H Thurston d [1](2) 13:42 H d 12:58 H 13/25 13/35 13/51 H [1] [1] [1](1) [1] [1] [1] (1) Bury St. Edmunds a 13:19 13:28 13:48 H d 13:20 13:29 13:49 H 14/01 H Bury St. Edmundsa 13:10 13:34 H 14:02 Kennett a 13:59 H d 13:11 13:35 H 13/48 H 14:03 d 13/29 H 13/38 H 14:01 14/15 Thurston d 13:17 <1> <1> Elmswell d 13:23 (1.5) Chippenham Jn p 13/32 H 13/41 H 14/05 14/18 (1) Haughley Jn p 13/29 13/47 H 13/56 14/05 H 14/16 H 14/26 Soham a 13:48 H (0.5) Stowmarket a 13:33 H 13:50 H {1.5} 14:19 H 14:28 H d 13:49 14/25 H d 13:34 13:51 H 13/57 H 14/09 14:20 H 14:29 H Ely Dock Jn p 13/54 H 14/31 H Needham Market d 13:39 H [1] [1] [1] [1] [1] Europa Jn p 13/45 H 14/00 H 14/04 H 14/17 H 14/29 H 14/38 pg. 24 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No

25 25 Soham Station 6 Appendix B: Test 4a sample timetable From Cambridge Norwich Freight Freight P'boro Norwich From Ipswich Liv St Freight Ipswich Freight Liv St To Ipswich Liv St Ipswich Liv St To P'boro Norwich Cambridge Norwich T/load 170 E350 75C66S16 75C66S E350 T/load 170 E350 75C66S C66S16 E350 Ely Dock Jn p 12/58 H 13/17 H 13/35 H Europa Jn p 13/01 13/11 13/15 13/23 13/33 13/47 a 13:41 Needham Market d 13:29 H Soham d 13/04 H 13/23 H 13:41 H Stowmarket a 13:09 13:34 13:54 H (3.5) d 13:10 13/17 H 13:35 13:55 H Chippenham Jn p 13/08 13/16 13/31 H 13/48 H Haughley Jn p 13/13 H 13/19 H 13/27 13/38 H 13/45 13/58 H Elmswell d 13:43 H Kennett a 13:11 H Thurston d [1] (1) [1] 13:49 d 13:12 13/19 H 13/35 13/51 H [1] [1] (0.5) [1] [1] [1] [1] (1) Bury St. Edmunds a 13:27 13:55 d 13:29 13/43 H 13:56 14/02 Bury St. Edmundsa 13:22 H 14:02 Kennett a 14:06 d 13:24 H 13/33 13/48 H 14:03 d 13/38 H 13/57 14:06 H 14/15 H Thurston d 13:30 H <1> (0.5) Elmswell d 13:36 H (1.5) Chippenham Jn p 13/41 H 14/00 14/11 H 14/19 Haughley Jn p 13/41 H 13/56 13:59 H 14/05 H 14/16 H 14/26 Soham a 13:48 H Stowmarket a 13:44 H {1.5} 14:19 H 14:28 H d 13:49 14/07 H 14/26 H d 13:45 13/57 H 14/04 H 14/09 14:20 H 14:29 H Ely Dock Jn p 13/54 H 14/13 H 14/32 H Needham Market d 13:50 H [1] [1] [1] [1] Europa Jn p 13/56 H 14/04 H 14/13 14/17 H 14/29 H 14/38 pg. 25 Ed Jeffery Ltd Registered in England No