Beaulieu Park Station Construction

fat_boy_pete · 17 Aug 2019

Original thread:

Beaulieu Park Station

What do you know about this station they are planning to make? Will it be on the GEML or a branch line? Which trains will stop at it etc.

www.railforums.co.uk

This in response to the local MP stating funding has at last been unlocked by the Treasury to build it.
https://www.essexlive.news/news/essex-news/huge-update-chelmsfords-second-train-3221523

Conservative MP for Chelmsford Vicky Ford claims funding for the city's long awaited second train station has been approved.
Over 18 years on from when the idea was first pitched for a second station in the Beaulieu Park estate, the plan may finally be coming together.
The funding will be part of a £218 million housing infrastructure budget set by Chancellor Sajid Javid, according to the MP.

Not sure If this means CP6 funding or whether the original 2 island platforms design with passing loops survives, but the story does have the MP saying
"The station will also provide a passing loop which will bring extra capacity all along the Great Eastern Railway Line."

RailUK Forums

fat_boy_pete · 17 Aug 2019

According to the Guardian
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.th...announces-600m-of-new-infrastructure-spending

The first two bids of Essex County council for the Housing Infrastructure fund see
https://www.essexhighways.org/highw...-and-funding/housing-infrastructure-fund.aspx
Have been approved. Money has to be spent by 2023, so yes the station will in effect be a CP6 scheme.

grumblingalong · 18 Aug 2019

I believe GA put serious pressure on to ensure that loops are provided. Bearing in mind the frequency of service on the GEML, a station at BP will represent the only chance to loop at train between Shenfield and Witham (bar ingatestone down loop). Could be very useful!

fat_boy_pete · 18 Aug 2019

grumblingalong said:
I believe GA put serious pressure on to ensure that loops are provided. Bearing in mind the frequency of service on the GEML, a station at BP will represent the only chance to loop at train between Shenfield and Witham (bar ingatestone down loop). Could be very useful!

Perhaps the Chelmsford starters will now start in the loop there. Will provide some flexibility for overtaking fast services, as is currently used at Witham.

Dave1987 · 18 Aug 2019

This is not going to happen overnight. I think the 2025 opening date is realistic. I’m still not exactly sure where they are going to put it and how they are going to squeeze a passing loop in. The one straight bit of track isn’t straight for long so it’s either going to require a lot of remodelling or the whole station will be on a curve. The whole idea was to achieve high speed loops so that services didn’t effect each other. At the moment services that are ‘looped’ at Witham are highly effected in terms of journey times. Unless the loop is proposed to start soon after the cutting finishes north east of Chelmsford and continue until half way to Hatfield Peveral it will still mean some services have longer journey times by being ‘looped’. We need to decrease journey times for the Essex suburbs not increase them!

fat_boy_pete · 18 Aug 2019

Dave1987 said:
This is not going to happen overnight. I think the 2025 opening date is realistic. I’m still not exactly sure where they are going to put it and how they are going to squeeze a passing loop in. The one straight bit of track isn’t straight for long so it’s either going to require a lot of remodelling or the whole station will be on a curve. The whole idea was to achieve high speed loops so that services didn’t effect each other. At the moment services that are ‘looped’ at Witham are highly effected in terms of journey times. Unless the loop is proposed to start soon after the cutting finishes north east of Chelmsford and continue until half way to Hatfield Peveral it will still mean some services have longer journey times by being ‘looped’. We need to decrease journey times for the Essex suburbs not increase them!

My understanding was that the main purpose of the loops were to be 775m ones, to replace extending the Witham ones initially. As you say, doubt they will extend any further for high speed overtaking.

hwl · 18 Aug 2019

Dave1987 said:
This is not going to happen overnight. I think the 2025 opening date is realistic. I’m still not exactly sure where they are going to put it and how they are going to squeeze a passing loop in. The one straight bit of track isn’t straight for long so it’s either going to require a lot of remodelling or the whole station will be on a curve. The whole idea was to achieve high speed loops so that services didn’t effect each other. At the moment services that are ‘looped’ at Witham are highly effected in terms of journey times. Unless the loop is proposed to start soon after the cutting finishes north east of Chelmsford and continue until half way to Hatfield Peveral it will still mean some services have longer journey times by being ‘looped’. We need to decrease journey times for the Essex suburbs not increase them!

The money need to be spent by 2023, so they need to get a move on.

306024 · 18 Aug 2019

Dave1987 said:
This is not going to happen overnight. I think the 2025 opening date is realistic. I’m still not exactly sure where they are going to put it and how they are going to squeeze a passing loop in. The one straight bit of track isn’t straight for long so it’s either going to require a lot of remodelling or the whole station will be on a curve. The whole idea was to achieve high speed loops so that services didn’t effect each other. At the moment services that are ‘looped’ at Witham are highly effected in terms of journey times. Unless the loop is proposed to start soon after the cutting finishes north east of Chelmsford and continue until half way to Hatfield Peveral it will still mean some services have longer journey times by being ‘looped’. We need to decrease journey times for the Essex suburbs not increase them!

The land take for the best possible operational layout is the crucial factor. Suspicion says that to keep the costs down the final layout may not be as flexible as hoped. Good news in the grand scheme of things but lots of Chelmsford - Witham bus journeys while it is constructed to look forward to

Tobbes · 18 Aug 2019

hwl said:
The money need to be spent by 2023, so they need to get a move on.

But being spent may not mean much - as long as it is committed under accruals accounting, I'd have thought that it would qualify, even if it wasn't "spent" in cash terms until a couple of years later.

Class 170101 · 18 Aug 2019

Just hope its spent in the right way, however I remain to be convinced.

Dave1987 · 18 Aug 2019

306024 said:
The land take for the best possible operational layout is the crucial factor. Suspicion says that to keep the costs down the final layout may not be as flexible as hoped. Good news in the grand scheme of things but lots of Chelmsford - Witham bus journeys while it is constructed to look forward to

I just don't see where they would fit in station with full length platforms and a high speed passing loop and keep it on the straight bit of track. They would need to purchase a lot of land and do a lot of civil engineering to get the track straight for a sufficient stretch. Otherwise you start entering into the world of compromised solutions and speed restrictions etc. And then you end up with what we already have but in a different location. If it was just a two platform station without passing loops then I could see it happening very easily. What they are on about I have a lot of doubts over.

Dave1987 · 18 Aug 2019

fat_boy_pete said:
My understanding was that the main purpose of the loops were to be 775m ones, to replace extending the Witham ones initially. As you say, doubt they will extend any further for high speed overtaking.

If that is the case you are just moving the Witham problem to a different location. I always thought the best solution was to extend Witham loops to Rivenhall or beyond with nice high speed crossovers. You could also look at lengthening the London side by land purchases and some bridge and bank widening. All on dead straight track so services could pass each other without effecting each other.

Tobbes · 18 Aug 2019

What GRIP stage is Beaulieu Park at? Presumably there are some plans, so the site must be known?

delticdave · 18 Aug 2019

Dave1987 said:
I just don't see where they would fit in station with full length platforms and a high speed passing loop and keep it on the straight bit of track. They would need to purchase a lot of land and do a lot of civil engineering to get the track straight for a sufficient stretch. Otherwise you start entering into the world of compromised solutions and speed restrictions etc. And then you end up with what we already have but in a different location. If it was just a two platform station without passing loops then I could see it happening very easily. What they are on about I have a lot of doubts over.

Is this passing loop to be 2 tracks, probably situated between the platform lines, or a single track bi-directional loop?

306024 · 19 Aug 2019

The original concept (in the days of First Great Eastern, 1997 to 2004) was for four tracks, with the main running lines around the outside. The inside ‘loops’ were long enough to allow trains to enter without slowing down significantly, something like 70 mph turnouts. Putting the additional tracks on the inside of the running lines also meant that trains between Liverpool St and Chelmsford could reverse at Beaulieu Park without conflicting with other traffic, unlike further down the line at Witham.

This was the passenger operators preference (freight operators don’t like any loops - they prefer to keep going!) but requires the construction to go beyond current NR boundary. The fear is a cheaper less flexible scheme is authorised that while a benefit to the residents of Beaulieu Park, will be a dis-benefit to the other users of the GEML. Certainly listening to the Chelmsford MP on Look East last night, I wasn’t convinced she fully understood the capacity constraints of the GEML, that’s not her fault but more those advising her.

Alfie1014 · 19 Aug 2019

Be interesting to see the detail. The £218M is for the road and the station. I doubt that includes the Network Rail works? ECC's on line documents are very vague, the best they do is identify that the new link road (and station) are approximately where the A138 northbound joins the A12. Which puts the station on the slight curve near to the Springfield feeder station (which is currently being expanded) and neutral section. This gives about 2000m it fit the station in between the A130 bridge and the feeder station, not a lot of room for trackwork especially turnouts at reasonablly high speed? This seems to be the best image I can find of the proposals. It seems to suggest three platforms with a turn back between the running lines but only long enough for passenger services I would think?

And as 306024 says the joys of many months or years of bus replacement during the works!

EssexGonzo · 19 Aug 2019

This is good news.

Over on Twitter, the users of "old" Chelmsford station are already whinging that "their" London-bound trains will already be too full due all these new Johnny-come-latelys getting on at Beaulieu Park.

Whereas I'll be retired by 2025 so won't be whinging about the same impact on Shenfield.

Which makes me ask: with the loop at the new station and the new rolling stock in the next year or two, will there be enough capacity to cope with the anticipated passenger growth that might come with this station?

cle · 19 Aug 2019

Could even one peak-flighted loop be fit in? Of course 4 platforms, at speed would be best - or centre fast lines, with two side platforms for Beaulieu Park itself - possibly with a siding further north to turn trains?

Alfie1014 · 19 Aug 2019

EssexGonzo said:
This is good news.

Over on Twitter, the users of "old" Chelmsford station are already whinging that "their" London-bound trains will already be too full due all these new Johnny-come-latelys getting on at Beaulieu Park.

Whereas I'll be retired by 2025 so won't be whinging about the same impact on Shenfield.

Which makes me ask: with the loop at the new station and the new rolling stock in the next year or two, will there be enough capacity to cope with the anticipated passenger growth that might come with this station?

One of the concerns expressed by the industry when I was involved in the project back in at the turn of the millennium was of railheading. The convenience of being next to the A12 and too much and too cheap parking could encourage users from further out, not least because congestion or lack of parking around existing stations such as Colchester, Manningtree etc... something similar already happens at Chafford Hundred where the free parking at the adjacent Lakeside shopping Centre encourages driving from much further out in the commuter belt.

Class 170101 · 19 Aug 2019

Dave1987 said:
If that is the case you are just moving the Witham problem to a different location. I always thought the best solution was to extend Witham loops to Rivenhall or beyond with nice high speed crossovers. You could also look at lengthening the London side by land purchases and some bridge and bank widening. All on dead straight track so services could pass each other without effecting each other.

Unfortunately the loops at Witham are possibly in the wrong place now whereas they might have been in the right place some years back.

Dave1987 · 19 Aug 2019

Alfie1014 said:
One of the concerns expressed by the industry when I was involved in the project back in at the turn of the millennium was of railheading. The convenience of being next to the A12 and too much and too cheap parking could encourage users from further out, not least because congestion or lack of parking around existing stations such as Colchester, Manningtree etc... something similar already happens at Chafford Hundred where the free parking at the adjacent Lakeside shopping Centre encourages driving from much further out in the commuter belt.

There already is major issues with traffic created by the service pattern. There are lots of people who don’t actually drive to their nearest station to them and will drive to bigger hub stations simply because they know they can get a faster service and it’s more frequent. This undoubtedly exacerbates traffic problems.

Tobbes · 19 Aug 2019

Alfie1014 said:
One of the concerns expressed by the industry when I was involved in the project back in at the turn of the millennium was of railheading. The convenience of being next to the A12 and too much and too cheap parking could encourage users from further out, not least because congestion or lack of parking around existing stations such as Colchester, Manningtree etc... something similar already happens at Chafford Hundred where the free parking at the adjacent Lakeside shopping Centre encourages driving from much further out in the commuter belt.

It's possible, but the A12 is a pretty miserable experience south of Marks Tey, so maybe/maybe not. One (major?) driver of railheading to Manningtree off peak is that Manningtree is in the Network Railcard Zone, and Ipswich for some unfathomable reason is not (unfathomable in that outer-suburban EMUs always ran through to Ipswich instead of reversing at Manningtree). Surely someone in DfT could sort that one out?

Class 170101 · 19 Aug 2019

Dave1987 said:
There already is major issues with traffic created by the service pattern. There are lots of people who don’t actually drive to their nearest station to them and will drive to bigger hub stations simply because they know they can get a faster service and it’s more frequent. This undoubtedly exacerbates traffic problems.

Perhaps fares would have to be higher at the bigger stations with fares lower at smaller stations but you could end up with fares lower at Hatfield Peverel compared to Witham which is further to London than Hatfield Peverel.

Tobbes said:
It's possible, but the A12 is a pretty miserable experience south of Marks Tey, so maybe/maybe not. One (major?) driver of railheading to Manningtree off peak is that Manningtree is in the Network Railcard Zone, and Ipswich for some unfathomable reason is not (unfathomable in that outer-suburban EMUs always ran through to Ipswich instead of reversing at Manningtree). Surely someone in DfT could sort that one out?

Ipswich was priced by Anglia Railways - aka Intercity so it wasn't in the zone.

Tobbes · 19 Aug 2019

Class 170101 said:
Ipswich was priced by Anglia Railways - aka Intercity so it wasn't in the zone.

Thanks - but that doesn't explain why it is still sensible today.

Class 170101 · 19 Aug 2019

Tobbes said:
Thanks - but that doesn't explain why it is still sensible today.

Fares policy - why would you cut revenue yet still have to pay the premiums to the DfT?

Tobbes · 19 Aug 2019

Class 170101 said:
Fares policy - why would you cut revenue yet still have to pay the premiums to the DfT?

Be interesting to see a sensitivity analysis, given that Network Railcard discounts are only off-peak - would it spur additional journeys that would otherwise not happen, increasing total revenue? There's plenty of off-peak capacity, after all.

fat_boy_pete · 19 Aug 2019

cle said:
Could even one peak-flighted loop be fit in? Of course 4 platforms, at speed would be best - or centre fast lines, with two side platforms for Beaulieu Park itself - possibly with a siding further north to turn trains?

Perhaps a 'value engineered' version would be fast lines on the outside, but a single island platform serving the inner loops, which help fit in the space available. After all fast lines platforms could always be added later. Allows non conflicting reversal in the peaks as well to assist timetable flexibility.

fat_boy_pete · 19 Aug 2019

fat_boy_pete said:
Perhaps a 'value engineered' version would be fast lines on the outside, but a single island platform serving the inner loops, which help fit in the space available. After all fast lines platforms could always be added later. Allows non conflicting reversal in the peaks as well to assist timetable flexibility.

Looking at Google maps, it appears you could build a new down fast line, down passenger loop line and island platform and bridge to it, without touching the existing running lines. Would be a lot cheaper to build once a safety barrier was in place for running lines. When everything is built, one big blockade to remove barrier, finish new up loop platform edge (on old down main line), install pointwork / commission signal changes. Shades of Market Harborough.

Down fast would be a bigger curve, with cant to maintain line speed, but not a problem without a platform. Down platform would also be curved, but probably in or not too far from standards curvature requirements.

Dave1987 · 20 Aug 2019

fat_boy_pete said:
Looking at Google maps, it appears you could build a new down fast line, down passenger loop line and island platform and bridge to it, without touching the existing running lines. Would be a lot cheaper to build once a safety barrier was in place for running lines. When everything is built, one big blockade to remove barrier, finish new up loop platform edge (on old down main line), install pointwork / commission signal changes. Shades of Market Harborough.

Down fast would be a bigger curve, with cant to maintain line speed, but not a problem without a platform. Down platform would also be curved, but probably in or not too far from standards curvature requirements.

Where has all that land magically appeared from? That would require substantial land purchases to build that. The current boundary could just about fit two platforms in but you will increase the curve if you put in passing loops because the boundary would need to be increased.

fat_boy_pete · 20 Aug 2019

Dave1987 said:
Where has all that land magically appeared from? That would require substantial land purchases to build that. The current boundary could just about fit two platforms in but you will increase the curve if you put in passing loops because the boundary would need to be increased.

You can't put a station building, access road and car park in the existing railway boundary anyway. Remember all the land to the north of the line is part of the overall development, for which this funding has been released. To put in a station regardless of whether it needs loops, requires additional land. I'm just suggesting a more cost effective and less disruptive construction approach.

Beaulieu Park Station Construction

Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Member