soham station - whatdotheyknow

Soham Station GRIP 3b Design Report - Volume 1 VolkerFitzpatrick

9 December 2016 150723-ATK-REP-EMF-000002 Issue 3

Soham Station GRIP 3b Design Report - Volume 1

Atkins Soham Station - GRIP 3b Design Report Vol 1 | Issue 3 | 9 December 2016 | 5145520

Table of contents

Chapter Pages

1. Introduction 8 1.1. Project Description 8 1.2. Current State of Project Development 8 1.3. Contractual Arrangements 8 1.4. Purpose of Report 8 1.5. Layout of Report 8

2. Project Requirements 9 2.1. High Level Requirements 9 2.2. Options to be Considered 9 2.3. Train Service Assumptions 10

3. Existing Situation 11 3.1. Introduction 11 3.2. The Proposed Station Site 11 3.3. The Soham Branch 17

4. Scheme Development History 23 4.1. Station Development 23 4.2. Ely to Soham Track Doubling 23

5. Predicted Passenger Demand 24 5.1. Introduction 24 5.2. Methodology 24 5.3. Predicted Demand 24 5.4. Station Access Mode 25

6. Proposed Station Design 26 6.1. Options Considered 26 6.2. Station Layout 26 6.3. Architecture 29 6.4. Fire 34 6.5. Public Realm 35 6.6. Structures 37 6.7. Mechanical, Electrical and Public Health 39 6.8. Drainage 41 6.9. Station Information and Security Systems 43

7. Proposed Rail Infrastructure 45 7.1. Introduction 45 7.2. Option 1A – Single Platform Station 45 7.3. Option 1B – Two Platform Station with a Short Extension of Double Track 47 7.4. Option 2 - Two Platform Station Constructed as part of the Ely to Soham Doubling Scheme 52 7.5. Option 3 – Two Platform Station Constructed after the Ely to Soham Doubling Scheme 52

8. Consent Requirements 53 8.1. Introduction 53 8.2. Existing Powers 53 8.3. Method to Acquire Consents 53 8.4. Recommendations 54

9. Design & Operational Safety 55 9.1. Designer’s CDM Risk Assessment 55 9.2. Common Safety Method 55


Atkins Soham Station - GRIP 3b Design Report Vol 1 | Issue 3 | 9 December 2016 | 5145520

10. Economic Case 56 10.1. Introduction 56 10.2. Methodology 56 10.3. Economic Case Scenarios 56 10.4. Economic Appraisal Results 57

11. Supporting Documents 59 11.1. Soham Station Documents 59 11.2. Ely to Soham Track Doubling Documents 60

Tables Table 3-1 Level Crossings between Soham Lode & Middlemere LC ...................................................... 18 Table 5-1 Summary of Predicted Daily Passenger Trips using Soham station ....................................... 24 Table 5-2 Summary of peak hourly passengers using Soham station (both directions) ......................... 25 Table 5-3 Estimated Station Access by Car (number of passengers) ..................................................... 25 Table 6-1 Target and Modelled Lighting Levels ....................................................................................... 39 Table 10-1 Summary of Construction Options for Soham station ............................................................. 56 Table 10-2 Summary of Rail Scenarios for Soham station ........................................................................ 57 Table 10-3 Option 1A Economic Assessment (£m, 2010 present values) ................................................ 57 Table 10-4 Option 1B Economic Assessment (£m, 2010 present values) ................................................ 58 Table 10-5 Option 2 Economic Assessment (£m, 2010 present values) ................................................... 58 Table 10-6 Option 3 Economic Assessment (£m, 2010 present values) ................................................... 58 Table 11-1 Soham Station Project Documents .......................................................................................... 59 Table 11-2 Selection of Ely to Soham Track Doubling Documents ........................................................... 60

Figures Figure 3-1 Centre of Proposed Station Site .............................................................................................. 11 Figure 3-2 Soham Station, Looking North, circa 1913 .............................................................................. 12 Figure 3-3 Soham Station Post 1965 Closure, Looking South, Date Unknown ........................................ 12 Figure 3-4 Soham Station, Looking North from Clark & Butchers UWC, 2016......................................... 13 Figure 3-5 Station Access Track Viewed from the Station Rd/Mereside Junction ................................... 13 Figure 3-6 Station Site Viewed from the Soham Lode .............................................................................. 14 Figure 3-7 Results of 2015 Carter Jonas Land Referencing Search ........................................................ 16 Figure 3-8 Cambridge PSB NX Panel C ................................................................................................... 18 Figure 3-9 Spencer Drove/Soham Station UWC....................................................................................... 19 Figure 3-10 Middlemere Level Crossing ..................................................................................................... 19 Figure 3-11 Soham Station Telecoms REB ................................................................................................ 20 Figure 3-12 Middlemere Level Crossing GSM-R Mast & FTN Node .......................................................... 21 Figure 3-13 Railway Corridor between Straws/Shaws UWC and Middlemere Level Crossing .................. 22 Figure 6-1 Option 1A: Proposed Single Platform Station Layout .............................................................. 27 Figure 6-2 Option 1B, 2 & 3: Proposed Double Platform Station Layout .................................................. 28 Figure 6-3 Looking towards Mereside along Existing Access Track ........................................................ 36 Figure 6-4 Existing DNO Cubicle .............................................................................................................. 40 Figure 6-5 UB2233 over the Soham Lode ................................................................................................ 42


Atkins Soham Station - GRIP 3b Design Report Vol 1 | Issue 3 | 9 December 2016 | 5145520 5

Abbreviations

Abbreviation Definition

ABD Area Benefitting from flood Defences

ADAS Agricultural Development and Advisory Service

AHB Automatic Half Barrier

AIP Approval In Principle

AOD Above Ordnance Datum

ARC Anglia Route Collaboration

BGK Bethnal Green to Kings Lynn line, the north-south route passing through Ely.

BT British Telecom

CB Central Battery

CCC Cambridge County Council

CER Communications Equipment Room

CIS Customer Information System

CP Control Period

CAIR Cambridge Area Interlocking Renewal

Ch Chainage

CSM Common Safety Method

CSM REA Common Safety Method on Risk Evaluation and Assessment Regulation

DfT Department for Transport

DOO Driver Only Operation

DNO Distribution Network Operator

EA Environment Agency

eB Enterprise Bridge, the document management system used by Network Rail

ECDC East Cambridgeshire District Council

ECML East Coast Main Line

EIA Environmental Impact Assessment

ELR Engineers Line Reference

EMGTPA Equivalent Million Gross Tonnes Per Annum

ESM Engineering Safety Management

ETD Extended Trunk Dialling

EYC Ely Central SSI

EYS Ely South SSI

FLAT Fixed Lineside Telephone Analysis Tool

FSP Functional Supply Point

FOC Freight Operating Company

FTN Fixed Telecommunications Network

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GEML Great Eastern Main Line

GPDO General Permitted Development Order

GRIP Governance of Railway Investment Projects

GRP Glass Reinforced Plastic

GSM-R Global System for Mobile Communications – Railways




HGV Heavy Goods Vehicle

ID Internal Diameter

IDB Internal Drainage Board

IP Internet Protocol

JST Junction Screening Tool

LB Local Battery

LC Level Crossing

LCU Local Control Unit

LED Light Emitting Diode

LEER Lift Electrical Equipment Room

LoD Limits of Deviation

LV Low Voltage

LVAC Low Voltage Alternating Current

MCB-OD Manually Controlled Barriers – Obstacle Detection

MP Mile Post

MSL Miniature Stop Lights

NGR National Grid Reference

NNTR Notified National Technical Rule

NR Network Rail

OLE Overhead Line Equipment

ORS Operational Requirements Specification

OPS Operational Performance Specification

PER Portable Equipment Room

PETS Public Emergency Telephone System

PHCC Points Heating Control Cubicle

PHT Points Heating Transformer

PRM Persons with Restricted Mobility

PSB Power Signal Box

PSP Power Supply Point

PROW Public Right of Way

PRS Project Requirements Specification

PZT Point Zone Telephone

rc Reinforced Concrete

RCD Residual Current Device

REB Relocatable Equipment Building

ROC Railway Operations Centre

RRAP Road Rail Access Point

S&C Switches and Crossings

SOB2 The ELR of the Soham Branch

SPAD Signal Passed At Danger

S/TP&N Single/Three Phase and Neutral

SPT Signal Post Telephone

SSI Solid State Interlocking




SSP Signalling Supply Point

SRAC Safety Related Application Condition

S&T Signalling and Telecommunications

TER Telecoms Equipment Room

tpd trains per day

tph trains per hour

TFM Trackside Functional Module

TOC Train Operating Company

TP&N Three Phase & Neutral

TSI Technical Specification for Interoperability

TVM Ticket Vending Machine

TWA Transport and Works Act

TWAO Transport and Works Act Order

UKPN United Kingdom Power Networks

URX Under Road Crossing

UTX (aka UTC) Under Track Crossing

UWC User Worked Crossing

VF Voice Frequency

VFL VolkerFitzpatrick Ltd

VM2 Value Management 2



1. Introduction

1.1. Project Description The town of Soham in East Cambridgeshire does not currently have a railway station and Cambridgeshire County Council (CCC) has commissioned Network Rail to carry out a GRIP 3 study and prepare an economic case to help establish whether one should be provided.

The proposed Soham Station would be unmanned and be capable of accommodating trains up to 96m in length (a 4-car multiple unit). It would be located on the site of the former Soham station, which was closed in 1965. This site is located to the south west of the town centre, near the junction between Station Road and Mereside.

Soham station would be located on Soham Branch (ELR:SOB2) at 7 miles and 78 chains. The SOB2 line runs between Ely Dock Junction (near Ely, Cambridgeshire) and Chippenham Junction (near Newmarket, Suffolk).

1.2. Current State of Project Development The Soham station project is currently in the option selection phase of GRIP Stage 3 (GRIP is Network Rail’s project development process). This phase includes selecting the delivery option for the station, together with developing an economic case for it. Should this economic case prove to be sufficiently positive and the capital cost estimated to be affordable, then CCC development intends to procure Approval in Principle designs for the station and associated works.

1.3. Contractual Arrangements The Soham station project is being developed by VolkerFitzpatrick (VFL) for Network Rail (NR) as part of the Anglia CP5 Multi-Functional Framework contract, this is also known as the Anglia Route Collaboration (ARC). Atkins is the design sub-contractor to VolkerFitzpatrick .

The promoter of the Soham station project is Cambridgeshire County Council.

1.4. Purpose of Report The purpose of this report is to provide a description of the different options considered for Soham station, and outline their proposed design.

1.5. Layout of Report This GRIP3b Design Report is formed of two volumes:

Volume 1 - Report Volume 2 – Drawings.

Volume 1 of the design report is formed of the following chapters:

Chapter 1, this chapter, is introductory; Chapter 2 summarises the project’s requirements; Chapter 3 describes the existing condition of the station site and the Soham Branch; Chapter 4 gives an overview of the project’s development history; Chapter 5 provides an estimate of the number of people expected to use a station at Soham; Chapter 6 outlines the proposed station design; Chapter 7 describes the rail infrastructure works that would be required to support Soham Station; Chapter 8 summarises the required consents required to construct the project; Chapter 9 outlines the key construction and operational safety issues identified to date; Chapter 10 outlines the economic case for constructing a station at Soham; Chapter 11 lists the supporting documents produced during the development of both the Soham station

and Ely to Soham Track Doubling projects.



2. Project Requirements

2.1. High Level Requirements The requirements for the GRIP 3 stage of the Soham station project are contained in two Network Rail documents, the Sponsor’s Instruction (eB ref: 150723-NRS-INS-MPM-500027) and the Client Requirement Documents (eB ref: 150723-NRS-REP-EMG-500051). These requirements were augmented by a Requirements Identification Workshop held on 11th April 2016, which was attended by staff from Network Rail, VolkerFitzpatrick , Abellio Greater Anglia and Cambridgeshire County Council.

The key project requirements are:

A station shall be provided at Soham located on NR owned land; The platforms shall be able to accommodate trains up to 96m (4-cars) in length; The station shall be compatible with the proposed design of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme; The station shall be accessible to mobility impaired people; The station shall provide facilities for users arriving or departing by foot, bicycle, motorbike and car (both

car parking and pick up/drop off); The station shall be unstaffed, but with space for the future provision of a ticket office; Train despatch would be by the Guard; The design shall allow for a rail replacement bus service to access the station; The station shall be designed to allow for the passage of W12 gauge trains, and with sufficient

clearances for the future installation of overhead electrification equipment (OLE).

The full list of project requirements, along with verification information, is provided in the Basis of Design document (eB ref: 150723-ATK-REP-EMF-000003).

2.2. Options to be Considered The Sponsor’s Instruction states that the following options should be considered for Soham station during the project’s Option Selection Phase:

Option 1a - A single platform to be delivered ahead of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme; Option 1b - A two platform station to be delivered ahead of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme; Option 2 - A two platform station to be delivered as part of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme Option 3 - A two platform station to be delivered after the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme.

It was also required that station layouts should be considered for Options 1b, 2 and 3 that include footbridge access by either lifts or ramps.

Option 1b would include the installation of approximately 900m of new track along with a new turnout and associated signalling, telecommunications and electrical works. These works would be required to allow trains to serve a second platform.

Options 2 and 3 would not require any works to the track, signalling, telecommunications or electrical systems as it is assumed that the design of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme would be modified to provide all the required functionality.



2.3. Train Service Assumptions

2.3.1. Passenger The existing passenger train service that passes the site of the proposed station is the Peterborough - Ipswich service. This currently operates once every two hours in each direction.

There is an aspiration amongst regional stakeholders to increase the frequency of the Peterborough – Ipswich service to hourly. Network Rail have stated that this frequency increase would require capacity enhancements to the existing rail network. These enhancements would likely be a combination of some of the following schemes:

The doubling of the existing single lead Haughley Junction; The installation of additional signals to reduce headways between Kennet and Haughley Junction; The full or partial doubling of the existing single track between Soham and Ely; The remodelling of Ely North Junction.

2.3.2. Freight The current average level of freight services which pass the proposed station site is of one train per hour in each direction, with the actual frequency varying between none and two freight trains per hour in each direction.

There is an aspiration to increase the capacity of the overall Felixstowe to Nuneaton route, which runs via Soham, to a level where it could accommodate an average of two freight trains per hour in each direction. The enhancement works that may be required to achieve this increase include those listed in Section 2.3.1, together with improvements to the Felixstowe Branch and in the East Midlands.



3. Existing Situation

3.1. Introduction This section of the report provides a description of the proposed site of Soham station and of the railway line which passes through it, the Soham Branch (ELR: SOB2). The description of the Soham Branch concentrates on the section of line close to the site of the proposed station and that which would be affected by station Option 1B (Soham Lode to Middlemere Level Crossing). Details of the Soham Branch between Middlemere Level Crossing and Ely Dock Junction can be obtained from the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Project’s GRIP3 Design Summary Report (eB ref: 122955-ATK-REP-EMG-000006).

3.2. The Proposed Station Site

3.2.1. General Description The proposed site of Soham station is located to the south west of Soham town centre, near the junction between Station Road and Mereside. The site has the Ordnance Survey Grid Reference of TL 587 732.

The elevation of the site is between 4.0 and 4.5m AOD with a slight fall from north west to south east. There is an elevated area in the southern portion of the site where there are remains of former structures.

To the east of the existing railway, the north-eastern section of the site is covered in vegetation, whilst the south east portion of the site is populated by large trees. The western border of the railway is marked by an approximately 8m wide corridor of moderately mature vegetation. The central portion of the station site is a gravel parking and laydown area which is occasionally used by Network Rail maintenance staff. Adjacent to this area are an operational electricity DNO supply cabinet and a Telecoms Equipment Room (TER).

To the south and west of the site runs Soham Lode, a river contained in an engineered channel which flows into the river Great Ouse approximately 6km to the northwest of the site.

Land use to the east of the site comprises small light industrial units and residential properties. The grass land to the west of the railway appears to be in occasional agricultural use and the land to the south is a designated common. The open land to the north is currently unused scrub land, but it is proposed to be developed with housing in the medium term.

To the immediate south of the site there is Clark and Butcher’s User Worked Crossing (UWC). This provides access to an area of grassland located between the Soham Lode and the Railway.

Figure 3-1 Centre of Proposed Station Site



3.2.2. Site History The site of the proposed Soham station is the location of a former station. The original Soham station opened in 1879 and continued to operate until 1965. In 1944 an ammunition train exploded at the station causing significant damage to the station and surrounding area.

Historical mapping and photographs (see Figure 3-2 and Figure 3-3) show that the former Soham station comprised two platforms, multiple sidings and several buildings. By the late 1980s the above ground elements of the station had been demolished with the exception of the signal box and the amount of double track reduced. It is understood that the signal box was removed in the early 1990’s. Foundations of the former structures, along with demolition waste, remains on site but is obscured from view by vegetation.

Since the station closed, part of the site has been used as a Network Rail storage yard, with the remainder being left largely untouched and allowed to be overtaken by vegetation.

Figure 3-2 Soham Station, Looking North, circa 1913

Figure 3-3 Soham Station Post 1965 Closure, Looking South, Date Unknown



Figure 3-4 Soham Station, Looking North from Clark & Butchers UWC, 2016

3.2.3. Access The existing access to the proposed station site is via a gravel track running from the junction between Station Road and Mereside.

The track has two residential care homes alongside it; Fair Haven, a care home for the elderly, and Brambles, a care home for adults with learning disabilities. There is National Grid Gas infrastructure located under the access track.

Figure 3-5 Station Access Track Viewed from the Station Rd/Mereside Junction



3.2.4. Ground Conditions The ground conditions on the site of the proposed station are formed of a layer of made ground between 0.4m and 3m thick overlying Gault Clay. Ground water monitoring on the site experienced water strikes between 1.6m and 3.4m below ground level. Further details of the expected ground conditions are contained in the Geotechnical Desk Study Report, which is available on eB with the reference of 150723-ATK-REP-REP-EGE-000001.

3.2.5. Ground Contamination Due to the site’s historic use as a railway station, and continued presence of an operational railway, there are moderate risks to construction and maintenance workers due to dermal contact and inhalation of dusts and vapour from contaminated made ground. There are also risks due to the presence of waste materials from the former station buildings on the site, with some of these materials potentially containing asbestos. Further details of these issues can be found in the Land Contamination Desk Study, which is available on eB with the reference 150723-ATK-REP-EGE-000002.

3.2.6. Flood Risk The Environment Agency flood maps indicate that the site has negligible risk (0.1%) of fluvial flooding as it benefits from flood defences. The site is at higher risk of surface water flooding (up to 3.3% in places) due to the drainage channels that cross the site. Further details of flood risk are contained in the Environmental Statement for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Project, which is available on eB with the reference 122955-ATK-STA-EEN-000002.

3.2.7. Ecology An extended Phase 1 habitat survey undertaken in June 2014 for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project, and subsequent protected species surveys undertaken in 2015, confirmed the presence of water vole (Arvicola amphibius) on Soham Lode, immediately downstream of the Soham station site. In addition, during breeding bird surveys, five bird species were recorded in the vicinity of the Soham station site, all of which are considered to be notable due to their legal protection and/or conservation status. All were confirmed to be breeding within the survey area (for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project, which encompasses the footprint of the Soham station project).

Invasive species, including Floating pennywort (Hydrocotyle ranunculoides) and Parrot’s feather (Myriophyllum aquaticum), have been identified in ditches adjacent to the railway line, although none in the vicinity of the Soham station site.

Further details as the current ecological value of the site can be found in the Environmental Statement for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling scheme (eB ref: 122955-ATK-STA-EEN-000002. Prior to the preparation of planning consent documents a walk over environmental survey should be undertaken to confirm the continued validity of the information contained in this Environmental Statement.

Figure 3-6 Station Site Viewed from the Soham Lode



3.2.8. Utilities Buried services plans from utility companies were received in July 2014. These plans were reviewed to identify those services which had the potential to impact the project (eB ref: 150723-ATK-REP-EUT-000001). This revealed that there are several buried services under the proposed Soham station site:

A gas pipe that runs on a north-south axis alongside the site’s eastern boundary; A gas pipe that runs under the access track, with a cross connection to the Brambles care home; A buried electrical cable runs under the access track to an existing DNO supply cabinet in the former

station yard; A buried British Telecom cable.

Outside, but adjacent to, the site’s western boundary there is an overhead electricity cable. This may be impacted by the construction of the station’s footbridge.

3.2.9. Survey Information The survey information used to produce this initial design for Soham station was gathered in 2014 and 2015 for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project.

The ground information used for the design of the proposed station was produced by an aerial survey undertaken in May 2014. The grid used for this survey was Snake Grid DSF09.

Details of the other survey information used for the design is contained in the Project’s Survey Strategy, which is available on eB with the reference 150723-ATK-STR-ESU-000001.

3.2.10. Network Rail Land Boundary The Network Rail Boundary does not cover the whole footprint of the former station as some of the land was sold following the station’s closure. The current NR owned land includes the access track, the gravel lay down area and a triangular wooded area located between the gravel area and Clark & Butcher’s UWC. There is a small area of land adjacent to Clark & Butcher’s UWC that is owned by the developer of the Thomas Mews, but this is not fenced separately from the NR land.

The owners of the land on the western side of the railway (Mr Clark) have a right of access over Clark & Butcher’s UWC and the Network Rail land.

The NR land boundary was derived from a land referencing search undertaken by Carter Jonas Ltd for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project. The results of this search are available on eB with the reference 122955-NRS-PLD-MPM-00001. An extract of the land plans is included in Figure 3-7.

The land boundaries from the referencing search, which was based on land registry information, does not exactly match the surveyed fence positions. It is also slightly different from the NR land boundary contained within NR’s MARLIN database. Should the Soham station project progress it is recommended that the extents of the NR land boundary is confirmed on site by a Boundary Surveyor.



Figure 3-7 Results of 2015 Carter Jonas Land Referencing Search

Mr Clark

Regional & City Estates (Soham)

Mr Bowman, Mr Christian, Mr King & Mr Pistol

Network Rail

Thomas Mews Ltd

Network Rail



3.3. The Soham Branch

3.3.1. General Description The existing Soham Branch (ELR: SOB2) runs between Ely Dock Junction and Chippenham Junction. It is a non-electrified line formed of double track between Chippenham and Soham Junctions, and single bi-directional track between Soham and Ely Dock Junctions. There are no stations on the line. The Ely to Soham track forms part of the cross county route linking the East Coast Main Line (ECML) at Peterborough to the Great Eastern Main Line (GEML) at Haughley Junction.

The Soham Branch is a major artery for intermodal (container) freight services between the Port of Felixstowe, the North East and the North West. Additionally a smaller number of aggregate trains also use the route transporting stone from quarries in the Midlands. The passenger service on the line is a Peterborough-Ipswich service with a typical frequency of one train every two hours in each direction.

The land immediately adjacent to the railway between the Soham Lode and Middlemere Level Crossing and Soham Cotes is a combination of light industrial and residential properties, interspersed with areas of scrub and fields used for grazing.

The main populated areas near the scheme are Ely, Soham and Stuntney. Ely is the main market town in East Cambridgeshire, with a population of approximately 19,000. Soham has a population of 11,000. The village of Stuntney is a fenland islet settlement with a population of approximately 200.

3.3.2. Existing Line Speeds The existing line speeds in the project area are as follows in the down direction (towards Ely): 60mph from the vicinity of Mill Drove LC (7m30ch) to the vicinity of the 8 milepost (Ch12+870); 50mph from the vicinity of the 8 milepost to the 9 ½ milepost (8m40ch/Ch 15+286); 50/60mph differential from the 9 ½ milepost to the vicinity of Wells Engine UWC (12m3ch/Ch19+380); 40mph from Wells Engine UWC to Ely Dock Junction (12m33ch), with a 25mph speed over the turnout

into the Up Goods Loop.

Speeds in the up direction are generally the same as in the down direction, but with slight variation in the location of the speed boards.

3.3.3. Track & Alignment The Soham Branch was opened in 1879 and has remained a single track railway between Straws UWC and the Great Ouse since its construction.

The Soham Branch is predominantly straight between Soham and Ely Dock Junction with gradients shallower than 1 in 250. The exceptions to this are a series of reverse curves as the line passes Soham (R≥800m), a 400m radius curve on the approach to Ely Dock Junction and a section of steeper gradients (up to 1 in 100) as the line passes over the Great Ouse.

The single track section of the Soham Branch is considered to be currently Track Category 2 by Network Rail. The track is predominantly formed of BS113A/CEN56 continuously welded rail supported on either concrete or steel sleepers.

3.3.4. Earthworks The Soham Branch line is generally supported on shallow embankments of 1-2m height between Soham and Middlemere Level Crossing. As Network Rail only records the condition of earthworks greater than 3m in height there is no record information for these embankments.

Historically the section of double track extended towards Ely further than it does today, resulting in earthworks wider than are required to support a single track. It is suspected that the additional tracks ran as far as Straws UWC, approximately 440m closer to Ely than the existing Soham Junction.



3.3.5. Drainage A Drainage Report has been produced which describes the existing track drainage system. It is available on eB with the reference 122955-ATK-REP-EDR-000001.

The Network Rail drainage record drawings indicate that there is a line side ditch on the eastern side of the railway between Straws/Shaws UWC and Middlemere LC. This ditch was not located on site due to the volume of lineside vegetation.

Network Rail records also indicate that there are eight culverts passing underneath the railway between Soham Lode and Middlemere Level Crossing. Of these culverts, four of them have had both their ends located on site, three culverts have had one end located and one culvert has not been located on site.

3.3.6. Signalling The Soham Branch is controlled from Panel C at Cambridge Power Signal Box (PSB), see Figure 3-8. The single line is bi-directionally signalled using predominantly two aspect signals. The solid state interlockings (SSIs) controlling the line are Ely South (EYS) and Ely Central (EYC). The boundary point between them is close to Wells Engine Level Crossing. Train detection is provided through the use of track circuits.

Figure 3-8 Cambridge PSB NX Panel C

3.3.7. Level Crossings Between the Soham Lode and Middlemere Level Crossing there is one Automatic Half Barrier (AHB) road level crossing and three user worked crossings (UWC), see Table 3-1. Level Crossing Risk Assessments carried out of these crossings for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project are available on eB with the references 122955-ATK-RAR-ECV-000002 and 122955-ATK-RAR-ECV-000004.

Photos of Spencer Drove/Soham station UWC and Middlemere level crossing can be seen in Figure 3-9 and Figure 3-10.

Table 3-1 Level Crossings between Soham Lode & Middlemere LC

Level Crossing Type Mileage Chainage

Middlemere/Clark's Drove AHB 8m 25ch 13+380

Straws/Shaws UWC 8m 2ch 12+920

Spencer Drove/Soham Station (PROW) UWC 7m 78ch 12+830

Clark & Butchers UWC 7m 52ch 12+325



Figure 3-9 Spencer Drove/Soham Station UWC

Figure 3-10 Middlemere Level Crossing



3.3.8. Telecommunications A “Telecom Asset Survey Report” has been produced documenting the existing telecommunications equipment present on the Soham Branch; this is available on eB and has the reference 122955-ATK-REP-ETL-000001.

Ely Station Equipment Room holds the majority of the lineside telephone circuits for the Soham Branch, these are linked back to the main telephone concentrator at Cambridge PSB.

A fixed telecommunications network (FTN) cable runs along the trough route on the south western (Down) side of the line. This cable runs between Ely Station and Chippenham Junction Signal Box. There is a FTN node at Middlemere crossing, this is associated with the GSM-R base station and mast adjacent to the crossing.

There is a 50-pr telecom cable that runs between Ely station and Soham Junction Telecom Equipment Room (TER) within the cable route. It presents itself via telecom stump-boxes approximately every 500m, which are generally in a poor condition. There is also a 24-pr cable which follows a similar route, this cable is fully redundant. The 50pr cable was previously used to carry three digital line systems with Nokia PDH multiplexers located within Soham TER (the primary function of the room). Discussions with the maintainer have confirmed that the digital line systems are no longer in use and the Nokia equipment could be recovered.

There are 4 No. signals fitted with Signal Post Telephones (SPTs) between Ely Dock Junction and Soham Junction.

The AHB and UWC level crossings have Public Emergency Telephones (PETS) linked back to Cambridge PSB. There are under track crossings (UTXs) located at the three AHB level crossings and Soham Junction and there are also under road crossings (URXs) at the AHB level crossings. It was noted during the surveys that there appeared to be spare capacity in URX and UTX cable ducts at Middlemere LC.

Photos showing examples of telecommunication assets can be seen in Figure 3-11 and Figure 3-12.

Figure 3-11 Soham Station Telecoms REB



Figure 3-12 Middlemere Level Crossing GSM-R Mast & FTN Node

3.3.9. Electrical Power A report summarising the surveys undertaken into the existing power distribution equipment on the Soham Branch has been produced, titled “DNO Supplies, Points Heating Survey & Signalling Power Monitoring Report”, this is available on eB and has the reference 122955-ATK-REP-EDS-000001.

Electrical power to the signalling equipment between Ely and Soham is provided at 650 Volts by Feeder No.4 from Ely Signalling Supply Position, located on the Down side of the railway between Ely Station and Ely Station North Level Crossing. There is an overall spare capacity of over 50% within the 650V Signalling Supply at Ely. However, there are existing voltage drop issues with Feeder No.4 as it serves a 19.2km length of railway. The system is also non-compliant with current NR standards.

There are low voltage AC Distribution Network Operator (DNO) power supplies for points heating and for REB domestic needs at Soham Junction (100A TP&N), and for REB domestic needs at Middlemere LC (100A SP&N).

The existing DNO supply points are 15-20 years old and in an average state of repair. Estimated spare capacity within the DNO supplies are 60% at Soham Junction and 80% at Middlemere LC. The point heating systems at Soham Junction are over 15 years old and whilst serviceable, do not fully comply with current railway standards.

3.3.10. Utilities A Utilities Report was produced during GRIP 3 of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Project by undertaking a desk top survey of record drawings and contacting those companies whose assets could be affected by the project. The GRIP 3 Utilities Report has an eB reference of 122955-ATK-REP-EUT-000001.

Between the Soham Lode and Middlemere LC an Intermediate Pressure Gas Main runs alongside the eastern (Up) boundary of the railway. Overhead cables belonging to BT and UKPN which could interfere with the construction process have been identified at various points along the scheme.



3.3.11. Environment Two County Wildlife Sites (Non-statutory protected sites) are located adjacent to the rail corridor in the Soham area (Broad Piece and Mereside Grasslands).

Further details as to the current environmental conditions of the railway corridor can be found in the Environmental Statement for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling scheme (eB ref: 122955-ATK-STA-EEN-000002).

3.3.12. Survey Information A range of engineering and environmental surveys of the Soham Branch and its environs were undertaken for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project in 2014 and 2015. Details of these are provided in that project’s Survey Strategy which is available on eB with the reference 122955-ATK-STR-ESU-000001.

Figure 3-13 Railway Corridor between Straws/Shaws UWC and Middlemere Level Crossing



4. Scheme Development History

4.1. Station Development Soham station closed in 1965. In recent times there has been a local stakeholder interest in reopening it and it features in East Cambridgeshire District Council’s Local Plan.

In 2011 URS Scott Wilson were commissioned by Network Rail to look into the feasibility of constructing a new station for Soham on the old station’s site. This report is available on eB with the reference 150723-NRS-REP-MPM-000002.

In 2015 Network Rail was asked by Cambridgeshire County Council to develop the design of Soham station to a GRIP 3 level of detail, estimate the station’s likely patronage and develop an economic case for the station. This report documents this recent work.

4.2. Ely to Soham Track Doubling The single track section of the Soham Branch is a constraint on the number of trains that can operate on the cross-country route between the port of Felixstowe and freight terminals in the Midlands and the North. There have been several projects developed which aimed to reduce or remove this constraint, but none have yet come to fruition.

During Control Period 4 (2009 to 2014) there was a scheme developed called the Ely Loops Project, which focused on reducing this constraint by providing a second track at the western end of the line between Ely Dock Junction and Ambrose Level Crossing. This project was cancelled prior to construction due to significant cost escalation. There was also a complimentary project in development to provide a second track between Soham Junction and Ambrose Level Crossing (see report with eB ref 122955-NRS-REP-CCA-000007).

The Control Period 5 (2015 to 2019) successor to these two projects was the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project, this would have provided a second track between Soham and Ely. The project was developed in 2014 and 2015 with the aim of construction being carried out in 2019. This project completed GRIP 3 AIP designs, undertook a public consultation exercise, prepared an Environmental Statement and begin preparations for an application for a Transport and Works Act Order.

In August 2015 a decision was made by Network Rail to pause development of the project upon completion of GRIP 3. This was due to the identified funding being significantly less than the estimated construction cost. Therefore the application for a TWAO was not submitted in 2015.

In November 2015 the Network Rail document ‘Report from Sir Peter Hendy to the Secretary of State for Transport on the re-planning of Network Rail’s Investment Programme’ stated that the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project would be developed in Control Period 6 (2019 to 2024).

Option 2 for the development of Soham station assumes that the station would be constructed at the same time as the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project. Option 3 for Soham station assumes that the station would be constructed at some point after the track doubling works are complete.

The Ely to Soham Track Doubling project generated a large amount of information that would be useful to the Soham station project and a list of references is provided in Section 11.2. The Track Doubling project’s ‘GRIP 3 Design Summary Report’ provides an overview of that project and is available on eB with the reference 122955-ATK-REP-EMG-000006.



5. Predicted Passenger Demand

5.1. Introduction The future patronage of Soham station has been estimated in order to inform both the design of the station and as an input to the project’s economic case. A summary of the predicted passenger demand is provided here, with full details contained in the project’s ‘Passenger Demand Assessment Report’, which is available on eB with the reference 150723-ATK-REP-FIN-000001.

5.2. Methodology The demand forecast that has been undertaken relies on an existing bespoke mode choice model to assess the levels of demand for each transport mode (car, bus and rail) and an exogenous demand growth model to predict rail passenger forecasts in future years, both were developed by Atkins for previous Soham station studies (see report with the eB ref 150723-NRS-REP-FIN-000001).

The mode choice model compares the generalised cost of travel for each mode between each origin and destination zone by either car, bus or rail and predicts the likely share of trips between the competing modes. This calculation is separated for users with and without access to a car. The previous model used inputs based on 2011/12 travel data; the current study has included an update of the demand base year to 2014/15, using the latest census, fares and Ely Southern Bypass data.

The demand growth model is an exogenous forecasting model compliant with WebTAG guidance. The model takes base rail demand for 2014/15 from MOIRA and the incremental demand matrices from the mode choice model. It has been updated from previous studies through the latest GDP, employment, population, car ownership and travel cost data. Two growth scenarios were tested, one with an extrapolation of existing population growth rates in Soham and a high growth scenario which assumed that the full housing and employment growth contained in the East Cambridgeshire Local Plan occurs as planned.

Station use was predicted for three different rail service scenarios: R1 – A two hourly passenger service at Soham; R2 – An hourly passenger service at Soham R3 – An hourly passenger service at Soham and increased Ely to Cambridge passenger service

frequency of four trains per hour.

5.3. Predicted Demand The demand predictions for Soham station are summarised in Table 5-1 and Table 5-2. It is expected that approximately 85% of passengers would travel towards Ely on their outbound journey, with 15% travelling towards Bury St Edmunds.

Table 5-1 Summary of Predicted Daily Passenger Trips using Soham station

Scenario Opening year for R1

(2021/22) Opening year for R2

and R3 (2024/25) Future year

(2028/29)

R1

(current rail timetable) 335 353 383

R2

(Ipswich-Peterborough freq. doubled) 829 875 948

R3 (Ely-London freq. doubled)

894 944 1,023



Table 5-2 Summary of peak hourly passengers using Soham station (both directions)

Peak hour patronage

Morning peak Evening peak

2021/22 2028/29 2021/22 2028/29

Scenario R3 (Ipswich-Peterb’. & London-Cambridge

freq. doubled)

96 132 109 150

5.4. Station Access Mode

5.4.1. Car The number of Soham users accessing the station by car has been estimated for the enhanced service scenario (R3) in in 2021/22 and 2028/29.

Rail trips accessing the station from the Soham urban area (estimated to be 747 out of 894 total rail trips in 2021/2022 under scenario R3) are assumed to access the station either by walking or cycling, given that the maximum walking time to the station from the immediate Soham area would be around 20 minutes. Passengers accessing from rural areas near Soham (the remaining 147 rail trips) are expected to drive to the station by car. The resulting number of passengers accessing the station by car, assuming that two rail trips equates to a single parking space, is calculated to be around 40 in 2021/22 and 50 in 2028/29.

Note that some of the passengers accessing by car may be dropped off at the station rather than parking their car at the station. Analysis of National Rail Travel Survey (NRTS) data for previous projects suggests that the proportion of passengers being dropped off by car at stations in East Cambridgeshire ranges between a quarter and a half of all trips which accessed the station by car.

Table 5-3 Estimated Station Access by Car (number of passengers)

Daily passengers accessing Soham by car

2021/22 2028/29

Scenario R3 (Ipswich-Peterb. & London-Cambridge freq. doubled)

43 49

5.4.2. Bicycle Of the estimated 747 rail trips accessing Soham station from the Soham urban area for the enhanced service scenario (R3) in 2021/22, it is expected that a proportion of these trips would access the station by bicycle. Analysis of NRTS data for previous projects suggests that the proportion of passengers accessing stations in East Cambridgeshire by bicycle is likely to be in the region of 5 – 10% of total station users, which gives an estimated requirement for 20 – 40 cycle spaces for the enhanced service scenario (R3) in 2021/22, assuming two rail trips accessing Soham by bicycle require one cycle space.



6. Proposed Station Design

6.1. Options Considered The following options have been considered for Soham Station during the project’s Option Selection Phase:

Option 1a - A single platform to be delivered ahead of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme; Option 1b - A two platform station to be delivered ahead of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme; Option 2 - A two platform station to be delivered as part of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme Option 3 - A two platform station to be delivered after the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme.

It was also required that for Options 1b, 2 and 3, station layouts should be considered that include footbridge access by either lifts or ramps.

Option 1a would involve the realignment of a curved section of track to allow the station platform to be located on a track radius of 1000m or greater. Option 1b would include the installation of approximately 900m of new track along with a new turnout and associated signalling, telecommunications and electrical works. These works would be required to allow trains to serve a second platform.

Options 2 and 3 would not require any works to the track, signalling, telecommunications or electrical systems as it is assumed that the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme would provide all the functionality required for the proposed station.

6.2. Station Layout

6.2.1. Common Elements The elements of the proposed Soham station which are not directly connected to the platforms or the bridge would be constant for all options. These are the access road, forecourt and car park and associated electrical, telecommunications and drainage works.

The station would be accessed via a road from a modified junction between Station Road and Mereside. This access road would connect to a roundabout equipped with a drop off/pick up area adjacent to the station forecourt. Extending south from the roundabout a further access road provides access to a new car park, a Network Rail CER and PSP compound and the existing Clark & Butchers UWC.

The station forecourt would provide ticket retail and bicycle storage facilities and the access route to the platforms. The forecourt would be arranged to maximise views of the entrance from Mereside, with all ticket vending machines (TVMs), structures, and circulation route entrances located on axis with the station entrance road and close to the proposed drop off to promote visibility and access.

6.2.2. Option 1A – Single Platform Station The 104m long single platform would be located 20m clear of the existing turnout at Soham to ensure that it would be clear of end throw effects of rail vehicles traversing the turnout. This results in the proposed platform being located to the Ely side of the main station site and would likely require third party land purchase to provide suitable access and egress to the platform. Due to its location, parts of the platform would need to be located on a 1,000m radius curve.

The proposed station is laid out in a way that a second platform and access bridge could be provided at a future date without requiring significant demolition works.

6.2.3. Option 1b, 2 and 3 – Double Platform Station The double platform station would have two 104m long platforms located in front of the station forecourt. Their proposed location is governed by the desire to maximise their straight length and for them to be located clear of the Soham Crossover proposed as part of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project.

The proposed station layout allows for the station bridge to be accessed via stairs and lifts, or stairs and ramps or all three. The layout also allows a footpath to be diverted over the footbridge to enable it to be redirected away from Soham Station UWC.



Figure 6-1 Option 1A: Proposed Single Platform Station Layout



Figure 6-2 Option 1B, 2 & 3: Proposed Double Platform Station Layout



6.3. Architecture

6.3.1. Key Design Principles All the proposed station layouts have been designed using the following principles.

Response to Site Boundaries The existing NR land boundary stretches longitudinally in a funnel shape alongside the railway line. It is bound by existing low density housing to the east and private agricultural property to the west. This arrangement limits views of the station from Mereside. The narrow shape of the site has driven the placement of all proposed station assets close to the railway and the proposed roundabout, providing optimum arrangements for accessibility, site access, parking, and to maximise wayfinding, including visibility of the station entrance. The possibility of a housing development on the scrub land to the north of the station created a desire to leave the northern boundary relatively free of structures to allow for a future pedestrian and cycle connection.

Site Access & Wayfinding All the proposed layouts have been designed to promote clear wayfinding to and throughout the station. The site has been organised to maximise views to the station entrance from Mereside. All Ticket Vending Machines (TVMs), structures, and circulation route entrances have been located on axis with the station entrance road and close to the proposed Roundabout / Passenger Drop off to promote visibility and access. It is anticipated that passengers will arrive to and leave the site by foot, by bicycle, or by car. Each of these modes of travel have been addressed within the station design to encourage safe access for all users.

Accessibility All station options have been designed for compliant PRM (Persons with Restricted Mobility) access. The double platform options have been designed to allow constant PRM access over the proposed footbridge. Entrances to these circulation routes have been located in close proximity to the proposed roundabout to provide station-wide accessibility for PRM passengers and to promote wayfinding among all passenger groups.

Passive Safety & Security Measures Soham Station is intended to be an unmanned station, at least in its initial operation. In conjunction with clear wayfinding over the entire site, passive safety measures have been introduced to improve the sense of security at the station. Design elements have been included to discourage anti-social activity at the station, such as:

Clear views to entrance, through the station, and through the carpark; Clear and concentrated lighting in certain areas, to promote wayfinding; Physical barriers to trackside areas; Passively controlled access points to platforms, enabling closure of the station after hours and in case of

emergency; Barrier heights are all at a minimum of 1.8m alongside the railway and in locations where a fall from

height could occur in close proximity to the tracks and future OLE; Enclosures with controlled access to all equipment onsite.



6.3.2. Proposed Design

6.3.2.1. Common Design Elements Platform Design All platforms are proposed to be constructed using modular cross wall construction, using standard construction techniques and details (see section 6.6.2.2). The platforms would be constructed using 3m deep modular sections, which allow for a 0.5m wide zone to back of platform for all lighting columns, telecoms equipment, and associated foundations. This depth ensures that a minimum 2.5m clear width along the full length of the platforms is maintained.

The platforms are proposed to be finished with slip-resistant surfaces and yellow tactile pavers to the coper edge in compliance with Network Rail Standards. The specifications for platform finishes are to be further developed during the next stage of works.

Maintenance access to trackside would be provided via stairs to each end of platform, with lockable end of platform gates provided to control access.

Platform Access All options have been designed with singular entrances onto the platform(s), which have been integrated into a continuous perimeter fenceline. This controlled access point would allow the closure of the station out of operational hours and in case of emergency. Platform access points have been located within the fenceline and separate from the stair, ramp, and lift entrances to facilitate constant public right of way access over the footbridge outside of station operating hours.

Emergency Platform Egress The main access to the station platform(s) would be at their southern end, because of this the fire strategy (see section 6.4) requires a secondary escape route from the northern ends of the platform(s). These route(s) would commence 25m from the northern ends of the platform and run behind them. They would be separated from the platform by solid brick walls to a height of 1.1m topped with blunt top fencing or similar to create a total barrier height of 1.8 metres. To the outside perimeter of the fire egress routes, away from the platform, blunt top fencing or similar approved fencing will be provided along the full length of the route.

The egress routes are to be provided at a reduced width, allowing only single-direction travel. At the entrance from back of platform, a mono-directional gate with push-bar would be provided. A second mono-directional gate with push bar would be provided to the egress route outlet to discourage antisocial behaviour.

Bicycle Parking Based on the 20-40 cycle space demand estimate (see section 5.4.2), 30 spaces have been provided for in the station design. Provision for an alternate bicycle parking location has been added to all station design options in the instance that a small station building be constructed, or if greater than expected demand materialises.

The proposed design for bicycle parking comprises 15 Sheffield (or similar) bicycle stands placed at 1m centres below a modular Macemain Amstad Global Shelter (or similar). This is the largest canopy structure in all station options. It is a double sided arrangement providing cover to the bicycle parking at the station forecourt and creating a shelter on the Platform 1 side. This canopy is to be fitted with additional light fixtures to meet the minimum lighting requirements for the platform below.

Ticketing (TVMs) Ticketing has been located close to the station roundabout and disabled parking. For the double platform options, two TVMs have been placed between the entrance to the Platform 1 stair and Ramp/Lift entrances, promoting equal access to the machines for all passengers. For the Single Platform Option, the TVMs have been placed in a different location, which suits the forecourt design and platform access.

Shelters Modular platform shelters are proposed to be provided in multiple locations for all options. The canopy arrangements are based on modular Macemain Amstad Global Shelters, which include integral lighting, drainage, and provisions for integrated station signage. The modules are 3m wide, with depths varying between 2.5 and 3m based on location and use. Refer to the Architectural Drawings for the three proposed station options and option specific canopy locations and sizes.



The vertical structure and foundations have been incorporated into the back of platform brick wall design and proposed platform structure. Solid panels would be fixed between the vertical posts to provide a continuous secure perimeter to the platforms. The solid panels also provide potential locations for customer information and signage.

Covered seating would be provided at each platform shelters, with a 900mm x 1350mm space provision for wheelchair seating in alignment with PRM TSI 4.2.1.7. Additional platform seating requirements are to be confirmed at the outset of the next stage of the design.

Passive Provision for a Station Building Passive space provision for a future station building has been incorporated into all station options. The footprint for this proposed building is based on a proprietary Yorkon prefabricated modular building structure. Dimensions are based on 6 x 4m modules, providing 16m in total length and 6m in total depth. An area of 96m2 has been provided to house the following spaces at a minimum:

Information Office with External Window– it is assumed that all ticketing would occur at the TVMs; Staff Break Area / Mess Room; Staff PRM WC; Store.

6.3.2.2. Option 1A - Single Platform Station Phased Approach The design of the single platform station has been developed under the assumption that this scheme is part one of a phased approach to the construction of a new station at Soham. It is reliant on the retention of the existing single track for the first phase of the station construction. It is intended that one of the double platform options, described subsequently, could be constructed as phase two if some extent of double tracking of the SOB2 line is completed at a later date.

When the second track and platform is constructed, platform one would be extended southwards to improve access from the station forecourt and to connect with the platform link bridge.

Platform Access The location for the access to the single platform varies from the double platform options as it further north to avoid impacting the existing turnout at Soham Junction. This northerly location of the platform would result in a limited overlap between it and the station forecourt, creating limited space for passenger access directly onto the platform. Due to the limited space available, emergency egress requirements, and the need for a large visible entrance to the platform, it appears that an area of third party land (believed to be currently owned by Regional & City Estates) would need to be purchased.

Platform Emergency Egress The proposed back of platform Egress Route would provide access to the station forecourt, moving passengers away from a hazardous event on the platform or adjacent track. Forecourt paving is to be continued along the full length of the Platform 1 Egress Route and any changes in level are to be accommodated at a slope shallower than 1:20. In this Single Platform Option, the egress route encroaches over the Network Rail site boundary, requiring third party land purchase.

Platform Shelters Modular platform canopies are proposed to be provided in multiple locations along the single platform. The canopies have been placed to minimise additional works to the canopy structures during construction of the station’s potential second phase, when a second platform would be provided.

Bicycle Parking The phase one bicycle parking has been placed in the optimum location based on the platform location, entrance to the platform, and proposed TVM location. It is assumed that this element would be relocated during the phase two works to the new optimum location for the second phase design arrangement.

Ticketing (TVMs) Phase one TVMs have been located close to the centre of the Station Forecourt. The placement of this element would be adjacent to the proposed platform entrance. During the potential phase two works, the TVMs would require relocation adjacent to the proposed stairs and ramp or lift to promote equal access in this area.

Passive Space Provision for Station Building It is assumed that, if determined viable for the project, the construction of a Station Building would only take place during the construction of the second platform.



6.3.2.3. Option 1b, 2 & 3 – Double Platform Station with Stairs & Ramps

Platform Emergency Egress From Platform 1, the proposed back of platform Egress Route would provide access to the station forecourt, moving passengers away from a hazardous event on the platforms or tracks. Forecourt paving is to be continued along the full length of the Platform 1 Egress Route and any changes in level are to be accommodated at a slope shallower than 1:20.

From Platform 2, the proposed back of platform Egress Route would guide passengers along the length of the platform and toward a second paved egress route which would take passengers to the site boundary and outlet onto an existing public footpath. This second span of the egress route forms part of the continuous PRM access over the railway.

Link Bridge A modular prefabricated pedestrian Link Bridge has been designed at a minimum height of 5.8m above the proposed track level to allow for future OLE installation. The proposed bridge is proposed to be sited to the south of the proposed platform, serving as the primary access route over the proposed rails. PRM access to the bridge would be facilitated via the proposed ramp access.

The bridge would be uncovered and finished with slip-resistant materials to the floor finish. 1.8m high parapet surrounds are to be provided in line with NR standards for routes which may be electrified. Modular metal cladding panels are proposed to be fixed between vertical posts. Solid panels are to be fixed to the lower section of the bridge façades, with perforated metal panels fixed at the top to increase visibility.

Handrails are not proposed across the bridge as they could act as climbing aids.

Stairs Access to the proposed Link Bridge would be facilitated by proposed stairs and ramps. The prefabricated modular steel stair would have Network Rail standard balustrading and handrails, supported by vertical columns below the stair landings. The proposed stair design would utilise NR standard components and finishes to minimise risk in design, assembly, installation, and maintenance. All balustrading is to be a minimum of 1.8m high to protect against future OLE touch potential and falls from height.

Each stair assembly would comprise three flights with 12 risers per flight, in compliance with Approved Document Part K for a total of 36 risers. The flights are separated by 2m landings with 4m runoffs to top and bottom in compliance with Network Rail Station Capacity Guidance (2011). All steps are to have a rise between 150 and 170mm. All goings are to be between 250 and 400mm in compliance with Approved Document Part K. The internal width of each stair is to be a minimum of 1.8m between handrails to allow dual direction circulation.

Stair treads and landings are to have standard non-slip finishes. Stair nosings and tactiles to top and bottom of stairs are to comply with Network Rail standards.

Ramps PRM access to the link bridge over the tracks would be facilitated via double stacked prefabricated steel ramps. The ramps have been designed in the optimum arrangement for accessibility and the site constraints. The design is based on 12 modular 9.25m flights with 2m landings and ramp slopes at 1:20. By arranging the 12 flights in a stacked orientation, structural efficiencies have been maximised, reducing overall material and reducing the footprint width on a narrow site. The internal widths of the ramps are to be a minimum of 1.8m between handrails to allow dual direction circulation.

Network Rail standard materials and finishes would be utilised with a painted finish to all metal surfaces. The ramps are to be supported on steel columns with NR standard balustrading. Tactile pavers are to be provided to the top and bottom of each ramp structure to indicate a change in level.

At the ramp base, blunt top fencing or similar approved is to be applied at ground level to prevent public access and antisocial behaviour in and around the ramp supports.

It should be noted that providing ramps as the only means of PRM access for a significant level change is not in full compliance with the following standards:

BS8300: In BS 8300 and subsequently DfT - Design Standards for Accessible Railway Stations and Parts M/K, it is recommended that where the total rise in a series of ramps is greater than 2 metres, an alternative means of step free access be provided.

NR station Capacity Guidance: The Network Rail Station Capacity Guidance (2011) notes that where the change in height is greater than 5 metres, circulation via escalator or lift is recommended.



Passive Lift Provision A spatial passive provision for PRM lift access to the Link Bridge has been included to allow for future lift provision. It is recommended that a combination of lifts and ramps be utilised to provide an alternate route for PRM users in cases where ramp use is not practical for pedestrians/passengers who may have difficulty walking the length of ramps required to ascend over 5m in height.

Minimal further development of this option would be required to provide both Lifts and Ramps in the station design.

Bicycle Parking The bicycle parking is proposed to be located centrally to the access road’s axis to assist in wayfinding at the station. The canopy over the parking serves a dual purpose, providing a core of light adjacent to the station entrance and a potential location for station signage.

6.3.2.4. Option 1b, 2 & 3 – Double Platform Station with Stairs & Lifts Platform Emergency Egress The emergency egress for the double platform station with lifts would be the same as for the double station platform with ramps.

Link Bridge The proposed design of the link bridge with lifts would be principally the same as for the double station platform with ramps.

Stairs The proposed design of the stairs would be principally the same for both the double platform options.

PRM Lift PRM access to the link bridge over the proposed tracks is proposed to be facilitated via PRM through lifts. A through car entrance and exit arrangement would provide continuous flow of passengers between levels. The lift entrances have been oriented close to the proposed stairs and ticket machines (TVMs) to provide equal access options for all station users.

The lift footprint and associated structure have been based on a 16 person Stannah Lift model. This Manufacturer and model are to be confirmed at the outset of the next stage of design. At each lift, a LEER has been sited adjacent to the lift shaft and below the Lift Landing at Bridge Level. The size requirements for this element are to be confirmed at the outset of the next phase of design.

Perch seating would be provided at both platform level lift entrances in alignment with Code of Practice Guidance. Where practical, the seating would be covered to protect against inclimate weather.

The external finish to the PRM lifts would consist of composite metal cladding. Internal fittings are to meet the needs of PRM users in accordance with NR specification for New and Upgraded lifts NR/SP/ELP/27228. Such requirements include, but are not limited to the following:

Colour contrast, slip resistant floor covering to the lift car; Colour contrasted handrails.

Where applicable, mirrors should to be provided to aid reversing wheelchair users.

Ramp Passive Provision Passive space provision for ramp access to the Link Bridge has been included in the proposed station layouts to allow the possibility of providing both ramp and lift access to the bridge. Providing both lifts and ramps would provide operational resilience in case of lift malfunction, and safeguarding the space for this does not require any compromises to the station’s design.

Minimal further development of this option would be required to provide both Lifts and Ramps in the station design. This will include further coordination of LEER locations to provide optimal access to both the lifts and ramps.

Bicycle Parking The bicycle parking provision is proposed to be the same for both double platform station options.



6.3.3. Future Design Refinement The following areas are to be confirmed or further developed during the next stage of works for all options:

Development of material and proprietary product specifications for all station assets; The train operator’s requirements to be understood and incorporated into the design; The location and types of ancillary station elements such as bins, signage and seating; The location and type of access controls to the stair, ramp, and lift entrances; The access and egress arrangements for the single platform station (Option 1A) to reduce or remove the

need for third party land; Confirmation of exact extents of Network Rail land boundary; Incorporation of construction phasing considerations; Development of the design for the connection to the existing footpath alongside the Soham Lode.

6.4. Fire

6.4.1. Key Design Criteria The aim of the fire strategy is to ensure the life safety of persons in, or around the new station in the event of a fire. Wherever practicable, the guidance of Approved Document B Volume 2 (ABD), the Railway Safety Principles and Guidance Part 2 Section B (RSPG) and Rail Industry Standards (RIS) has been used to meet the functional requirements of the Building Regulations.

6.4.2. Design Requirements Means of Escape It is recommended in RSPG that at least two alternative escape routes should be provided from each platform, with a travel distance of not more than 90m between any two exits. Each platform would be provided with two exits, in both options the distance between these exits would not exceed 50m.

There would be dead-ends on the extremities of both platforms in both options. It is intended that as the length of these dead-end would not greatly exceed the length of a train carriage (≈25m), and as such should be considered acceptable.

The provision of the back of platform egress routes, separated from the platform by fire resistant construction, allows it to be assumed that passengers would not be required to pass alongside or through a train on fire.

Fire Fighter Access Fire-fighter access to the platforms is proposed to be provided via the access road to the station and carpark to the east of the SOB 2 line. This access road would be sized sufficiently to meet the recommendations of ADB for fire appliance access.

A roundabout would be provided at the end of this access road. This proposed roundabout is of sufficient dimensions to provide turning facilities for a pumping or high-reach appliance.

Fire-fighting Equipment A fire hydrant is proposed to be provided within 90m of the entrance to the platforms. It is assumed that a dry mains would not be required along the platforms. This should be confirmed with the relevant fire and rescue authority.

6.4.3. Fire Strategy A preliminary fire strategy has been proposed for Soham station, this is available on eB with the reference 150723-ATK-STR-EMF-000001.



6.5. Public Realm

6.5.1. Key Design Principles The key principles for the public realm design were:

Maintaining access to the two existing properties adjacent to the access track; Maintaining access to Clark and Butcher’s UWC; Providing a layout that minimises the interaction between pedestrians and vehicles; Providing access for fire appliances and rail replacement bus services to the station forecourt; Maximising opportunities for passive surveillance of the forecourt and car park; Designing a layout to adoptable highway standards to provide future options for ownership and

maintenance; Grading the site to provide level access to Platform 1, crossfalls in line with accessibility guidance and

adequate drainage paths while avoiding the need for retention structures; Creating the possibility of a pedestrian link to the proposed residential development to the north of the

station site.

6.5.2. Proposed Design Mereside / Station Road Junction Improvements It is proposed to improve the alignment of the existing junction between Mereside and Station Road to improve pedestrian safety. The proposed works include the creation of formal crossing locations through the realignment of kerbs, this would also reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Further pedestrian protection is proposed through the introduction of waiting and loading restrictions by means of double yellow lines in the immediate vicinity of the junction.

The pavement material for both the carriageway and footway at this location would be a black bituminous surface with a conservation kerb laid to the carriageway edge. However, only a resurfacing of the carriageway at this location is envisaged. All proposed works at this location would match and tie into existing highway alignment and construction.

Access Road The existing access track providing connectivity with Mereside would be upgraded to provide a new 6.0m wide access road with a 2.0m wide footway on its northern side. The footway has been located to the northern side to maintain pedestrian access to adjoining premises, provide greater separation from the carriageway edge and to remove pedestrian road crossings. Waiting and loading restrictions by means of double yellow lines are proposed along the entire length of the access road to prevent parking. The pavement material for both the carriageway and footway at this location would be a black bituminous surface with a conservation kerb laid to the carriageway edge.

Station Forecourt The station forecourt would be the main focus of activity for all trips generated by the station. A 28.0m wide turning area is proposed, capable of accommodating buses & coaches, providing access to the car park area, a dedicated set down & pick up area, cycle parking, ticket kiosk and space for unhindered movement of pedestrians.

A dropped kerb is proposed at the commencement of the pick up area to enable access to the forecourt by cyclists as well as any service and maintenance vehicles. The pavement material for this area is proposed to be a black bituminous surface for the carriageway, with high quality concrete block paving setts for the forecourt areas with conservation kerb laid to the carriageway edge.

Car Parking The car park access road would extend south from the forecourt turning area and provide access to 50 parking bays, a PSP compound and Clark and Butcher’s User Worked Crossing. The access road would run parallel to the existing land boundary, offset by a minimum of 4.0m to accommodate level differences and provide space for landscape planting.

A lockable height restriction barrier is proposed for the commencement of the car park access road to deter overnight parking by high sided vehicles. Restrictions on parking, waiting and loading on the access road would be communicated by means of double yellow lines. The pavement material for the carriageway and footways would be a black bituminous surface with a conservation kerb laid to the carriageway edge.



The car park is proposed to contain a total of 50 car parking bays, including 5 larger bays close to the station forecourt dedicated for mobility impaired parking. The parking bay dimensions are proposed to be 4.8m x 2.4m, with the mobility impaired bays being 3m wide. Parking bays would be individually marked by white road markings. The pavement material for both the carriageway and footway at this location will be a black bituminous surface with a conservation kerb laid to the carriageway edge.

Motorcycle Parking Motorcycle parking would be provided to the southern side of the access road close to the station forecourt area. The motorcycle bays would be set back from the carriageway edge to enable safe movement of riders whilst attending to their motorcycles. A pedestrian footway would connect the motorcycle parking bays with the station forecourt via a dedicated crossing across the car park access road.

Network Rail PSP Compound A Principal Supply Point (PSP) for the signalling power system would be located at Soham at the edge of the car park. The PSP would be located within a secure compound, with access required for emergency and routine maintenance. Access to the compound is from the car park access road and would be capable of accommodating large vehicles of up to 12.0m in length.

Access to Clark and Butcher’s User Worked Crossing Clark and Butcher’s User Worked Crossing would be accessed from the end of the car park access road via a lockable gate. Beyond the gate the track would be constructed from compacted granular fill.

6.5.3. Future Design Refinement Prior to the next stage of design consultation with key stakeholders such as CCC, NR and the TOC would be required to develop a full understanding of their requirements and any suggested minor design changes.

If the proposals for the residential development of the site to the north of the station are being progressed during the next design stage, discussions should be held with this developer to explore the possibility of providing a pedestrian and cycle link between the two sites.

Figure 6-3 Looking towards Mereside along Existing Access Track



6.6. Structures

6.6.1. Key Design Criteria The design loading associated with the new station at Soham are as follows:

All Structures Basic wind velocity: 21.5m/s in accordance with BS EN 1991-1-4. Snow loading: basic loading of 0.6kN/m2 in accordance with BS EN 1991-1-3. Self-weight of steel components calculated in accordance with relative material densities.

Footbridge Live loading to footbridge: 5.0kN/m2 uniformly distributed load or 10kN concentrated load over a

100mm x 100mm area in accordance with BS EN 1991-2 Crowd loading for parapet/handrail to be 3.0kN/m in accordance with BS EN 1991-2. The column supports for the new footbridge are located within 4.5m of the running edge on the

Eastern platform. In accordance with Network Rail Company Standard NR/L3/CIV/020, clause B4, a solid infill platform (bund) shall be constructed to provide protection to the footbridge supports from derailed vehicles. The platform shall be separated by compressible material from the footbridge/canopy supports. Progressive collapse is not considered due to the protection afforded by a solid platform.

Platforms Live Loading on platforms to be 5.0kN/m2 uniformly distributed load, or 5.0kN concentrated load over

a 300mm x 300mm area in accordance with Network Rail Standard NR/L3/CIV/030 and BS EN 1991-1-1 Category C5, whichever produces the maximum effect upon the element.

Ramps and Staircases Live loading to ramp and staircases: 5.0kN/m2 uniformly distributed load. The column supports for the staircase are located within 4.5m of the running edge on the Eastern

platform. In accordance with Network Rail Company Standard NR/L3/CIV/020, clause B4, a solid infill platform (bund) shall be constructed to provide protection to the footbridge supports from derailed vehicles. The platform shall be separated by compressible material from the footbridge/canopy supports. Progressive collapse is not considered due to the protection afforded by a solid platform.

Deflections The deflection limits are in accordance with the National Annex to BS EN 1993-1-1 for steel framed buildings and structures as follows:

Horizontal Deflections: o Tops of columns in single storey buildings except portal frames: height/300

Vertical deflections: o Cantilevers: length/180 o Beams carrying brittle finishes: length/360 o Other beams (except purlins and sheeting rails): length/200

6.6.2. Proposed Design

6.6.2.1. Foundations

Pile foundations are proposed for the footings for bridge, ramp, platform and staircase columns due to the extents of the Made Ground encountered on site. This has been done to avoid the risks of differential settlements of shallow/strip foundations.

The footbridge, ramp and staircase have all been designed with bored pile foundations. Piles are 450mm in diameter and typically 10m deep. A pile has been specified at each individual column support position. Where relevant, piles have been grouped into pile caps for construction ease and additional stability.

6.6.2.2. Platforms

Platforms have been specified as being of crosswall construction with modular precast planks in accordance with Network Rail Standard Drawing Series NR/CIV/SD/3020. Crosswalls have been spaced at 6m intervals, for a total platform length of 104m. Lighting columns have been spaced at 12m intervals to line up with the



crosswalls, with associated draw pits provided as required. Plinths for lighting columns and other platform structures are proposed to be provided at the pilecap locations on the 6m grid. The precast planks would have a reinforced structural screed topping, laid to falls. 900 x 600 holes would be formed in the platforms at 12m centres for access to cable pits beneath.

Platform 1 would require a retaining wall solution to provide level access with the forecourt, therefore a ‘nib’ has been provided indicatively on the pilecap, and an additional precast plank would be used, strapped to the crosswall to provide restraint during the temporary condition. Crosswalls have been checked for shear from the load imposed by the retaining wall.

Platform 2 includes provision for an escape route behind a fire-proof barrier, therefore the platform construction has been extended at this location to 4.5m.

For the double platform station layout the track geometry running through the station is sufficiently straight so that the curve in the track can be accommodated by adjusting the overhang of the platform edge coping while maintaining a straight platform structure. The single platform station track geometry is more curved and would require the platform’s structural grid to be stepped to follow the track curvature at its northern end.

There is a proprietary fence proposed for the back of the platforms. It incorporates a 1100mm tall fire wall in the central section of the platforms, and is supported by the platform structure or by additional buried concrete foundations. When it reaches the stair/ramp structure, the fence should be integrated into that structure to limit access to beneath the structure. The fence steps down to track level at the ends of the platform.

6.6.2.3. Ramps

The ramps are designed at a 1:20 slope, with an average length of 9.25m. The landings are two meters long, and the clear widths allow for passing to ensure compliance with relevant accessibility standards.

Each landing has been assembled with individual column supports at each location. It should be noted that the ‘worst case column’ is that which takes three stacks of ramps. The ramp structure is proposed to comprise ramp and landing elements that can be prefabricated off-site for modular construction. Ramp stringers are UB sections, with the ramp in steel plate supported on small steel sections at 600mm centres, each unit fully welded off-site and bolted into position.

Stability is provided in the longitudinal direction by the main tower structure, and there is an opportunity to install additional cross-bracing within the central bay.

6.6.2.4. Bridge The platform link bridge would span approximately thirteen metres from back of platform to back of platform, and lands on a ‘tower’ which serves a central landing for the staircase, bridge and ramp structures. The bridge is proposed to 2.45m wide, and is composed of SHS sections at 1.3m centres (allowing for ten bays within the bridge).

The bridge has been designed as a vierendeel truss. Consideration of U-Frame action has been accounted for within the design. The bridge will require 1.8m high solid parapets. Alternative structural forms or materials could be considered at a later phase of design, such as GRP. Solid parapets are achieved by infilling the openings in the truss with non-structural panels.

It is anticipated the bridge would be manufactured offsite and craned into place.

6.6.3. Future Design Refinement The following items have been identified as possible considerations for further design stages.

Widening of the eastern platform (platform 1) to 3.6m to allow for increased space for service coordination. At present, the design is 3.0m, which might provide difficulties during detailed design in allowing for coordination of all of the relevant lighting columns, canopy structures and CCTV cameras.

The ground falls to the west side of the station and then rises again, forming a channel that runs parallel to the platforms. This could drain to the Soham Lode to the south. It is important that environmental consideration is given to this interface at detailed design. The structures should not be designed such that they dam the slopes; appropriate measures such as weep holes may need to be incorporated.

Consideration of providing canopies to the stairs, ramps and bridge. Incorporation of construction phasing considerations; Consideration of alternative platform structure types with the aim of simplifying construction.



6.7. Mechanical, Electrical and Public Health LVAC Power and Distribution A new 100A TP&N supply to serve the station and TOC controlled infrastructure would require to be installed within a new metering and LVAC distribution cubicle of GRP construction to the north of the roundabout. This supply would serve the station lighting and power supplies to the platforms, footbridge, car park and ramp/lifts, depending upon the chosen option.

In addition to the above, a new TP&N supply (100A TP&N for Option 1A and a 315A TP&N for Option 1B, 2 and 3) would be required to serve NR owned infrastructure. This supply would also be installed into a new metering and LVAC distribution cubicle of GRP construction, but installed within the fence line of the proposed PSP compound. The proposed cubicle would have space provision for the DNO service head and meter together with new distribution switchgear and controls serving supplies to local electrical and plant infrastructure. The cubicle would be mounted on a purpose built reinforced concrete base complete with cable access compatible with the cable management system.

The existing Soham Yard 100A DNO supply which is foul of the new station car park roadway would be decommissioned, isolated and removed.

A TP&N supply would be run from the TOC DNO cubicle to the LVAC station switch room located below the footbridge stairs on Platform 1. Power supplies from the switch room would be provided to serve general power and lighting, as well as TOC operational equipment.

For the lift option, a TP&N supply would be run to each of the lift machine rooms serving the hydraulic lifts and domestic supplies.

Lighting Lighting columns have been placed throughout the site to provide minimum lighting levels to the station access road, carpark, the station entrance, and platforms.

The open platform areas would be illuminated by LED Starbeam luminaires mounted on 6m raise and lower columns, with the columns aligned with the proposed platform cross walls. The car park and approach road would use similar Starbeam LED luminaires mounted 8m raise and lower columns. The footbridge and ramp would have LED vandal resistant bulkhead luminaires fixed at typically 3.75m centres on the footbridge landing and open ramp areas. Within the covered areas of the ramp linear LED luminaires would be installed to the underside of the upper floor. The required and modelled lighting levels are shown in Table 6-1.

All lighting would be automatically controlled using a photocell and timeclock governed control system with manual override facilities. Plant and switch rooms would be illuminated using utility type bulkhead or linear luminaires.

Emergency lighting would be required to be installed on station evacuation routes (platform and egress walkways), the footbridge and ramps. Non-maintained bulkhead luminaires would be installed along the walkway and platform at approximately 4m centres, whilst the ramp area emergency lighting would typically be at 7.5m centres providing a minimum illuminance of 2 lux on the evacuation route.

Table 6-1 Target and Modelled Lighting Levels

Area Target lux levels Modelled lux levels

Platforms 20 lux min at platform edge, 35-50 lux ave and 6lux measured 1m vertically above the platform edge

Uniformity 0.4

26 lux min;

63 lux ave;

Uniformity 0.42;

Footbridge/ramp 100 lux ave 123 lux ave

Approach Road 10 lux ave 11 lux ave

Forecourt Area 20 lux ave 28 lux ave

Carpark 15 lux ave 23 lux (ave between carpark areas)

Emergency exit route 2 lux min on evacuation route 2.7 lux

Notes: [1] Lighting levels based on NR SE Territory lighting Guidance Note and Railway Standard GIRT7016 [2] Maintenance factor 0.85, [3] Dialux calculations subject to refinement at Form A and B.



Cold Water Main A new metered cold water main would be derived from Anglia Water Plc network in Mere Side Road, serving a water standpipe adjacent to platform 1. Lined cold water distribution pipework would be used to prevent contamination impregnating the MDPE pipeline.

Given the potential for the water supply to be used for cleaning activities a type AB air gap would be required to provide backflow protection and prevent contamination of the water main. This would require the installation of a small booster pump and 18 litre header tank incorporating the type AB air gap. This packaged cold water booster set would be located with a GRP cubicle on the north side of the roundabout. The standpipe would be installed within a lockable housing to prevent unauthorised usage.

Passive provision would be allowed for within the design capacity of the cold water main for a station building to be constructed in the future.

Fire Main Similar to the cold water main, the fire main would be derived from Anglia Water Plc network in Mereside and be a lined MDPE pipe. The fire main would be independent from the domestic cold water main and run to a below ground hydrant in the pedestrian area northwest of the roundabout. The hydrant would be a minimum of 6m and a maximum of 90m from any proposed or future buildings/platforms. The minimum flow rate at the hydrant would need to be 25 l/s.

Foul Drainage No foul drainage infrastructure is proposed to be installed as there is no need for it with the current station proposals. If a station building were to be constructed in the future it is anticipated that any foul drainage demand would be met through the use of a sceptic tank type solution.

Figure 6-4 Existing DNO Cubicle



6.8. Drainage

6.8.1. Key Design Criteria & Constraints Ground Levels The proposed site for the Soham Station development is located adjacent to Soham Lode, a channelised watercourse which drains the surrounding fenland. The water level of Soham Lode is controlled by pumps located northwest of Soham where the Lode meets the river Great Ouse approximately 4 miles from the site and has been surveyed at 1.8 m AOD in the vicinity of the proposed station.

Existing ground levels at the junction of the access road and the existing highway (Station Road/Mereside) are approximately 4.7 m AOD, approximately 5.0 m AOD in the vicinity of the proposed station and approximately 4.3 m AOD at the southern end of the station site near Soham Lode.

There is existing surface water drainage along Mereside but based on the levels of the site it would be difficult to drain to this by gravity so it is proposed to outfall the site drainage into Soham Lode.

Discharge Rate The drainage design has been carried out based on the guidance given in the Environment Agency Report – SC030219, Rainfall Runoff Management for Developments. The Environment Agency normally require that, for the range of annual flow rate probabilities, up to and including the 1% annual probability (1 in 100 year event) the developed rate of runoff into a watercourse should be no greater than the undeveloped rate of runoff for the same event. The purpose of this is to retain a natural flow regime in the receiving watercourse and not increase peak rates of flow for events of an annual probability greater than 1%.

Calculating the undeveloped runoff rate using the IH124 method results in a runoff rate of 0.5 l/s for a 1% annual probability event. However, it is recognised that it is not practical to reduce drainage discharges below 5 l/s due to the constraints on the size of hydraulic control units and therefore the developed runoff from the station development is proposed to be limited to 5 l/s.

6.8.2. Proposed Design The proposed drainage system would consist of a pipe network running from the Station Road/Mereside junction along the access road to the railway then running south down to Soham Lode. The access road is drained with kerbs and gullies with the car park drained along its eastern side by combined kerb drainage units. The hard surfaces associated with the eastern side of the railway (platform, canopies, ramps, forecourt, etc.) are drained into the piped network. The surface water from hard surfaces to the west of the railway would infiltrate informally to the ground.

In order to limit the development runoff rate to 5 l/s a total of 280m3 storage would be required in addition to that provided within the drainage system itself. It is proposed that this storage be provided in underground tanks formed by geocellular units wrapped in geotextiles as this is one of the most cost effective attenuation storage solutions for constrained sites. One of these tanks is proposed to be located below the northern end of the car park, with the other below the southern end of the car park.

The site drainage has been designed based on the requirements of ‘Sewers for Adoption’ such that water levels do not rise above cover levels (flood) for storms with an annual probability of 3.3% or more. Up to the 1% annual probability event, runoff is managed within the site so that no damage or nuisance is caused by the runoff both within the site and beyond the site boundaries.

Stormwater runoff for all rainfall events is contaminated to some degree. This is due to the flush of debris and sediment from paved surfaces being “washed off” in the first part of the storm together with any sediment deposits in the pipe network. Current best practice is to provide a SUDS treatment train to reduce the risk of pollution. However, due to the constrained nature of the station development site it is difficult to include many SUDS treatment systems. Therefore, a separator (oil interceptor) has been included to protect the environment from hydrocarbon pollution associated with oils likely to be dropped on the parking areas. It may be that at later design stages, following a more detailed pollution risk assessment, this would not be necessary but it is felt prudent to include it at this stage as polluters can face prosecution from the Environment Agency. Other possible pollutants including sediment and heavy metals would also need to be assessed to ensure these do not cause pollution.



6.8.3. Future Design Refinement Existing Culvert Location An existing culvert is believed to exist underneath the southern portion of the proposed car park, crossing from a short length of ditch to the east of the car park, beneath the railway to a ditch on its western side. This ditch is then believed to connect to Soham Lode. At the present time only the eastern culvert inlet has been located and there is a risk that the culvert would clash with the proposed drainage pipes. It is recommended that this be surveyed to enable the drainage design to be verified before further design is undertaken.

Discharge to Soham Lode An Environmental permit is required under the Environmental Permitting Regulations Standard Rule No. 27 for construction of the outfall and headwall into Soham Lode. This permit is time limited to three years so is best sought from the EA when the works have been programmed to proceed. Environmental Risk Assessments would be required together with details of the Management System that would be put in place to manage the impact to the environment from the works.

Figure 6-5 UB2233 over the Soham Lode



6.9. Station Information and Security Systems Communications Equipment Room A new Communications Equipment Room (CER) is proposed be provided within the TOC portion of a fenced compound to the south of the station platforms. This would be a self-contained 2.4m2 building with air conditioning and house two 42U high equipment racks for the CCTV, CIS, PA and structured cabling equipment. Space would be provided within the racks for the TOC WAN connection and associated equipment.

CCTV System An Internet Protocol (IP) based surveillance CCTV system is proposed to be installed at Soham station. CCTV cameras would be cabled directly back to a CCTV patch panel using CAT6 cable, with all cameras being PoE supplied. For cameras greater than 90m from the CER, PoE Ethernet extenders will be used to connect back to the CER.

The system would provide CCTV coverage for 90-95% of the station. All camera images would be continuously recorded onto local hard drives in accordance with Network Rail standards and the recordings of all camera images maintained for at least 31 days. A UPS would be provided for the CCTV system.

The TOC has no current ability to view or access CCTV images from any station remotely and as such no remote access is proposed.

A rack mounted CCTV system monitor and keyboard for the selection, set-up, viewing and playback of camera images would be provided in the CER.

All Passenger Help Point (PHP) locations would have a dedicated camera to record the image of the PHP, and the person initiating a call, for future viewing and incident analysis if required. The bicycle storage areas and Ticket Vending Machines (TVM) would also be monitored by dedicated CCTV cameras.

All passenger and public areas at the station, including platforms and shelters, would be covered by a number of cameras sufficient to adhere to the requirements of NR/GN/TEL/50017.

Cameras shall be provided for the lifts (if provided) and images returned to the CER for recording.

Public Address System A public address (PA) system would be provided at Soham station to meet the requirements in NR/L2/TEL/30134. The system would have the facility to broadcast live or pre-recorded announcements from the remote control centre via a Long Line Public Announcement (LLPA) system provided by Atos Worldline via the TOC WAN.

The system would comprise control and amplifier equipment located within the CIS/PA rack in the station CER. The equipment will consist of an IP Digital PA Router, patch panel and PA amplifiers. No UPS is proposed for the PA system.

Dynamic Ambient Noise Sensors (DANS) would be located on the platforms to monitor ambient sound levels and adjust amplifier outputs to be appropriately above ambient noise levels.

Separate PA zones would be provided for each platform, with each zone split into two speaker chains (A and B) to provide diversity for each chain and resilience in case of failure of a single chain.

Audio Frequency Induction Loop (AFIL) units would be provided near the Next Train Indicator (NTI) displays. These would enable the hearing-impaired to receive announcements.

Projection loudspeakers would be provided for the platform areas with loudspeakers installed on lighting columns along the platforms. IP rated junction boxes will be installed in the base of the lighting columns for cable terminations.

Speakers would be connected in a daisy chain configuration starting at the PA amplifiers.

Customer Information System A customer information system is proposed to be provided in accordance with Network Rail Standard NR/SP/TEL/30130, “Electronic Customer Information Systems – Minimum Requirements”.

CIS displays would be provided on the platforms and at the station entrance to provide passengers with information regarding trains and station service operations.



The CIS displays would be connected back to the CER patch panel using CAT6 cabling. An RJ45 connection box would be located close to each CIS display. For CIS displays located greater than 90m from the CER ethernet extenders would be used. No UPS is proposed for the CIS system.

Back to back single-sided NTI displays would be located on platforms using gallows type posts. A single sided Summary of Departures (SOD) board would be located at the station entrance using a gallows type post.

The train service information displayed on the CIS would be provided from the Atos Worldline LICC at Romford Rail Operating Centre (ROC).

230VAC power supply, cabling, and switched fused spurs would be installed within 2m of each CIS display location.

Passenger Help Points Two-button (Emergency and Information) GSM Passenger Help Point (PHP) facilities would be provided on the platforms (2 per platform) to allow passengers and public to initiate calls in an emergency, or to request information.

Passengers would be able to initiate an emergency call to an operator and request assistance by pressing the Emergency button. They would also be able to obtain train-running information from the TOC by pressing the Information button.

Lift Requirements If lifts are provided, it is assumed that the lift supplier would supply and install GSM type lift telephones within each lift.

Each lift would be equipped with a fixed CCTV camera cabled by the lift supplier to a termination point in the vicinity of each lift. The circuit would be extended back to the CER by CAT6 cabling.

Ticket Vending Machines Ticket machines will be provided at the entrance to the station. CAT6 cabling should be provided from each ticket machine to the CER for connection to the TOC WAN.

Cable Ducts and Containment New cable ducting will be required to serve all new cabling at the station. This would include:

New platform ducts from the CER to equipment on both platforms; Cross track containment using a proposed UTX.

In order to reduce interference due to induction effects from power cables on sensitive Telecoms cables, the Telecoms cables should be kept separate from power cables.



7. Proposed Rail Infrastructure

7.1. Introduction The four possible options for constructing a station at Soham would require different amounts of alteration to the existing rail infrastructure:

Option 1a, a single platform station – This option would require only minimal changes to the railway infrastructure;

Option 1b, a two platform station to be delivered ahead of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme –This option would require the construction of approximately 900m of new track with associated changes to the signalling, communications and power systems;

Option 2, a two platform station to be delivered as part of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme – this option would effectively piggy back on the infrastructure changes being carried out by the doubling project

Option 3, a two platform station to be delivered after the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme – this option would require minimal infrastructure changes as they would have been previously carried out by the doubling scheme.

This section of the report describes the rail infrastructure changes required for Options 1A and 1B.

For Options 2 and 3, the design of the track doubling scheme incorporates passive provision for Soham station in terms of track alignment, signal location, cable routing and so on. This design is described in the doubling project’s GRIP 3c Design Summary Report, which is available on eB with the reference 122955-ATK-REP-EMG-000006, and has not been repeated here.

7.2. Option 1A – Single Platform Station

7.2.1. Track The proposed single platform is proposed to be located approximately 20m away from the toes of 1181 points (Soham Junction) in order that the platform edge position would not be affected by the end throw of vehicles traversing the junction.

The proposed platform location would cause the Ely end of the platforms to be located on a curve with a radius of approximately 800m. This radius is below the minimum allowable for new platforms. Therefore it is proposed to realign the track through the station to provide a curve with a 1,000m radius. This would require the slewing of 192m of track by up to 78mm.

The existing track through the proposed station site is formed of concrete sleepers. It has been assumed that it could be slewed by the required amount without requiring renewal.

7.2.2. Signalling The proposed platform location for a single platform Soham station would not require any alterations to the existing signalling system on the SOB2 line. This is because there are no existing signalling assets within the geographical area that the station is proposed.

Signal 494 would be located on the approach to the station for trains heading towards Bury St Edmunds. This is not a preferred arrangement but current signalling standards do not prohibit it.

The locations of treadles which activate Mill Drove and Middlemere Level Crossing may need to be reviewed to ensure that suitable warning times are provided for both non-stop freight trains and stopping passenger trains.

7.2.3. Mechanical, Electrical & Plant The existing points heating installation (PHCC, PHT, 110v equipment, etc) at Points 1181 (Soham Junction) would be retained, with a new 100A TPN DNO LV supply provided as part of the station works for the PHCC.



7.2.4. Telecommunications Soham TER would need to be recovered to allow the station to be constructed, whichever option for the station construction is chosen. As such, changes to the operational Telecoms assets would be required.

Soham TER would be recovered along with all interconnecting cables (2/24/50/prs).

Two new Copper Cross Connect Cabinets would be provided within the Down side Cess with 50pr cabling provided between them that would interface to the existing legacy stump boxes (T2122 and T2121) at either side. A new 50pr copper cable would be provided to Mill Drove LC FTN node. The proposed arrangement would replace the infrastructure in this area bypassing Soham TER to allow its recovery. New 2pr tail cables would be provided from the Cross Connect Cabinets to existing crossing telephones and SPTs.

Due to the requirement to interface to existing cabling the new infrastructure would need to be “pieced in” to replace the existing cabling. It is anticipated that this would mean completing the works during a single 12hour disconnection. The new infrastructure should be pre-tested in advance to aid the disconnection works.

7.2.5. Earthworks & Formation There are no earthwork or formation works expected to be required for station Option 1A given the modest length and magnitude of the required track slews.

7.2.6. Drainage The limited track slewing works proposed as part of Station Option 1A would not require any improvements or repairs to the existing track drainage system.

There are existing under track culverts at the following approximate chainages:

12+415 – under the proposed station car park, only eastern inlet located; 12+645 – only western outlet located; 12+660 – both inlet and outlet located.

The location, depth and alignment of these culverts should be determined, with the culverts then cleared and inspected, during the next project stage.

7.2.7. Lineside Ancillary Civils The only elements of lineside ancillary civil engineering works expected to be required for station Option 1A is a cable route underneath the proposed platform and then on the surface to the station’s CER and PSP compound, with a cess walkway between the southern end of the platform and the PSP compound and two LOC case bases for the telecommunications works.



7.3. Option 1B – Two Platform Station with a Short Extension of Double Track

7.3.1. Track Option 1B would involve the construction of a two platform station at Soham. This would require the extension of the double track portion of the SOB2 line through the station site towards Ely, and the provision of a new turnout.

It is proposed to extend the double track by the minimum distance required by the signalling system to allow a down direction (westbound) train to call at the station while waiting for an up (eastbound) direction train to clear the single line. This would result in the turnout at the end of the double track being located on a 910m radius curve with 80mm of cant to the south east of Middlemere Level Crossing. The new turnout is proposed to be a NR56 FV24 transitioned turnout in order to provide a 50mph design speed on both the through and turnout routes.

Extending the double track further to allow the turnout to be located on straight track would involve construction over Middlemere Level Crossing. This would have significant cost impacts as it would require the reconstruction of a FTN node and a GSMR mast, and the upgrade of the level crossing from an AHB to a MCB-OD type.

The existing track would be realigned in order to provide a compliant alignment that could be paralleled by the proposed track. This would involve slews of up to 203mm.

Given the CAT 2 nature of the Soham Branch it is proposed that all new and renewed track would comprise CEN60 E2 HP rails on concrete G44 sleepers at 650mm centres, with CEN60/CEN56 Forged Transition rails provided as required to interface with the existing rails. Insulated rail joints would need to be provided in both the new and retained track to suit the revised signal layout.

The proposed station platforms would be located with their southern ends located approximately 35m south of the existing Soham Junction. This location would allow the platforms to be located relatively central to the rest of the station site and for the vast majority of their length to be located on straight track. The proposed platform location would also allow the Soham crossover proposed as part of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project to be installed between the station and Soham Lode.

7.3.2. Signalling The proposed changes to the signalling system for Option 1b are considered to be the minimum required to provide two uni-direction platforms at Soham with all new signals in suitable locations to support the future construction of the full Ely to Soham Track Doubling project.

Level Crossing Strike Ins It is assumed that all strike in points for Middlemere and Mill Drove level crossings would be retained in their current locations. Should this option be progressed to the next stage of design this assumption would need to be confirmed against current standards and the need to accommodate passenger trains that would call at Soham station and freight trains that would not.

Signalling Modifications on the Up Bury Signal 494 should be moved to the Chippenham Junction side of Up Bury platform. This would avoid Up services being held on the single line. It would also allow trains to perform station duties without having to wait for the forward route to Chippenham Junction. It would also be compatible with the full Ely to Soham Track Doubling Project.

The proposed relocation of signal 494 would:

Provide adequate braking to the subsequent 488 signal (106% of the required braking distance); Provide adequate signal sighting (based on previous signal sighting work for the doubling project, see

report with the eB ref: 122955-ATK-SSF-ESG-000001). Be compatible with the full Ely to Soham Track Doubling project; Allow 494R signal to be retained in its existing position (494R would provide 162% braking, which would

be high but not prohibited by standards); Be beyond 25m of the normal stopping position at the platform in line with GE/RT8037; Would not require TPWS on 494 signal.



The Stop Signal which would control movement through the diverging Soham junction would become signal 498. This would be considerably in excess of 800m on the approach to the junction. This is suitable given GK/RT0045 section 3.1.1.4 which states “Stop signals controlling movements through diverging junctions shall be positioned no more than 800m, from the first set of facing points, except where… (c) The facing points are always set in the same position for facing moves from the stop signal.

There would be no need for a junction indicator on signal 498 as there would be only one route.

Signalling Modifications on the Down Bury The single line protecting signal (signal 495) must be overlap and TPWS activation distance clear of the junction onto the single line. This would allow Down services to pull into Soham Station whilst an Up train is on the single line. Therefore signal 495 should be relocated as part of the station works.

Locating Signal 495 in a location that allows signals 491 and 491R to be maintained in their existing positions, and limit TPWS OSS provision to two units, would require the provision of a Banner Repeater at the end of the proposed down platform. A very similar arrangement was expected to have adequate sighting distances by the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project.

The proposed location of signal 495 would provide 100% of the required braking from the preceding signal 491. Achieving this level of braking would require the relocation of a 60mph speed board towards Chippenham Junction so that it would be mounted on 491 signal post. To locate the signal any closer to the toes of the points would increase the required TPWS provision to an unreasonable level.

7.3.3. Telecommunications Cable Route Proposals The existing cable route within the Down Cess would fall foul of the new track alignment and station platforms and as such a new route would be provided (anticipated to be C/1/9 Trotrof® or similar) throughout the extent of the double tracking area interfacing into the existing route at both ends. The new route would be provided within the Down Cess (as per the existing route) at a minimum separation of 2m from the adjacent running edge. As the new route would be on the inside of the curve compared to the existing route it is anticipated that the existing FTN fibre cable could be protected and slewed into this new route rather than replaced due to the new route length being marginally shorter than the existing.

Operational cable routes are proposed be provided through both platforms at Soham station, with appropriate transitions from ground level troughing to platform route at the platform ends. The Up Platform operational cable route is not immediately required for Option 1b of the station project, but it would allow for future flexibility as the intended cable route location for the double tracking project is on the UP side of the railway.

A new 9 duct UTX will be provided off the Chippenham Junction end of the station, which will interface to the proposed location of the PSP at Soham Station.

Copper Infrastructure Proposals Soham TER would need to be recovered to allow the station to be constructed whichever option for the station construction is chosen. As such, changes to the operational Telecoms assets would be required.

Soham TER would be recovered along with all interconnecting cables (50/24prs) and local 2 pairs to these locations.

Two new Copper Cross Connect Cabinets shall be provided within the Down side Cess with 50pr cabling provided between them that would interface to the existing legacy stump boxes (T2123 and T2120) at either side. A new 50pr copper cable will be provided to Mill Drove LC FTN node. The proposed arrangement would replace the infrastructure in this area bypassing Soham TER to allow its recovery. New 2pr tail cables would be provided from the Cross Connect Cabinets to existing crossing telephones and SPTs.

New telephone tail cables would be provided to all telephones affected by the station project works. The existing crossings within the project area (Straws, Soham Station and Clark and Butchers) would be retained but re-cabled as part of the station project with Signals CA494 and CA495 relocated. It is anticipated that CA494 SPT would be platform mounted at Soham station with CA495 requiring a dedicated drivers walkway.

Due to the requirement to interface with existing cabling, the new infrastructure would need to be “pieced in” to replace the existing cabling. It is anticipated that this will mean completing the works during a single 12hour disconnection. The new infrastructure shall be pre-tested in advance to aid the disconnection works.



Fibre Cable Proposals As mentioned above, the new cable route would be closer to the inside of the curve than the existing route to allow the installation of the new track. As such the new route should be slightly shorter in length than the existing. Once the new route has been installed, the FTN fibre cable would be lifted out of the existing route and re-laid into the new route.

Once the fibre is contained within the new route it is anticipated that the Down Side Platform would be constructed around the route with the route protected during construction works. Access to the route would be provided at suitable points through the Platform.

7.3.4. Mechanical & Electrical Plant

7.3.5. Electric Points Heating for Turnout at ch13215 – Pts No.1179 With the removal of the existing turnout at Soham (pts 1179), its associated points heating equipment, (PHCC, PHT’s, cabling and 110volt equipment) at Soham Junction would be isolated, decommissioned and removed.

Following installation of the proposed turnout in its new location a new PHCC, PHT’s, TCB’s, 110V equipment and hot and cold rail probes would be installed to provide anti frost protection to the switches. The PHCC would derive its supply from the modified 100A TP&N DNO service at Middlemere LC (the existing supply at Middlemere is (SP&N).

The new PHCC would contain a control section including isolation switching, contactors and metering, an Icelert control unit, a precipitation sensor, an external indication lamp, a contactor controlled distribution board serving the PHT’s, a non-controlled distribution board for auxiliary LV supplies and condition monitoring of the system with remote access.

Double wound SP&N 230/110V PHTs would be installed in the Down cess adjacent to the points served. The supplies to the PHT’s would be run in armoured multicore cables installed into the trackside cable trough route.

110V supplies would be run in EPR/PCP multicore cables served to TCB’s located in the cess in proximity to the equipment served, rail heater strips, clamplock heaters or hot and cold rail probes. Leads from each item of equipment would be connected to its respective TCB.

Where 110V cables cross railway lines, they would be clipped directly to the rail bearers or through cable management sleepers. No 230v cables are currently proposed to cross under any tracks in the vicinity of the S&C.

Rail heater strips would be 200W/m constant wattage type clipped to the webs of the stock and switch rails using proprietary clips. Clamplock heaters would be 200W cartridge type. Hot and cold rail probes would be installed at the set of points closest or most convenient to the PHCC.

PHCC’s and PHT’s would be mounted on purpose built reinforced concrete plinths and bases with suitable cable access.

The maintainer has requested that remote condition monitoring be provided for the points heating systems. This is proposed to be achieved through the installation of a Findley Irvine Remote Monitoring Unit in each PHCC, along with associated DCU data logger, supply and data leads and CT inducers. This installation would communicate with Network Rail’s intelligent infrastructure system using a GPRS system and antenna connected to the data logger with a data SIM card. The Network Rail Intelligent Infrastructure system would require updating to accept the information sent by the units.

7.3.6. Junction Lighting for Turnout at ch13215 – Pts No.1179 It is proposed that the new turnout installed as part of the doubling works would be equipped with junction lighting to assist with maintenance and inspection operations.

350mA and/or 500mA LED bulkhead luminaires would be installed on purpose made 75mm sq, 1.5m GRP posts in the cess at each side of the new crossover to provide maintenance illumination. A new junction lighting control junction lighting cubicle would be supplied from the proposed 100A TP&N DNO Metering and LVAC Distribution Cubicle at Middlemere Level Crossing. The lighting would be manually operated in 2 way switching mode via a contactor control system.



7.3.7. 650V Signal Power As part of the track doubling works signalling equipment would be relocated and renewed to accommodate the new station and track. New equipment would also be introduced and electrical loads may increase as a result. This would require changes to the signal power system between Soham Common UWC and Tiled House Farm Level Crossing. Given the existing condition and non-complaint nature of the broader signalling power system, upgrade works would be required.

The upgrade works to the signalling power system would need to bring the affected section into line with current Network Rail standards, including the need for a double end feeding arrangement as the line is Track Category 2. Four options were considered for the required upgrade works:

A. Single End Supply Option – This option would introduce a new fast feeder from Ely PSP to serve new FSPs between Middlemere LC (8M25CH) and Soham Junction existing 1181 points (7M78CH). It would also provide a new Class 1 connection between existing power LOCs S12/60, Tiled House Farm LC (8M66CH) and S10/51, Soham Common LC (7M42CH).

B. Mini-PSP at Soham - This option would introduce a mini compact PSP at Soham station to serve new FSPs between Middlemere LC (8M25CH) and Soham Junction existing 1181 points (7M78CH), double end feeding in this area would be provided by a new fast feeder from Ely PSP to the new FSPs. It would also provide a new Class 1 connection between existing power LOCs S12/60, Tiled House Farm LC (8M66CH) and S10/51, Soham Common LC (7M42CH).

C. Full Size PSP at Soham - This option would introduce full size PSP with generator at Soham station to serve new FSPs between Middlemere LC (8M25CH) and Soham Junction existing 1181 points (7M78CH), double end feeding in this area would be provided by a new fast feeder from Ely PSP to the new FSPs. It would also provide a new Class 1 connection between existing power LOCs S12/60, Tiled House Farm LC (8M66CH) and S10/51, Soham Common LC (7M42CH).

D. Double End Supply Option for Whole Route – This option would provide a full double end fed compliant signalling power supply for the entire SOB2 route. It would involve the provision of new PSPs at Soham and Chippenham Junction together with new feeders and Class II PSPs between Ely Dock and Chippenham Junctions.

Discussions were held with the Signalling Power RAM on 27/07/16. The conclusion of this was that option c should be taken forward. The reasons for this were:

Option A would not provide a solution that was compliant with Network Rail standards; Option B would potentially provide a compliant solution, but when the SOB2 line were to be resignalled

or double tracked then the Mini-PSP would be redundant and would have to be disposed of. The use of a Mini-PSP in a double end feeding arrangement would also be a novel arrangement.

Option C would be more costly than Option B. It would however be a compliant solution and the PSP would be useful to any future resignalling or track doubling scheme.

Option D would be the ideal solution from a signalling reliability perspective. It would however be by far the most costly solution and the station project could not justify funding it.

7.3.8. Earthing and Bonding Strategy Earthing and bonding arrangements would be designed in accordance with current railway, British and European standards and regulations. Where DNO supplies are provided with a PME at the point of supply, the safety earth system for the connected equipment will use this as its main reference point. This does not include renewals to part of the signal power system which will be a Class II installation using local FTE earth reference points at PSP’s and at each FSP. Should the DNO decline a PME system, a local TT system would be installed. This may require the installation of an RCD device at the point of supply to ensure compliant disconnection time in the event of a fault.



7.3.9. Earthworks & Formation Historically, there was more than one track extending between the Soham Lode and the vicinity of Soham Station UWC. Therefore the existing railway earthworks in this area are sufficiently wide to accommodate a second track. This is not the case between Soham Station UWC and the site of the proposed turnout.

In the area of the narrower track bed, options were investigated as to how best to provide support to the additional track, cess walkway and cable route. This could be achieved by either cess retention or widening the earthworks. It was considered that cess retention would be the appropriate solution because:

Widening the earthworks would require the acquisition of third party land, and there is a desire to avoid the need for statutory powers for Option 1B;

The two tracks would be supported on the existing earthworks and it is only the cess walkway and cable trough that would need to be supported by the retention structures;

The required height of retention is 0.5.m or less; The required width of earthwork widening would be relatively modest compared to the amount of plant

and materials that would be required to construct it.

The cess retention works are proposed to comprise T section steel posts embedded in concrete, with boards spanning between them.

The new track would need to be supported on a new formation. Based on design work carried out for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project (see report with eB ref:122955-ATK-FOA-EGE-000001) it is proposed that the formation is comprised of the following layers: 250mm of ballast, increasing to 300mm beneath the new turnout and the proposed E2S crossover; Geotextile; 250mm of Granular Sub-base – between Ch12+325 – 12+575 and Ch12+725 – 13+260; Geogrid – between Ch12+325 – 12+575 and Ch12+725 – 13+260.

7.3.10. Drainage Given the lack of earthwork widening required by Option 1b, the desire to not acquire any third party land and the general lack of known drainage problems between Soham and Middlemere LC it is not proposed to carry out significant drainage improvements.

What is proposed is a new ditch on the western (down) side of the railway in the vicinity of the station in order to collect run off from the station and the culvert under it, together with the rehabilitation of existing ditches shown in NR records on the up side between Ch12+980 and Middlemere LC.

There are existing under track culverts at the following approximate chainages:

12+415 – under the proposed station car park, only eastern inlet located; 12+645 – only western outlet located; 12+660 – both inlet and outlet located; 12+835 - both inlet and outlet located; 12+905 - both inlet and outlet located; 12+965 – neither inlet and outlet located; 13+050 - both inlet and outlet located; 13+215 - only western outlet located

The location, depth and alignment of these culverts should be determined, with the culverts then cleared and inspected, during the next project stage.

7.3.11. Lineside Ancillary Civils The lineside civil engineering works expected to be required by Option 1b are:

Retained bases for signalling and telecommunications Location Cases; Bases for new signals A cess walkway on the eastern (up) side of the railway between the Soham Lode and Middlemere LC; A UTX at the southern end of Soham Station for signalling, power and communications cables; New lineside fencing on both sides of the railway between the Soham Lode and Middlemere LC; A king post cess retention wall for lengths on both sides of the railway, this would be equipped with a

hand rail where it retains the cess walkway.



7.4. Option 2 - Two Platform Station Constructed as part of the Ely to Soham Doubling Scheme

Option 2 would involve constructing a two platform Soham Station at the same time as the double tracking of the railway between Ely and Soham

The proposed GRIP 3 design of the Ely to Soham Track doubling works would include the following elements between Soham and Ely Dock Junctions:

The provision of a second track; Provision of new lineside signals and associated power supplies; Installation of new telecommunications equipment, cable routes and UTXs between Soham and Ely

Junctions; Improvements to the drainage system including culvert replacement; Closure of the majority of the user worked crossings; Upgrades of the Automatic Half Barrier Crossings to full barrier crossings with obstacle detection.

The design of the doubling scheme was produced with the knowledge that Soham station was an aspiration of the County and District Councils and provision was made for it in its design.

A full description of the proposed design of the doubling project is contained in that project’s GRIP3c design report, which is available on eB with the reference 122955-ATK-REP-EMG-000006.

The changes that would be required to the existing design of the proposed doubling works as a result of the concept design for Soham station are limited to the removal of the need for a footbridge at Spencer Drove/Soham Station UWC as this footpath would be diverted via the station footbridge, and changes to the position of the proposed PSP at Soham station.

7.5. Option 3 – Two Platform Station Constructed after the Ely to Soham Doubling Scheme

Option 3 would involve constructing a two platform Soham Station sometime after the completion of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Project. As described above the design of the doubling project was carried out with cognisance of the proposed station scheme. If the track doubling works are carried out taking the proposed station design into account no further rail infrastructure works would need to be carried out to accommodate it. The only significant changes required to the GRIP 3 design of the proposed doubling works is the physical arrangement of the PSP and supporting infrastructure at Soham station.



8. Consent Requirements

8.1. Introduction The provision of a station at Soham would need consent from the relevant planning authority, this section of the report summarises the types of consent required and how they may be acquired. Further details can be found in the project’s ‘Land and Consents Strategy’, which is available on eB with the reference 150723-ATK-STR-EMF-000002.

8.2. Existing Powers Permission to construct the Soham Branch was provided in 1875 by the Ely to Newmarket Railway Act. This Act grants power to:

“make and maintain, in the line and according to the levels shown on the deposited plans and sections..... and use such of the lands delineated on the said plans and described in the deposited books of reference as may be required for that purpose”.

The 1875 Act also states that the Company may “Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Company, may make Power to and maintain, in the line and, according, to the levels. shown herein-after described with all proper stations, sidings, approaches, works, and conveniences connected therewith and may enter upon, take, and use such of the lands, delineated on the said plans and described in the deposited books of reference as may be required for that purpose.

The 1875 Act makes no specific mention to a station at Soham either within the Act or marked on the deposited maps. Soham station was opened in September 1879 four years after the Act was passed it is therefore assumed that the 1875 Act was the enabling act for the station.

8.3. Method to Acquire Consents There are three possible methods to acquire the required consents for Soham Station, via General Permitted Development Order (GPDO), via a Town and Country Planning Act Application (TCPA), or a Transport and Works Act Order (TWAO) for Option 2 where the station would be delivered as part of the broader Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme. These are considered in turn below.

General Permitted Development Order The GPDO route is considered the optimum route in terms of time scales and costs to deliver all four options assuming that the proposals are within the LoD of the 1875 Act and the Network Rail land boundary. Prior approval would be required from the local planning authority under Part 18 of the GPDO 2015 however this must be undertaken by Network Rail as the station promoter. PD represents the least transparent process to consent and there could be potential issues with Network Rails PD rights due to the 1875 Act ambiguity in specifically naming a Soham station either in the legislation or deposited plans.

Town and Country Planning Act A full planning application under the TCPA could be achieved for all four options and offers a clearer route to consent compared to the GPDO. Consent could be granted 8 to 12 weeks from validation of the application. As a Regulation 3 application it is advisable that Network Rail is named as a joint applicant to avoid future problems to implementing the extant permission granted. A TCPA application offers greater public transparency than the GPDO as comments on the scheme can be received from the public, stakeholders and any interested parties, this is the preferred consent route of ECDC.

Transport and Works Act Order If Soham station is developed as part of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Works (Option 2), consent for the station could be obtained under the doubling works TWAO. A new station at Soham is outside the scope of the previously proposed Ely to Soham Improvements TWAO and there has been significant consultation has been conducted by Network Rail for that TWAO, with the ‘Approach to Community Consultation’ having already been submitted to ECDC and CCC in December 2014. Therefore, there would be a requirement to re-consult, although given the delays to the track doubling scheme it is likely that a new round of public consultation would be required in any case.



8.4. Recommendations The existence of extensive PD rights, the opportunity for a planning application under the TCPA and the possibility of using a TWAO means there are various ways of gaining consent for the station works. These various routes present a range of possible risks and costs to Network Rail and the station promoters. Regardless of the consenting route chosen, we would recommend that Network Rail request an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) Screening Opinion from the Secretary of State to identify whether an EIA is required.

In the interest of transparency, and to avoid the ambiguity surrounding the 1875 Act and what PD rights it would allow, it is advised that a full planning application under the TCPA is pursued for all station delivery options. This would allow Network Rail the independence to develop a station separate to the double tracking scheme, with the knowledge that the station is supported by both local authorities, the general public and is allocated in the ECDC local plan.

All station options would require the acquisition of third party land for the permanent works, with Option 1A (the single platform station) needing the most. All options would also require construction access over third party land. For Options 2 and 3, rights to this land could be obtained through the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project’s Transport and Works Act Order. For Options 1A and 1B, which would be constructed ahead of the doubling project, the third party land would need to be acquired. This would present a risk as the price of this land would be determined through negotiations with its current owners.



9. Design & Operational Safety

9.1. Designer’s CDM Risk Assessment Hazards to the future constructors and maintainers of Soham Station and associated rail infrastructure have been identified by the design team. Those hazards considered to be site specific to the project have been included in the CDM Designer’s Risk Register with an eB reference of 150723-ATK-REG-EMF-000003. The more significant of the identified risks are listed below:

The risk of trespass during the construction works; Working next to an operational railway; Working next to, in and over, water (drowning/leptospirosis); Working at height during the construction of the footbridges; Presence of foundations of previous structures in the vicinity of Soham Station; Presence of overhead cables, particularly electricity cables in the vicinity of the proposed station

footbridge; Buried services, especially a gas pipe between Soham Lode and Tiled House Farm LC; Risk of unexploded ordnance near Soham Station; The presence of building waste from the former Soham Station, including some potential asbestos

containing material; Track buckle due to loss off lateral rail support during excavations adjacent to existing track. Remediation of existing culverts creating confined spaces, collapse and leptospirosis risks; Presence of vulnerable residents adjacent to the access road to the proposed Soham station; Construction plant collisions due to narrow construction access tracks.

It is intended that the Designer’s Risk Register is reviewed at the beginning, middle and end of future project stages to record new hazards and those which have been eliminated or reduced by the design and construction planning teams.

For Station Option 2, which would be constructed at the same time as the broader Ely to Soham Track Doubling project, reference should be made to that project’s risk register. This is available on eB with the reference 122955-ATK-REP-EMG-000001.

9.2. Common Safety Method The requirements of Regulation 352/2009/EC on the adoption of a common safety method on risk evaluation and assessment came into full effect on 1st July, 2012; this is applicable to the Soham Station project. As such, the project has been developed in accordance with the Common Safety Method (CSM) principles.

A Hazard Record has been created following a HAZID workshop and incorporates relevant hazards identified for the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project. This is available on eB and has the reference 150723-ATK-LOG-EMF-000001.

A Preliminary System Definition has been produced by Network Rail and is available on eB with the reference 150723-NRS-REP-EMG-500126. The purpose of the preliminary system definition is to complement the hazard record by bounding the scope of the hazard identification and risk assessment process. It would need to be developed into a full System Definition in the next project stage should the project progress.

It is intended that the Hazard Record and System Definition is reviewed at intervals during future project stages to record new hazards and those which have been eliminated or reduced.

For Station Option 2, which would be constructed at the same time as the broader Ely to Soham Track Doubling project, reference should be made to that project’s hazard record. This is available on eB with the reference 122955-NRS-REG-MPM-000003.



10. Economic Case

10.1. Introduction An economic case has been developed for the construction of Soham station, providing a value for money assessment of the station options described throughout this report. The economic appraisal has been conducted in a manner consistent with the Department for Transport (DfT) guidance on transport appraisal as documented in WebTAG. A summary of the economic case is provided here, with further details contained in the project’s ‘Economic Case Report’, which is available on eB with the reference 150723-ATK-REP-FIN-000002.

10.2. Methodology The benefits and costs of the Soham station scheme have been assessed for each of the options, in accordance with the WebTAG guidance.

The main scheme benefits that have been captured in the economic appraisal are journey time saving benefits, represented as the monetised benefits generated from a reduction in the rail passenger generalised journey time. Additionally, marginal external cost benefits have been assessed, including road decongestion and air quality benefits. The inputs for the benefits assessment are derived from the passenger demand assessment as described in Section 5 of this report.

The scheme costs include revenue (assessed as a negative cost), station operating costs, bus operating costs (for an alternative bus-based scenario) and infrastructure capital costs. Cost inputs are derived from the passenger demand assessment (for revenue), the station design team (for capital costs) and previous Atkins experience (for operating costs). It has been assumed that there is no change in rolling stock deployment/diagramming as a result of trains calling at Soham, thus no change in rolling stock costs. In accordance with WebTAG, contingency risk has been removed and optimism bias applied as and when required for each of the above cost categories.

The Net Present Value (NPV) and Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) have been calculated for each station option and rail service scenario, to provide an indication of scheme Value for Money (VfM) for each option.

10.3. Economic Case Scenarios This economic case considers four station design options as described in Section 2 of this report, which are summarised in the table below. The table also indicates an estimated opening date of the station for each option, based on the required infrastructure to be built.

Table 10-1 Summary of Construction Options for Soham station

Option Description Station Opening Date

1A Single Platform Station January 2021

1B Double Platform Station delivered ahead of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme

July 2021

2 Double Platform Station delivered as part of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme

September 2024 Assumes Doubling Scheme delivered in CP6

3 Double Platform Station delivered after the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme

February 2028

Additionally, the economic assessment considers four rail scenarios as set out in the table below. Scenarios R1, R2 and R3 reflect different assumptions for the ‘Do Minimum’ rail service, but with the same assumption for the ‘Do Something’ intervention. Scenario B1 considers a bus-based intervention as an alternative to building a rail station:



Table 10-2 Summary of Rail Scenarios for Soham station

Scenario Reference Case Assumptions

(“Do Minimum”) Intervention

(“Do Something”)

R1 Rail timetable as existing (December 2015) New rail station at Soham – improved access to rail services from Soham zones

Timings of Ipswich-Peterborough services altered to account for stop at Soham

R2 Enhanced rail timetable – R1 plus doubling of frequency of Ipswich-Peterborough service to 1 train per hour

As R1 (new station at Soham)

R3 Enhanced rail timetable at Ely – R2 plus rail interchange at Ely reduced to a maximum of 15 minutes in rail timetable (as a result of doubling the frequency of Kings Lynn-Cambridge-London to 2 trains per hour)

As R1 (new station at Soham)

B1 Rail timetable as existing (December 2015) No Soham station Enhanced Route 12 timetable to better

connect with rail services to London

Increased service frequency to half hourly with new early morning, late evening and Sunday journeys

10.4. Economic Appraisal Results The tables below present a summary of the components of the economic case assessment for each of the options under the different rail scenarios. Components of the scheme’s benefits and costs are presented in present values for each of the scenarios. The monetised present values are expressed in 2010 prices and discounted to 2010. The appraisal is undertaken over a 60-year period starting from the station opening year.

Table 10-3 Option 1A Economic Assessment (£m, 2010 present values)

Option 1A: Single Platform Station

R1 R2 R3 B1

Present Value of Benefits (PVB) £17.5m £26.1m £28.0m £51.6m

Revenue -£4.0m -£11.6m -£13.0m -£8.7m

Operating Cost £1.4m £1.4m £1.4m £10.1m

Capital Cost £8.9m £8.9m £8.9m £0.0m

Present Value of Costs (PVC) £6.3m -£1.3m -£2.6m £1.5m

Net Present Value (NPV) £11.2m £27.4m £30.6m £50.1m

Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.8 Fin + Fin + >> 4



Table 10-4 Option 1B Economic Assessment (£m, 2010 present values)

Option 1B: Double Platform Station delivered ahead of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme

R1 R2 R3 B1


Revenue -£4.0m -£11.7m -£13.1m -£8.6m



Present Value of Costs (PVC) £16.3m £8.6m £7.3m £1.4m


Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.1 3.0 3.9 >> 4

Table 10-5 Option 2 Economic Assessment (£m, 2010 present values)

Option 2: Double Platform Station delivered as part of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme

R1 R2 R3 B1


Revenue -£3.7m -£11.7m -£13.1m -£8.0m



Present Value of Costs (PVC) £7.5m -£0.5m -£1.9m £1.3m


Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 2.3 Fin + Fin + >> 4

Table 10-6 Option 3 Economic Assessment (£m, 2010 present values)

Option 3: Double Platform Station delivered after the Ely to Soham Track Doubling Scheme

R1 R2 R3 B1


Revenue -£3.5m -£10.9m -£12.2m -£7.4m



Present Value of Costs (PVC) £8.8m £1.3m £0.1m £1.4m


Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) 1.9 >> 4 >> 4 >> 4



11. Supporting Documents

11.1. Soham Station Documents Several reports have been produced by Atkins and Network Rail in GRIP stages 2 and 3 of the Soham Station project. They are available on Network Rail’s eB document management system and listed in Table 11-1.

Table 11-1 Soham Station Project Documents

eB Reference Document Title

Atkins Documents

150723-ATK-BRF-EMF-000001 HAZID Briefing Note

150723-ATK-LOG-EMF-000001 CSM Hazard Log

150723-ATK-MIN-EMF-000001 HAZID Report

150723-ATK-PLD-EUT-000001 Existing Utilities Plans

150723-ATK-PLN-EEN-000001 Environmental Appraisal & Action Plan

150723-ATK-REG-EMF-000003 CDM Designer’s Risk Register

150723-ATK-REP-EGE-000001 Geotechnical Desk Study

150723-ATK-REP-EGE-000002 Land Contamination Desk Study

150723-ATK-REP-EMF-000003 Basis of Design

150723-ATK-REP-FIN-000001 Passenger Demand Assessment Report

150723-ATK-REP-FIN-000002 Soham Economic Case

150723-ATK-STR-EEN-000001 Environmental Management Strategy

150723-ATK-STR-EMF-000001 Fire Strategy

150723-ATK-STR-EMF-000002 Land & Consents Strategy

Network Rail Documents

150723-NRS-ASS-SSD-500150 Diversity Impact Assessment

150723-NRS-INS-MPM-500027 Sponsor’s Instruction

150723-NRS-REP-EMG-500126 Preliminary System Definition

150723-NRS-REP-MPM-500034 Project Baseline Report

150723-NRS-REP-MPM-500031 GRIP 2 Feasibility Report

150723-NRS-REP-PRK-500108 VM2 Option Selection Report



11.2. Ely to Soham Track Doubling Documents A significant amount of documentation was produced by Atkins as part of the GRIP 3 design of the Ely to Soham Track Doubling project and would be an input into the next stage of design of Soham Station. They are available on Network Rail’s eB document management system and listed in Table 11-2.

Table 11-2 Selection of Ely to Soham Track Doubling Documents

eB Reference Document Title

122955-ATK-ASS-EEN-000001 CEEQUAL Pre-Assessment

122955-ATK-ASS-ESG-000001 Ergonomics Signaller Workload Assessment

122955-ATK-ASS-ETL-000001 FLAT – Assessment of Need for Lineside Phones

122955-ATK-MIN-EMG-000007 National Grid Gas Liaison Meeting 13/07/15

122955-ATK-PLD-ESG-000001 Signalling Base Plan

122955-ATK-PLD-ESG-000005 Signalling Scheme Sketch & LOC Area Plan

122955-ATK-PLD-EUT-000001 Composite Utilities Plans

122955-ATK-RAR-ECV-000004 SOB2 Non-Public Road Level Crossing Risk Assessment

122955-ATK-REC-ESS-000001 Hazard Record

122955-ATK-REG-EMF-000001 Drawing Register

122955-ATK-REG-EMF-000002 Design Assumptions Register

122955-ATK-REG-EMG-000001 CDM Designer’s Risk Register

122955-ATK-REP-EDS-000003 DNO Supplies, Points Heating Survey & Signalling Power Monitoring

122955-ATK-REP-EEN-000001 Project Environmental Appraisal & Action Plan

122955-ATK-REP-EEN-000002 Contaminated Land Assessment

122955-ATK-REP-EEN-000009 Equality Impact Assessment

122955-ATK-REP-EGE-000001 Geotechnical Desk Study

122955-ATK-REP-EGE-000004 Ground Investigation Report

122955-ATK-REP-EMG-000006 GRIP 3 Design Summary Report

122955-ATK-REP-ESG-000009 Signalling Electrical Load Analysis

122955-ATK-REP-ESG-000010 Cambridge PSB Panel Layout Alterations Report

122955-ATK-REP-EST-000001 Underline Structures Review Report

122955-ATK-REP-ETL-000001 Telecom Asset Survey Report

122955-ATK-REP-EUT-000001 Utilities Constraints Report

122955-ATK-REP-MAN-000001 Consultation Summary Report

122955-ATK-REP-SSD-000001 Munitions Desk Study

122955-ATK-SPE-ESG-000001 Signalling Outline Project Specification

122955-ATK-SPE-ESS-000001 CSM System Definition

122955-ATK-SSF-ESG-000001 Initial Signal Sighting Report

122955-ATK-STA-EEN-000001 Environmental Statement, Non-Technical Summary

122955-ATK-STA-EEN-000002 Environmental Statement, Main Report

122955-ATK-STA-EEN-000003 Environmental Statement, Appendices

122955-ATK-STR-ESE-000001 EMC Strategy

122955-ATK-STR-ESE-000002 Earthing and Bonding Strategy

122955-ATK-STR-ESU-000001 Survey Strategy

122955-ATK-STR-LEP-000001 Planning & Consents Strategy

122955-ATK-SUR-ESU-000001 Aerial Survey & Photograph

122955-ATK-SUR-ESU-000002 Topographical Survey Report and Model

© Atkins Ltd except where stated otherwise. The Atkins logo, ‘Carbon Critical Design’ and the strapline ‘Plan Design Enable’ are trademarks of Atkins Ltd.

David Wilson Atkins No 1 Croydon 12-16 Addiscombe Road Croydon CR0 0XT

[email protected] 020 8663 5076