So Hampton Court, Tattenham Corner and others



Why not also Brentwood, or did they want to differentiate it from

Shenfield.



--

Roland Perry

The difference with Hampton Court and Tattenham Corner is that they are dead-end branches.

In message , at
08:29:39 on Thu, 7 Aug 2014, Matthew Dickinson
remarked:
So Hampton Court, Tattenham Corner and others



Why not also Brentwood, or did they want to differentiate it from

Shenfield.


The difference with Hampton Court and Tattenham Corner is that they are dead-end branches.

Which was probably the initial appeal of Hertford East as well.

Shenfield, while not being a dead-end, is very much the "edge of London"
(in a way that nether Harold Wood or Brentwood are) and a lot of trains
terminate there (6tph), also in future with Crossrail.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message ,
at 08:29:39 on Thu, 7 Aug 2014, Matthew Dickinson
remarked:
So Hampton Court, Tattenham Corner and others

Why not also Brentwood, or did they want to differentiate it from

Shenfield.

The difference with Hampton Court and Tattenham Corner is that they
are dead-end branches.

Which was probably the initial appeal of Hertford East as well.

Shenfield, while not being a dead-end, is very much the "edge of
London" (in a way that nether Harold Wood or Brentwood are) and a lot
of trains terminate there (6tph), also in future with Crossrail.

You probably know that area a lot better than me but I've never understood
why Shenfield has always been the limit of GE Main Line suburban services.
Why not Chelmsford, for example?

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 06:39:29
on Fri, 8 Aug 2014, remarked:
Shenfield, while not being a dead-end, is very much the "edge of
London" (in a way that nether Harold Wood or Brentwood are) and a lot
of trains terminate there (6tph), also in future with Crossrail.

You probably know that area a lot better than me but I've never understood
why Shenfield has always been the limit of GE Main Line suburban services.
Why not Chelmsford, for example?

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.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
06:39:29 on Fri, 8 Aug 2014, remarked:
Shenfield, while not being a dead-end, is very much the "edge of
London" (in a way that nether Harold Wood or Brentwood are) and a
lot of trains terminate there (6tph), also in future with Crossrail.

You probably know that area a lot better than me but I've never
understood why Shenfield has always been the limit of GE Main Line
suburban services. Why not Chelmsford, for example?

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.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 07:33:57
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.
--
Roland Perry

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
07:33:57 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?

--
Colin Rosenstiel