On 4 Dec, 08:58, Roland Perry wrote:
Doesn't have the required capacity to turn trains. The track beyond
Shenfield is also already quite busy with longer distance trains.

I think reversing capacity is less of an issue than segregation and
possibly track capacity. There's four tracking to Shenfield and
Crossrail will largely have two of the tracks to itself, but both
routes beyond are only two tracks. Also, much like Reading, no one
from Colchester is going to use an all stops train to get to London.

U

"Roland Perry" wrote ...
If I was still living in Mid-Essex a through train would help me quite
often, as my destination is more likely to be somewhere between Bank and
Paddington than near Liverpool St.

I wonder if that also applies to a few others in Chelsford, Southend and
Colchester, to name but a few of rich variety of Eastern destinations.

No longer, alas, including Saffron Walden - but there's definitely
Cambridge, as I recall.

What is so great about Shenfield?
--
Andrew

"When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule,
Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman

"Roland Perry" wrote:
And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the
nearest that makes sense.
Wha? Chelmsford?
Doesn't have the required capacity to turn trains. The track beyond
Shenfield is also already quite busy with longer distance trains.

I suspect you've missed the point of Crossrail; it could substitute for some
of those trains, not necessarily add to them.


--

Andrew

I am not all that convinced that many people want to travel through
London at all, although east - west might be more significant than
north - south.


I'll bet £15 that Mr Perry said that about Thameslink.

The number of through passengers is significant, but even though they don't
dominate (and never will), the service really scores by taking people beyond
the fringes of the central area.

Crossrail is the same - as the number of passengers from the west fade away,
so the numbers heading east build up.

And, I suspect, vice versa, though few bound for Shenfield, as we know.
--
Andrew

"When 'Do no Evil' has been understood, then learn the harder, braver rule,
Do Good." ~ Arthur Guiterman

In message , at 09:52:56 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan remarked:
"Roland Perry" wrote ...
Andrew Heenan remarked:
Not my area, and I wouldn't presume to guess.
But I am sure of one thing:
"Not Shenfield"

Bluff. Called.
[There's nowhere "slightly" further out than Shenfield that has the
capacity to turn the requisite number of trains]

Sneaky Pedant called:

1. I was not bluffing - I was expressing a view. Sorry about that.
2. When you quoted me, you chose to miss a key point:
"There are, of course, many options east of Liverpool Street, and a lot may
depend on who's in power come 2018."

I repeat, "Not my area, and I wouldn't presume to guess" - instead of trying
to be smart (and merely being smug) why not *use* your local knowledge to
see what other possibilities there are.

That's what I've done, and only Colchester makes much sense. But that's
a long way out of London.

Warning: this may require an open mind and tad of imagination - do your
best.

Just imagine *you* are planning an East-West high capacity, high frequency
rail service, and you have a free choice of terminus, and go for it!

[tip: it is theoretically possible for More Than One to be used]

(And please don't tell me there's not one station on the Eastern that is
more appropiate than Shenfield - or I, and many others, will cease to
believe a word you say.)

My first choice would be Stratford, with the existing inbound trains all
stopping there before terminating at Liverpool St. If that's too close
to London, use Gidea Park (the original inner suburban terminus) again
interchanging with all the inbound trains there. Shenfield is OK, but a
bit of a luxury in terms of build cost, and inconveniently distant if
the Crossrail trains are all-station-stoppers.
--
Roland Perry

MIG wrote in news:73409c58-f457-4b6e-823b-
:

The operational benefit of Thameslink is not having to turn trains
round, and the benefit to passengers has been increased frequency from
London Bridge to Brighton and St Pancras to Bedford, not the cross-
London link*.

To a point, yes, but many passengers appreciate the ability to travel from,
say, south London to King's Cross without having to change to the tube. If
you're mobility-impaired, elderly or have luggage, it's a significant
benefit.

The other operational benefit is not having to disperse huge passenger
inflows at terminals, and of course there is an operational disbenefit in
that disruption in south London propagates to Bedford and vice versa.

I spent a while shuttling between various industrial sites around Paris and
the RER really is a boon for that: in London it would have been train-tube-
train, but in Paris it was typically one quick change at Chatelet.

Peter

--
Peter Campbell Smith ~ London ~ pjcs00 (a) gmail.com

In message , at 10:07:37 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan remarked:
What is so great about Shenfield?

In what sense? As a commuter town it has a lot of high-class housing
close to a station with a relatively regular service. And it's also the
very well defined "edge" of the London metropolitan area. Brentwood is a
strange place - people who live in (administrative) Essex regard it as
part of London, whereas Londoners see it as the first distinct town "in
the countryside".
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:48:12 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Graeme Wall remarked:
Don't know if it still exists in the current economic situation, but there
used to be a lot of traffic between high tech firms in the Thames Valley and
places like Marconi at Chelmsford.

I think the main demise is that "places like Marconi" have almost ceased
to exist in Chelmsford!
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 09:55:27 on Thu, 4
Dec 2008, Andrew Heenan remarked:
And where is the obvious place "past Shenfield"? Colchester is the
nearest that makes sense.
Southend Victoria? It is as close to Central London as Reading is.

Southend sounds an interesting possibility;

Southend is a waste.

What's the objection to Cochester, assuming that was a serious suggestion?

The Crossrail trains risk getting in the way of the existing longer
distance trains. And it's a long way to upgrade (although it's not clear
to me what that upgrade would entail - all I know is the only 1/3 of the
current Crossrail cost is the part tunnelled under London, so the
majority of the money must be going to upgrades of existing
infrastructure).
--
Roland Perry

In message
, at
02:06:01 on Thu, 4 Dec 2008, Mr Thant
remarked:
Doesn't have the required capacity to turn trains. The track beyond
Shenfield is also already quite busy with longer distance trains.

I think reversing capacity is less of an issue

It does become an issue when (as is the case) there's almost no
reversing capacity at all. And you can't easily build any because the
station is on a viaduct in a congested town centre location.

than segregation and possibly track capacity. There's four tracking to
Shenfield and Crossrail will largely have two of the tracks to itself,
but both routes beyond are only two tracks.

Yes, this emphasis the choice of Shenfield.

Also, much like Reading, no one from Colchester is going to use an all
stops train to get to London.

Or even from Chelmsford. Also Shenfield to London on an all stations
stopper is going to be a bit of a bore.
--
Roland Perry