Northern access to Thameshaven

[LE Greys]

Having re-read an article on the new port at London Gateway, I've noticed that the branch line feeds all traffic towards Tilbury and London. This has got me wondering if some form of access from the north is possible, to take advantage of all the Ipswich-Nuneaton improvements and avoid the NLL.

Thames Haven Junction doesn't look very promising. There is a gap in the houses, but it happens to be the course of a stream called Mucking Creek, which would need re-routing if a railway was to go through there (it doesn't look natural, but I don't know the area). This looks like the major stumbling block.

Pitsea station to west of Rayleigh station is somewhat more likely, since one the line is through Pitsea, it could follow the A130 (roughly) until it turned westwards onto the Southend Victoria Branch.

Mountnessing East Curve is also possible, since the land inside the current Shenfield Junction is currently fields. It also presents an opportunity to justify quadrupling the GEML to Clacton.

So, are there other ways to do this? Will there be enough traffic to justify it? Will anything like it ever happen?

 

[d5509]

Maybe you could follow the LTS west through Tilbury, turning right at Grays and heading north towards Upminster until just before the M25.

The new chord - 5 and a half miles of it - would be laid out on the east side of the M25, joining the GE main line just to the west of Brentwood.

I'd prefer cash to go on upgrading and electrifying the Gospel Oak to Barking line first. Apart for Gospel Oak, there are a couple of other exits from this route, notably South Tottenham north west (under the port engine of the aircraft) on to the GE to Ely (Ipswich - Nuneaton) or on to the MML between Kentish Town and West Hampstead. Neither having an NLL or Stratford footprint.

If freight traffic from London Gateway and The Tunnel outgrew the GOBLIN then maybe it would be time for new chords - one can but hope .

 

[Ivo]

Whatever happened to the idea to electrify the Thames Haven route? Is this still on, or did I imagine this whole idea?

Having re-read an article on the new port at London Gateway, I've noticed that the branch line feeds all traffic towards Tilbury and London. This has got me wondering if some form of access from the north is possible, to take advantage of all the Ipswich-Nuneaton improvements and avoid the NLL.

Yes, yes, yes; good idea.

Thames Haven Junction doesn't look very promising. There is a gap in the houses, but it happens to be the course of a stream called Mucking Creek, which would need re-routing if a railway was to go through there (it doesn't look natural, but I don't know the area). This looks like the major stumbling block.

This picture from Streetview suggests a former railway alignment, although I'm not aware of one having being present there. Having said that, when at full flow my atlas suggests it has several feeder streams (I'm stopping short of saying "tributaries" because they're so small), one of which runs practically under Stanford-le-Hope station.

Pitsea station to west of Rayleigh station is somewhat more likely, since one the line is through Pitsea, it could follow the A130 (roughly) until it turned westwards onto the Southend Victoria Branch.

An idea I've had many times. The biggest problem is navigating your way around Sadler's Farm, which would need a tunnel owing to the size and complexity of the road junction. A better idea in my opinion would be to turn north around one kilometre after Pitsea and pass just west of Bowers Gifford, at roughly this point, and sidle between Burnt Mills and North Benfleet to the north, before curving round the south-east of Wickford and joining at Shotgate. (This plan could also allow for a station for both passengers and freight could be installed at Burnt Mills - Burnt Mills is the industrial capital of South Essex, not including London Gateway itself - and also at Shotgate for passengers, with a new passenger service running from Wickford to Fenchurch Street, possibly taking on the Tilbury Loop service.)

Mountnessing East Curve is also possible, since the land inside the current Shenfield Junction is currently fields. It also presents an opportunity to justify quadrupling the GEML to Clacton.

I'm sure you meant to say Colchester here instead of Clacton, but otherwise - excepting the difficulties of four-tracking Chelmsford - this is a sound idea that could open up the county to its residents (whilst also destroying Shenfield's importance). The problem is that there has never been any need to build the extra curve at Mountnessing, as Shenfield was (re-)opened when the SOV route opened and there has never been any real freight demand via Billericay etc, apart from the limited flow to Southminster. But if you could work around the Chelmsford difficulty - and to be fair there is room for a third track at the station at least - then it's a decent idea.

Of course, it does lead to questionable relationships with Harwich and Felixstowe, since the main advantage of London Gateway is its proximity to London - but instead of promoting that, we're looking at improving its access to its main rivals...!

Oh, and wiring the GOBLIN would certainly help.

 

[biggus]

It would be great to see better connectivity between the bits of railway we inherited off those mad Victorians. "Rationalisation" means different things to different people

 

[Alfie1014]

I think any substantial new construction to connect the new port is unlikely primarily on cost grounds. Whilst the port and the re-vamped Thameshaven branch will have the capability for up to 30 trains day, I think it will be many years before traffic reaches these levels. I understand that Felixstowe dispatches about 30 trains a day on it's busiest days but how many years has it taken to get to this level, 30, 40, 50?

From the outset London Gateway is planning to be serviced by 4 trains a day, I would imagine that it would take 10 years plus to get into double figures, though I'm happy to be proved wrong if growth is quicker.

If new infrastructure is needed I'm not convinced about a series of chords on and off existing lines would be the best way to provide access. As has been mentioned a E-N chord at Stanford-le-Hope would be problematical and would probably have to be tunnelled to avoid the current level crossing which already causes angst to local residents at busy times.

Perhaps an easterly extension of the branch across Pitsea creek to Canvey and then up parallel to the A130 corridor would be preferable?

 

[LE Greys]

Whatever happened to the idea to electrify the Thames Haven route? Is this still on, or did I imagine this whole idea?

The magazine article doesn't say. Sounds like something they ought to do, although the loading sidings obviously can't be done, so it's going to need some diesel shunters. A chance to introduce some new ones or recycle some Gronks?

This picture from Streetview suggests a former railway alignment, although I'm not aware of one having being present there. Having said that, when at full flow my atlas suggests it has several feeder streams (I'm stopping short of saying "tributaries" because they're so small), one of which runs practically under Stanford-le-Hope station.

Interesting possibility. It looks like there's enough room for a single-track chord. The tricky bit will be getting permission to build it.

An idea I've had many times. The biggest problem is navigating your way around Sadler's Farm, which would need a tunnel owing to the size and complexity of the road junction. A better idea in my opinion would be to turn north around one kilometre after Pitsea and pass just west of Bowers Gifford, at roughly this point, and sidle between Burnt Mills and North Benfleet to the north, before curving round the south-east of Wickford and joining at Shotgate. (This plan could also allow for a station for both passengers and freight could be installed at Burnt Mills - Burnt Mills is the industrial capital of South Essex, not including London Gateway itself - and also at Shotgate for passengers, with a new passenger service running from Wickford to Fenchurch Street, possibly taking on the Tilbury Loop service.)

Good idea. A complete loop from Fenchurch Street to Liverpool Street would be possible, although probably a bit pointless. You clearly know the area a lot better than I, I was mostly going on overhead imagery.

I'm sure you meant to say Colchester here instead of Clacton, but otherwise - excepting the difficulties of four-tracking Chelmsford - this is a sound idea that could open up the county to its residents (whilst also destroying Shenfield's importance). The problem is that there has never been any need to build the extra curve at Mountnessing, as Shenfield was (re-)opened when the SOV route opened and there has never been any real freight demand via Billericay etc, apart from the limited flow to Southminster. But if you could work around the Chelmsford difficulty - and to be fair there is room for a third track at the station at least - then it's a decent idea.

Indeed I did! The Chelmsford problem is a bit like the Winchester problem I've mentioned in threads about Southampton, an acceptable compromise, although it would create a bottleneck. It also points towards Whitham, and thus Braintree, so maybe the Dunmow-Stansted reconnection might look more promising after this.

Of course, it does lead to questionable relationships with Harwich and Felixstowe, since the main advantage of London Gateway is its proximity to London - but instead of promoting that, we're looking at improving its access to its main rivals...!

Oh, and wiring the GOBLIN would certainly help.

It's more a case of 'keep your options open'. I certainly agree about wiring the GOBLIN, that needs doing even just for its own sake.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It would be great to see better connectivity between the bits of railway we inherited off those mad Victorians. "Rationalisation" means different things to different people

I certainly agree with that, provided nobody actually loses service because of it.