Do you find that frustrating?
“They are charged with reducing risks at level crossings, which is absolutely fine. We have over 100 in Cambridgeshire and we can understand that, but it’s not seeing the bigger picture. For example, Wisbech is entirely served by single-carriageway A-roads. Single-carriageway rural A-roads are the most dangerous type of road you’ve got, so there’s a risk there.”
However, far from running into the sand drag that sinks some schemes, talks are under way to rationalise the seeming impasse and move forward. A local MP called a meeting in mid-2016, which in turn led to a workshop between Network Rail level crossing specialists and the local council to discuss the crossings. Disappearing into vegetation it might be, but the Bramley Line is firmly on the industry radar.
The crossing issue has even made it to the desk of Ian Prosser, Her Majesty’s Chief Inspector of Railways. His team would ultimately sign off a safety case for re-opening, and in an exclusive interview for RailReview, he reveals his approach is more pragmatic than dogmatic.
“You would want to check what is reasonably practical, safe operation, in terms of the whole thing - including the level crossings,” he says.
“There are a lot of level crossings - some that are high risk and would be closed, and some that are low risk. It would be grossly disproportionate to spend a lot of money trying to close crossings which would kill the project. One thing everyone has agreed on - and this includes the county council and the local people - is that previously when this line was in operation it just had AHB , which are higher risk. Nobody wants to reinstate them.”
Prosser has visited the line to personally examine the issues: “We do realise we can’t close them all. Some of the roads might need to be bridged, but they would be those with the highest traffic flows. As for some of the foot crossings… it would be grossly disproportionate to put up a footbridge in the middle of the Fens for maybe one person using it a day.”
Two inspectors from Prosser’s team also attended the recent round table workshop with Network Rail, to look for practical and safe solutions.
“I think they found common ground, and certainly Network Rail is up for trying to get to a sensible place. But one mustn’t just focus on level crossings here. Really what needs to happen here is the project needs to be taken to the next GRIP stage, so we can have a clear view of what the best options are.
“The traffic flows into Wisbech need to be understood. Where is the best place to put the station? The business case would want it as close to the centre as possible, which is understandable, but they also have to think about the traffic flows in the area and overall costs.”
So how people get to the station safely?
“Yes. Their favourite choice is by a road, and would have a crossing right in front of it. I’ve sat and watched the traffic - it’s quite a busy road near a supermarket, and there are all those factors you have to take into account.”
What else?
“How the line is signalled - will it be signalled at all? There’s a need to look at drainage, proper surveying work, so we mustn’t get hung up on the crossings although it is a very important aspect.”
The third issue - enhancing capacity at Ely North Junction for the through services that Cambridgeshire County Council thinks are vital to success - remains. Remodelling of this junction has already slipped out of Network Rail’s Control Period 5, into CP6. Work is required on level crossings here, before extra tracks can be laid, and Campaign for Better Transport Executive Director Stephen Joseph says it is essential NR engages with every stakeholder.
“We’ve dug into this,” he says. “No one has worked out what the different demands for capacity around Ely are, and where Wisbech trains might fit in. This is a problem where nobody is taking responsibility for allocating capacity for different operators across a contested network.
“Where does Cambridgeshire fit in? As the local guardians of the public benefit they should be able to say ‘hang on a minute, we think we’ve got a good case for this capacity’. Talking to ordinary non-metropolitan authorities like Cambridgeshire has not been part of NR’s DNA at all. All of these problems seem to me to be fixable, provided somebody wants to do it.”
Joseph is also in no doubt about the significance for the industry of the line to Wisbech: “I think this re-opening and these wider ambitions are a test case for the railway. This is an authority that wants to invest in rail and more importantly is a powerhouse for the British economy. It wants to make sure future development is rail-connected, therefore the railway is serving the future and not just the past.
“The railway needs to be able to step up to the plate and find the ways of making these sorts of things happen, rather than find excuses for them not happening.”
Network Rail says it is engaged in the process, and following the level crossing workshop in early August 2016 it offered a statement:
“We are fully supportive of the aims of the March to Wisbech scheme in regard to driving the potential for growth and regeneration in the area. Following the initial pre-feasibility report on a rail connection between March and Wisbech, we challenged some of the assumptions made - in particular, around level crossings and also on the ability to run trains through to Cambridge on the existing infrastructure, due to known difficulties in the Ely area.
“We have been working closely with Cambridgeshire County Council, local stakeholders, the Department for Transport and the Office for Rail and Road to ensure that the scheme is developed in a pragmatic way, which safeguards the existing network and allows for efficiencies to be made where possible.
“This is a unique project, and it has required collaborative approach from all parties. We hope that following the most recent piece of work, which was a workshop looking at the solution required for all 22 level crossings on the line, we can better advise the business case and help funders make an informed decision on progressing the project to the next stage (GRIP3).”
Touring Wisbech in March of this year, then Communities Secretary Greg Clarke praised the scheme, saying it should be seen “as an investment, not as a special favour to Wisbech. It is an opportunity to invest in the prosperity of our country.”
A month before that, then Secretary of State for Transport Patrick McLoughlin had made a speech touting the line as an example of how the newly established city regions can steer their own destiny.
“That’s the way we have seen a reversal of some of the Beeching cuts. Finding ways to bring trains back to towns that should never have lost them and whose growth requires them… places such as Tavistock and Wisbech, which have well-advanced plans,” he observed.
Both men have since changed jobs, but the former is now the Business Secretary, a brief that would seem naturally complementary to his views.
Wisbech and its rail link are not short of warm words. And so far, money has been forthcoming from an ambitious authority anxious to use the railways to make a difference.
“It is worth pursuing,” concludes Menzies. “It won’t solve all of Wisbech’s problems because there are things that will take a long time to address, but it is part of a package of making Wisbech a more viable place to live.
“There is a phenomenon of places around the country that are on the edge, that are a distance away from the centre of economic activity. I speak to colleagues in Suffolk and Norfolk and they have this as well, with coastal communities. Bringing them in, making them much more part of the country’s economic activity, must be the key to helping them.”
The will is clearly there. But can the way be found? Until further notice those rails remain quietly protecting a route upon which future generations may well come to depend.
