London Banter - View Single Post

[email protected] · August 8th 14, 06:54 PM posted to uk.transport.london

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
09:58:48 on Fri, 8 Aug 2014, remarked:
Chelmsford station is on a viaduct and has just two platforms and a
turnback siding. It just doesn't have the capacity to reverse many
trains, and there was a good enough main line service for those
heading for London. To get to intermediate stations it was always
"change at Shenfield", which has five platforms.

Back in the 70's, which was before Chelmsford's expansion to become
a dormitory town, many of the trains terminated at Gidea Park, which
was regarded as about as far out as commuters would normally live.

But Chelmsford is more like Bishop's Stortford, the West Anglia limit
of the 1960s electrification. The fact that Chelmsford would require
infrastructure investment wasn't a block then.

There's no obvious way to increase the size of the station, and the
demand wasn't there from the passengers anyway - most were travelling
on fast trains to London (the Frinton and Clacton electrics
especially) and wouldn't have used a stopping service instead.

Was Bishop's Stortford so different?

Not being on the main line it had fewer fast trains to London. And of
course with significantly fewer of any kind of train, it's be easier
to terminate there. As for the commuting angle, I don't know where
the edge of commuter-belt was in those days, Cheshunt perhaps? I
remember how Letchworth only "took off" as a commuter belt in the
late 70's after it was electrified.

My point being that Chelmsford and Ingatestone would have taken off earlier
had they been at the limits of the commuter service instead of Shenfield.

--
Colin Rosenstiel