Building a business case for investment based on potential future gain, rather than immediate bums on seats, is the first of the challenges that need to be met and overcome before Wisbech can welcome trains again. It is also, of course, only one side of the balance sheet.
To answer the ‘how much?’ question, the county council has commissioned two reports. In April 2014 consultant Atkins examined the capital cost of the reinstatement project, effectively taking the scheme to GRIP (Governance for Railway Investment Projects) stage one, the first of an eight-step process towards delivery.
In this model it was assumed that trains would run at up to 60mph, that work would be required at the March and Wisbech ends, and that there would be costs associated with reinstating or removing level crossings. In particular, a level crossing over the A47 was thought to be no longer desirable or permissible, meaning that a road over rail bridge would be required. From that, two further options followed: provide a new station in Wisbech itself; or terminate at the A47, build a station there and dispense with the road bridge and the last mile of track.
Atkins determined that reinstating the line to Wisbech centre would cost £35m, with a further £12m needed to build the A47 bridge. In the second option (where the line stops at the A47), the cost falls to a little under £31m.
Analysing the Benefit:Cost Ratio, the town centre option performed better, although the study was based on Wisbech to March shuttle services only, without trains running further afield.
A year later Mott McDonald picked up the feasibility baton and took the project to GRIP2. This study looked in more detail at the work required to the infrastructure, including potential new station sites and the level crossings. In addition, comprehensive analysis of the layout at the March end of the line was carried out. Here remodelling and resignalling work will be required to enable through services from Wisbech to call at (currently out of use) platforms at March before continuing towards Ely.
Again an upbeat conclusion was reached: that there were “viable engineering and timetable options for the reinstatement of a passenger rail service from Wisbech to March and beyond to Cambridge”.
However, another challenge now presented itself. Further afield at Ely, pathing constraints mean that currently only one Wisbech-Cambridge service per hour would be possible. Furthermore, the costs had leapt up again.
“The range of cost for the service options is approximately £41m to £65m, excluding optimism bias, risk and opportunity. These values are £70m to £111m including risk and optimism bias but excluding opportunity,” the report said. Signing off, the authors added: “Any GRIP stage 3 option selection study should also specifically address the opportunities to close level crossings.”
GRIP2 is where the project currently remains. But undeterred by the rising capital commitment, Menzies is clear about what the county council wants - and it isn’t just the cheapest or easiest solution.
“The issues that have emerged from GRIP2 are primarily twofold. One is capacity on the existing lines through Ely North Junction, which is a bottleneck for the whole area. It’s that connection through to Cambridge that really makes a difference, rather than just a shuttle between Wisbech and March.
“I’d ideally like to see a train every half an hour from Wisbech through March and Ely into Cambridge. That links with other things we’re doing like Cambridge North, which Network Rail is leading and is now happening, but we kicked it off and got it moving.
“The second issue is level crossings. We’ve always assumed that where it crosses the A47 we will need to build a bridge. Network Rail’s starting point is we need to get rid of all the level crossings. We turned round and said: ‘well, it is flat and straight and visibility is excellent. Are these crossings really high risk?’”
Safety at level crossings is understandably a national talking point. From the terrible tragedy at Ufton Nervet in 2004, when a man took his own life and killed six others by parking his car in the path of an oncoming InterCity 125, to the deaths of two teenage girls in 2005 at Elsenham. Each life lost echoes through grieving families, their pain resonating long after the inquiries and court cases have been concluded, the fines paid and any recommendations implemented.
With more than 6,000 crossings on our railways, not for nothing does Network Rail produce chilling safety films to warn of the dangers. Fortunately (according to NR’s own figures), in a typical year the number of actual collisions with cars or pedestrians remains low. However, the near misses - particularly involving pedestrians - remains stubbornly high, reaching 258 in 2015-16.
NR has publicly stated its policy as being “committed to reducing the risk at level crossings… where reasonably practicable we will seek to close and/or divert crossings”. And most pertinently in the Wisbech story: “Only in exceptional circumstances shall we permit new crossings to be introduced onto the network.”
Perhaps one could argue that these are not new crossings, although that leads into a debate of semantics versus statistics. In
16 years a whole new generation of drivers will have taken to the roads in the area never imagining that they will see a train on the line.
Says Menzies: “In the Fenland area there is a lot of open countryside with not many people. We’ve done a study with Network Rail, which we’ve funded, where they have costed closing all the crossings. It increases the cost of re-opening by around 50%. It’s £100m and you’re adding between £40m and £50m.
“Where a conventional transport business case isn’t that robust - mainly relying on the wider economic benefit - that’s difficult. We need a common sense approach. Some of these places, the minor roads, you can stand there and hear the birds singing. Nobody comes, nobody goes. Network Rail’s starting point is ‘can we get rid of all the crossings?’”
