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

In article , (Roland Perry)
wrote:

In message , at
09:58:49 on Fri, 8 Aug 2014, remarked:
Perhaps a "2 platforms with bus shelters and a footbridge halt"
might need a new lineside cabinet style "equipment room"
installed, but that's probably about the limit of exceptional
circumstances in such installations.

Here's a typical such station, and they manage to have an online
TVM (but it's not suitable for barriers at all).
http://goo.gl/maps/5Dkw0

2 TVMs by the look of it. I'm sure barriers could be installed if
sufficiently desired, given the layout.

They'd be "outdoors" which is unusual, and with only 1tph most of
the day I doubt it's worth manning the station, which you'd have to
do with barriers.

2 trains an hour soon, surely?

Yes, I suppose so. If both of them stop there of course. But the
current pattern is that north-of-Cambridge electrics are all-shacks,
so perhaps that'll continue. With presumably yet another stop at
Northstowe Parkway. (Another option would be to alternate between
the two during the day).

I'm sure all passing trains will stop at Cambridge Science Park station,
to give it the correct name) when it opens. There's a clue in the name.

There's no particular reason the Cambridge-Norwich trains should stop
there, apart from to create a 100% consistent "pattern" (which
everyone appears to be able to cope with at Waterbeach).

There will be plenty of Cambridge or Ely to Science Park trains
already, and I don't think changing at Ely if you are commuting from
Lakenheath/Brandon etc is going to inconvenience more than a handful
of people.

I did think of saying "all passing electric trains" but I think the plan is
to stop Norwich trains at Cambridge Science Park.

This is all a bit dependent on the Waterbeach development of course. I doubt
the initial Cambridge Science Park timetable will last.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Fri, 08 Aug 2014 11:53:26 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

Here's a typical such station, and they manage to have an online TVM
(but it's not suitable for barriers at all). http://goo.gl/maps/5Dkw0

Did you miss: "or possibly just a touch in / out pillar?"

--
Denis McMahon,

Roland Perry wrote:

My theory then, which I'm beginning to think is too simplistic, would
require some kind of new coding to cope with any additional stations, and
it's odd that National Rail acceptance on all the lines other than the
ones above stops dead at exactly the edge of Z6, when some of the
currently proposed extensions would make a lot of sense (eg extending one
stop to Epsom).

In several cases Zone 6 was extended to take them in - in the case of the
Epsom & Ewell stations, the boundary used to be after Stonleigh, Cheam,
Belmont and I don't know on the Tattenham Corner line. I think it was 8
years ago now that the zone was extended to take in both Ewells plus the
stub ends of the Epsom Downs and Tatteham Corner branches. I don't know
about the stations on the last line but most of the two Ewells, Banstead and
Epsom Downs are virtually unstaffed stations and I suspect part of the
rationale was that zones and, eventually, Oyster would increase the income.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

In message , at 13:54:56
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.

But there were fast mainline trains from Chelmsford to London already,
and Ingatestone is a minor station (a lot of people in that area would
use Shenfield as the railhead anyway).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 13:54:57
on Fri, 8 Aug 2014, remarked:
There will be plenty of Cambridge or Ely to Science Park trains
already, and I don't think changing at Ely if you are commuting from
Lakenheath/Brandon etc is going to inconvenience more than a handful
of people.

I did think of saying "all passing electric trains" but I think the plan is
to stop Norwich trains at Cambridge Science Park.

The more I think abut it, the more it's daft to overcrowd the 3-car
Norwich trains with local traffic going one-stop. It's bad enough
already that they have the local Cambridge-Ely traffic on top of the
longer distance. (And the same goes for the Stansteds, although it's
obvious that Stansted-Science Park should be done without a change.

This is all a bit dependent on the Waterbeach development of course. I doubt
the initial Cambridge Science Park timetable will last.

Any increases will be constrained by the paths, both for the bay
platform and the throughput of trains on the various main lines.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 19:05:27 on Fri, 8 Aug 2014,
Denis McMahon remarked:
Here's a typical such station, and they manage to have an online TVM
(but it's not suitable for barriers at all). http://goo.gl/maps/5Dkw0

Did you miss: "or possibly just a touch in / out pillar?"

There's room for a pillar (but I was trying to debunk the idea that
Oyster means barriers).
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 23:13:27 on Fri, 8 Aug
2014, Tim Roll-Pickering remarked:
My theory then, which I'm beginning to think is too simplistic, would
require some kind of new coding to cope with any additional stations, and
it's odd that National Rail acceptance on all the lines other than the
ones above stops dead at exactly the edge of Z6, when some of the
currently proposed extensions would make a lot of sense (eg extending one
stop to Epsom).

In several cases Zone 6 was extended to take them in - in the case of the
Epsom & Ewell stations, the boundary used to be after Stonleigh, Cheam,
Belmont and I don't know on the Tattenham Corner line. I think it was 8
years ago now that the zone was extended to take in both Ewells plus the
stub ends of the Epsom Downs and Tatteham Corner branches. I don't know
about the stations on the last line but most of the two Ewells, Banstead and
Epsom Downs are virtually unstaffed stations and I suspect part of the
rationale was that zones and, eventually, Oyster would increase the income.

That's right, and extending Z6 to Oysterise a station doesn't involve
having to add extra 'pseudo-zones' (such as Brentwood/Broxbourne and
Shenfield).

And for places like Dartford the choice would be extending Z6 there,
making it Z7, or creating a brand new 'pseudo-zone'.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:13:27 on Fri, 8 Aug
2014, Tim Roll-Pickering remarked:
My theory then, which I'm beginning to think is too simplistic, would
require some kind of new coding to cope with any additional stations, and
it's odd that National Rail acceptance on all the lines other than the
ones above stops dead at exactly the edge of Z6, when some of the
currently proposed extensions would make a lot of sense (eg extending one
stop to Epsom).

In several cases Zone 6 was extended to take them in - in the case of the
Epsom & Ewell stations, the boundary used to be after Stonleigh, Cheam,
Belmont and I don't know on the Tattenham Corner line. I think it was 8
years ago now that the zone was extended to take in both Ewells plus the
stub ends of the Epsom Downs and Tatteham Corner branches. I don't know
about the stations on the last line but most of the two Ewells, Banstead and
Epsom Downs are virtually unstaffed stations and I suspect part of the
rationale was that zones and, eventually, Oyster would increase the income.

That's right, and extending Z6 to Oysterise a station doesn't involve
having to add extra 'pseudo-zones' (such as Brentwood/Broxbourne and Shenfield).

And for places like Dartford the choice would be extending Z6 there,
making it Z7, or creating a brand new 'pseudo-zone'.

Isn't it that already, given that the normally z1-6 limited Freedom passes
are valid there, but zone-6 travelcards aren't.

In message

, at 08:03:47 on Sat, 9 Aug 2014, Recliner
remarked:

And for places like Dartford the choice would be extending Z6 there,
making it Z7, or creating a brand new 'pseudo-zone'.

Isn't it that already, given that the normally z1-6 limited Freedom passes
are valid there, but zone-6 travelcards aren't.

No, because Oyster PAYG has to know what to charge (based on where you
started, having finished there), something that a Freedom Pass by
definition doesn't.
--
Roland Perry