Incidentally, there's a nearby village called "Stanstead Abbots"- like many places, the standardised spelling of "Stansted" will be a recent thing.
Not correct.
Stansted Airport is built on the site of the wartime RAF Stansted Mountfitchet, the name being taken from the nearby village. However, in spite of it's official name, it was known in spoken and written forms simply as RAF Stansted. But this is not a standardised spelling. The spelling is taken directly from the name of the village.
Stanstead Abbotts is a different place altogether. It's located between Roydon and Ware and is served by St Margarets station on the Hertford East branch.
The only "painfully slow" bit is the Liverpool Street-Tottenham section- much of which is four track. Is there anything that could be done to allow higher speeds along there?
Liv St to Tott Hale is only booked to take 12 minutes. Hardly much scope there for time savings, especially when you consider the infrastructure.
The only bit that's 4 track is between Bethnal Green and Hackney Downs and there isn't much you can do about it as it's up on a brick viaduct. However, this isn't where the delays are as the highest linespeed along there is just 40mph due to the curvature and, more importantly, the signal spacing. You really can't make up time on the fast lines over trains on the slow along that section.
for useful four-tracking, you'd have to start at Hackney Downs and connect the Seven Sisters branch to the slow lines via a flying junction (there isn't the room for this). Tunneling through to Clapton would be expensive, and there isn't room to widen the cutting from there to the river. At the river, ideally you'd want a flying junction to the Chingford line. Four track across the marshes would be controversial, and you've got another slow line coming in.
Again, not a chance. Until you get down off the cord between Clapton and Coppermill Junctions there isn't enough room to consider doing anything more. Timetabling means that there are few conflicting moves (unless there is disruption) and everything meshes together nicely. As mentioned above, at just 12 minutes trains to get from Liv St to Tott Hale there really isn't any justification for fannying around with the lines.
The whole station at Tottenham Hale would have to be rebuilt. There's then space (though stations might be tricky) for an exta pair of tracks most of the way to Chesunt- Waltham Cross would be tricky. Eliminating the remaining crossings would also be difficult. Hwo you'd build a high speed junction and a four track (doesn't have to be four platform) 12 car station at Chesunt, eliminating the level crossing, I've got no idea.
The Lea Valley was originally built to serve the industries along the way, so it was all loops and sidings as well as the running lines, so there's still sufficient width to 4-track most of the way to Cheshunt, though probably not beyond to Broxbourne. But this is where the savings can be made by allowing fast trains to pass slow ones. What holds the StanEx up is catching up with the Hertfords on approach to Broxbourne and the Cambridges between Harlow and Bishops Stortford. By having a fast and slow line it would be possible to re-time departures from Liv St so that the StanEx gets a clear run through.
After that, much of the line is through farmland, but at the stations that are currently two-track you may have problems, especially where these are hemmed in by river and buildings and have a level crossing. Bishops Stortford is a slow, twisty and narrow obstacle, Mountfichet is narrow, then you ideally want grade seperated between the Stansted branch and the Cambridge line.
Bishops Stortford is slow, but it doesn't cost that much in lost time. However, there isn't much you could do about it without flattening large swathes of the town around the station and cutting a new alignment into the slopes that make up the town (it's not for nothing that there is a high retaining wall on the east side of the station). And for what? You might shave off a minute at most, perhaps.
Mountfitchet is also fine and passage through there does not require a reduction in speed. Grade seperation is also not required, not that there's room to achieve it.
A second tunnel bore under the runway would be handy, as would a an additional platform or two at the airport, especially if there's extra Ely (or even Norwich) services.
A second tunnel bore would be handy and could save a minute or two. Extra platform space would depend on the services. There are already plans to extend the two main platforms to 16 cars length to accommodate 4 + 12. If there is to be an Ely service then it could easily be platformed in the same way as the Stratfords (which will apparently only be running as far as Bishops Stortford from some indeterminate date in the future) and still leave space for the regular StanEx service. If there are to be Norwich trains too, then I would imagine that XC might decide not to bother serving the airport any more. They aren't the most reliable of performers into Stansted anyway and will often terminate short at Cambridge if they are delayed.
Quite honestly the WA doesn't need many tweaks in order to deliver faster journey times and greater capacity. Linespeed south of Stansted Mountfitchet is limited largely by signal spacing as much as by curvature, but altering that would reduce frequency and, therefore, capacity. The best thing that could be done is to 4-track the Lea Valley, in part if not in it's entirety, as well as extending platforms. All the other stuff just wouldn't be possible without major engineering works that would yield just a minute here or a minute there. Barely worth the cost and aggravation, I would suggest.
O L Leigh
