Future expansion of Stansted Airport Transport

[RailWonderer]

Between Ely and Peterborough the service that I would junk is the trains to/from Liverpool. Most of these are only 2 cars, a profligate use of what are supposed to be scarce train paths. The Liverpool trains are the weakest link.

A lot of passengers use them for portions of the journey and the split at Nottingham was called off partly due to complaints. It's a flagship regional service for EMR and is very busy for much of the day.

Back to Dr Beeching I'd put (albeit with some local's bias) as one of the great losses of those cuts to have lost the Braintree - Stortford link. Chelmsford is one of the busiest stations in the UK outside of London and the demand is sizeable. Heavy car use in Essex is a large part due to lack of cross country connections north south, east west.

 

[A0wen]

Back to Dr Beeching I'd put (albeit with some local's bias) as one of the great losses of those cuts to have lost the Braintree - Stortford link. Chelmsford is one of the busiest stations in the UK outside of London and the demand is sizeable. Heavy car use in Essex is a large part due to lack of cross country connections north south, east west.

The demand for cross country travel back then was very patchy indeed and Braintree - Bishops Stortford wasn't exactly busy. To be fair to Beeching, passenger services betwen Braintree and Bishops Stortford ceased in March 1952, a decade before Beeching's closures started.

If you were looking for a Beeching closure in East Anglia, a better case could be made for Sudbury - Haverhill - Cambridge, which took place just as Haverhill was expanding as a London overspill.

The reality is an eastwards extension from Stansted is unlikely as it would cost billions, it wouldn't add anywhere significant onto the rail network and you'd then be stuck getting onto the Braintree branch which only has a southward facing connection at Witham. Far better to provide decent express bus connections from Chelmsford, Colchester and possibly Ipswich which could be done for a fraction of the cost and would be far more flexible.

 

[47421]

In a non-siloed world Stansted, Cambridge, Ipswich and Norwich would all have direct services alternating to Birmingham and Liverpool (Ipswich is just as large a destination as the others and could equally justify through services beyond Peterborough). The Ipswich service could join/split at Ely to save a path to Peterborough as well. Extra revenue from extra through trains and extra paths for nothing instead of a few billion on remodeling Ely. All too difficult I know.

Mr Bald Rick, if the East Coast recast happens, will there be a recast on West Anglia do you know? What is the plan to accommodate Camb South stops on Thameslink/GN and West Anglia?

 

[Magdalia]

Back to Dr Beeching I'd put (albeit with some local's bias) as one of the great losses of those cuts to have lost the Braintree - Stortford link.

Dr Beeching is not to blame here.

The Braintree-Stortford passenger service ended in 1952, though there were Felsted school specials until the early 1960s and Bank Holiday excursions to Clacton for a bit longer.

The line remained open for freight mainly to serve the Felsted sugar beet factory and the Banana Depot at Easton Lodge, but was operated as two separate branches after 1966 when the Dunmow Viaduct was declared unsafe.

Even if the passenger service had survived Beeching it would not have survived the Dunmow Viaduct being declared unsafe.

What is the plan to accommodate Camb South stops on Thameslink/GN and West Anglia?

My understanding is that the time gains from the trackworks at Shepreth Branch Junction offset against the time lost through stopping at Cambridge South, so that no timetable alterations are necessary.

 

[Bald Rick]

Mr Bald Rick, if the East Coast recast happens, will there be a recast on West Anglia do you know? What is the plan to accommodate Camb South stops on Thameslink/GN and West Anglia?

My understanding is that the time gains from the trackworks at Shepreth Branch Junction offset against the time lost through stopping at Cambridge South, so that no timetable alterations are necessary.

The recast, if it happens, is for the ECML and WAML. It will include Cambs South stops. I haven‘t seen the detail but I‘m fairly sure that everything will stop at Cambs South except for the GN flyers.

Of course if the recast is delayed, then the Cambs S stops are too.

I read this in Modern Railways, so it’s public info.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It would be if
i) the Braintree trains were running around empty
ii) journey times from Stansted to London via Braintree were comparable.

Neither of those things is true.


Stansted doesn’t need extra capacity. It has plenty.

This is more about future proofing.
Stanstead Airport has significant expansion plans and will add many millions more passengers in the coming decade.
There will be a time when the current service provision is unsuitable, and I think it will come a lot sooner than you think.

 

[Bald Rick]

This is more about future proofing.
Stanstead Airport has significant expansion plans and will add many millions more passengers in the coming decade.
There will be a time when the current service provision is unsuitable, and I think it will come a lot sooner than you think.

The plans see passenger numbers increase by 50% over 2019 numbers.

Current capacity from London is in the region of 70% higher than 2019, and the trains then weren’t exactly heaving.…

Little point spending well north of a billion pounds for capacity thats not needed…

 

[AlastairFraser]

The plans see passenger numbers increase by 50% over 2019 numbers.

Current capacity from London is in the region of 70% higher than 2019, and the trains then weren’t exactly heaving.…

Little point spending well north of a billion pounds for capacity thats not needed…

It's up to the airport at the end of the day, we'll see how much passenger numbers increase by - I think they'll exceed expectations personally.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's up to the airport at the end of the day, we'll see how much passenger numbers increase by - I think they'll exceed expectations personally.

It isn’t. They’ll be limited to 43m passengers, barring a second runway.

 

[Silenos]

It's up to the airport at the end of the day, we'll see how much passenger numbers increase by - I think they'll exceed expectations personally.

But presumably from the airport’s point of view there would be greater financial advantages in increasing car travel to the airport, and keeping the train service limited - all those very high parking/drop-off charges!

 

[AlastairFraser]

But presumably from the airport’s point of view there would be greater financial advantages in increasing car travel to the airport, and keeping the train service limited - all those very high parking/drop-off charges!

Since that would impact the environmental assessment on planning applications for any future expansion, it would be stupid for them to try that.

It isn’t. They’ll be limited to 43m passengers, barring a second runway.

A second runway is something that would be relatively easy to implement at Stansted.

 

[Trainbike46]

Since that would impact the environmental assessment on planning applications for any future expansion, it would be stupid for them to try that.


A second runway is something that would be relatively easy to implement at Stansted.

Are there currently plans for an extra runway? if not it seems somewhat premature to plan very expensive railway upgrades that would only be needed if such a second runway would be built

 

[Bald Rick]

A second runway is something that would be relatively easy to implement at Stansted.

It really wouldn‘t.

It was rejected when the Airports Commission reviewed London Area airport capacity, settling on Heathrow for an extra runway. As we know, that hasn’t happened, and isn’t happening any time soon. Because a third runway at Heathrow is a matter of public policy (albeit contested), and Gatwick is planning to convert an existing taxiway into a second runway, and that Luton has plenty of spare runway capacity, a new runway at Stansted is actually relatively difficult.

For Stansted to gain another runway, it would have to be laid out as Government policy, which would require another commission (or similar review) of need. If that settled on Stansted, which is very unlikely given previous conclusions, then the owner of Stansted would have to do the necessary studies to justify the investment to themselves, and then a raft of studies before applying for consent. Given the contentiousness, it’s reasonable to assume gaining consent would take several years. Then it would need building, along with the extra terminal facilities to serve it. Then traffic would need to build up to the extent that the existing railway ran out of capacity. This is measured in decades (plural).

In any event, the consent to build a new runway and terminal to serve it would have to demonstrate how people would get there, and that would be when and where a new railway would be considered and potentially consented. And paid for (byt the airport). But not before.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Are there currently plans for an extra runway? if not it seems somewhat premature to plan very expensive railway upgrades that would only be needed if such a second runway would be built

It was previously proposed back in 2010 by BAA and dropped, but the current runway will soon reach max capacity and there is no other realistic way to increase capacity.

If you're working on the basis that the second runway won't happen, then the thread is pointless as nothing will get funded without a sizeable expansion of the airport to pay for it (unless you consider a few more coaches a sizeable improvement.)

It's not like say Belfast International (your location says Belfast, so guaranteed you know this better than me), where a station at Aldergrove with shuttle buses to the terminal could easily be built, or Glasgow, where you'd only need a short spur to provide it with a station.

 

[MarkyT]

Here's an idea for a new one-way line looping around the north of the runway. This would reduce movements through the existing tunnel by airport express trains. I've also doubled the chord from Cambridge onto the airport line so incoming trains have somewhere to wait off the main line without blocking the exit path for another train towards Cambridge.

 

[AlastairFraser]

It really wouldn‘t.

It was rejected when the Airports Commission reviewed London Area airport capacity, settling on Heathrow for an extra runway. As we know, that hasn’t happened, and isn’t happening any time soon. Because a third runway at Heathrow is a matter of public policy (albeit contested), and Gatwick is planning to convert an existing taxiway into a second runway, and that Luton has plenty of spare runway capacity, a new runway at Stansted is actually relatively difficult.

For Stansted to gain another runway, it would have to be laid out as Government policy, which would require another commission (or similar review) of need. If that settled on Stansted, which is very unlikely given previous conclusions, then the owner of Stansted would have to do the necessary studies to justify the investment to themselves, and then a raft of studies before applying for consent. Given the contentiousness, it’s reasonable to assume gaining consent would take several years. Then it would need building, along with the extra terminal facilities to serve it. Then traffic would need to build up to the extent that the existing railway ran out of capacity. This is measured in decades (plural).

In any event, the consent to build a new runway and terminal to serve it would have to demonstrate how people would get there, and that would be when and where a new railway would be considered and potentially consented. And paid for (byt the airport). But not before.

The fact that the airport already owns the land for a second runway (unlike Heathrow) makes the process easier, but that's besides the point.
Any worthy improvements to rail based transit at Stansted mean that a sizeable expansion of a larger scale has to take place to fund it.
So it's entirely pointless talking about tinkering around with formations, if you're not going to consider the best plans for future expansions.

 

[Bald Rick]

The fact that the airport already owns the land for a second runway (unlike Heathrow) makes the process easier, but that's besides the point.
Any worthy improvements to rail based transit at Stansted mean that a sizeable expansion of a larger scale has to take place to fund it.
So it's entirely pointless talking about tinkering around with formations, if you're not going to consider the best plans for future expansions.

Thread Closed!

 

[dk1]

The Cambridge-Stansted shuttle, the precursor of the Norwich trains, started in 2014. This was after platforms 7 and 8 at Cambridge came into operation

That is why drivers swap over at Cambridge on Norwich services as this became established as Cambridge work.

Original plans to run hourly Norwich-Stansted in 2011 with NXEA would have seen Norwich drivers work throughout with 170s. They lost the franchise to Abellio & all plans were dropped.

 

[AlastairFraser]

Thread Closed!

Sounds like my point was well received.....

 

[47421]

The recast, if it happens, is for the ECML and WAML. It will include Cambs South stops. I haven‘t seen the detail but I‘m fairly sure that everything will stop at Cambs South except for the GN flyers.

Of course if the recast is delayed, then the Cambs S stops are too.

I read this in Modern Railways, so it’s public info.

Well fact of potential recast might be public info, but in the case of WAML no proposals have been made public or consulted on. Interested to see whether timetable will be speeded-up taking into account the much better performance of 720s/745s v 317s

Do you know if/when the decision will be made on whether the ECML recast will proceed?

 

[dk1]

Do you know if/when the decision will be made on whether the ECML recast will proceed?

I was under the impression it was expected imminently as we lose the chance to implement it in December otherwise.

 

[Bald Rick]

Well fact of potential recast might be public info, but in the case of WAML no proposals have been made public or consulted on.

They dont need to be, because theres no change to service provison.

Interested to see whether timetable will be speeded-up taking into account the much better performance of 720s/745s v 317s

Unlikely, I think. Straight trade off between journey time and punctuality.

Do you know if/when the decision will be made on whether the ECML recast will proceed?

Yes. And no!